The Best of Enemies is awfully paint-by-numbers, but it is a nice film, based on some true events. The community of Durham, NC, is right in the thick of the civil rights movement. Local activist Ann Atwater (Taraji P Henson) has been bullishly fighting for equality for years, to the distress of the local chapter of the Klu Klux Klan, and especially its leader CP Ellis (Sam Rockwell). When a fire burns half the local black kids’ school, the black parents get the attention of the NAACP to let their kids be integrated into the white school. They send a mediator to hold a charette to get both sides talking to each other. The mediator (Bill Riddick, played by Babou Ceesay) does the best he can to get the white and black members of the community to open communication, and real discussion takes place, but the sticking point of school integration remains a hard case to win for Atwater. CP thinks he is on the side of right and he has a just cause, but when he sees the other folks in the KKK put pressure on the more liberal white members on the panel to vote against segregation, he begins to have doubts. The film is predictable and maybe even guilty of being heavy handed, but it is still stirring. Henson is good, and Rockwell is great. I’ve been a fan of his for a long time, and it’s nice to see him finally get some recognition over the last couple years.

I gave Mortal Engines a chance despite horrible reviews, because it falls in my wheelhouse of geekdom: sci-fi post-apocalyptic. Should have listened to the reviews. Despite some decent computer graphics, its a real bore, with some truly eye-rolling dialogue. The film takes place in the far future when civilization has nearly wiped itself out in world war. People have survived by literally making their cities mobile, traveling around on huge metal wheels. This has given rise to “municipal darwinism,” where larger cities overtake and “consume” smaller cities for their resources. One of the biggest and meanest cities around is London, whose citizens cheer whenever they destroy a smaller city. A young woman named Hester seems bent on killing Valentine, the head of historians of London, supposedly because he killed her mom when she was a child. Hester wounds Valentine, but he survives, and sends a cyborg out to hunt her down. The crazy level just goes up from there. There is one scene where just about every piece of imaginable bad dialogue is uttered within the same conversation: “You sure you want to go on? There’s no going back.” “I have to, I don’t have a choice. I have to do this for my mother.” Unfortunately that’s not even the worst of it. A cast full of no-names except for Valentine (Hugo Weaving, who as we know, doesn’t have the best track record), and while Hester (Hera Hilmar) is passable, the bulk of the rest are downright awful.

Sobibor is a Russian film, based on the true story of an uprising at the Nazi Sobibor extermination camp during World War II. I’m not a World War II historian and unfortunately I’d never heard of Sobibor, and I think it doesn’t get the attention of the more infamous camps at Auschwitz and Treblinka. The film takes place over a 2 week time period in 1943, beginning with the arrival of a fresh train of detainees. The Jews are separated, with those able to work put in one group, and the others sent immediately to be gassed. In the camp, there is an underground without a leader. Many look for ways to escape, but attempts are always thwarted, and not only are those who made the attempt killed, but as punishment, the Germans kill 1 out of 10 prisoners in the camp. Finally, a Jewish-Russian prisoner in the camp agrees to use his military training to plan an escape, but he insists that the whole camp be freed, not just those willing to participate in the coup. It sounds very daring, and the film does a decent job of showing the insurmountable odds facing our heroes, but unfortunately it just isn’t a great movie overall. I never felt really attached to most of the characters, and there’s a fine line between eliciting grief from the viewer (see Schindler’s List) and beating them over the head with images, practically screaming at us, “Doesn’t this disturb you!” For me, it didn’t reach the heights that the filmmakers wanted.

High Life, from director Claire Denis, stars one of my favorite actors of today, Robert Pattinson. And that’s not because I was a Twilight fan, but if you haven’t seen his independent film work in the last 5 or so years, you’re missing out. He’s good here again, even if the film is a bit lackluster. The film starts with just him and a baby girl on a spaceship far from earth, and systems are starting to fail. The other crew are dead, but we don’t know why. Before long, we learn that it was a penal ship sent out on a mission to attempt to harness energy from a black hole. On board, one of the criminals is a former doctor, and she’s made it her goal to produce a viable fetus from artificial insemination despite the radiation of space. So far, her experiments have failed, with no babies born alive, and just dead woman to show from the experiments. How Pattinson’s character came to be alone with a baby is left for the final half, where we learn the fate of the rest of the crew. The film starts very mysterious, and I don’t mind films that are purposefully obtuse in the beginning (many art films are), but when they ultimately spoon feed you all the answers, the original mystery is left feeling stale. This film could have been really good, and has plenty of good moments, but for the reasons I’ve mentioned, it never gets great. How often do you watch a movie and wished it was longer? I think this movie left a lot unexplored, and it really could have been something.

The best comedies have a heartfelt story too, and into this category falls Late Night. Katherine Newbury (Emma Thompson) plays an aging late night television host whose best ratings are far behind her. She’s facing getting the ax by the network execs, who want to replace her with the newest, hottest comedian. Of course she doesn’t want to go, but somehow she needs to find a way to reach a new generation of viewers. Enter Molly Patel (Mindy Kaling), initially only hired to help diversity in the all-white male crew of writers for Newbury’s show. Molly has no experience in comedy or writing, but she knows what the younger crowd wants. The show starts doing better, but a catastrophe of Newbury’s own making strikes before the end of the season, and it looks like nothing will help save the show. Ultimately the movie becomes about what is most important in life, professional success or personal relationships. I generally don’t re-watch comedies, because often the jokes (for me) are only funny the first time, but this one is both funny and emotional, and I’d probably watch it again.

Chantal Akerman was a Belgium filmmaker who made films from the 1970s until her death in 2015. I’d never seen anything from her before, so up today is some her earlier pieces from the 70s. First is a silent, experimental film called Hotel Monterey. For those that can bring your patience with you, this is a beautiful, sometimes haunting picture. The whole of the film (about an hour long) is long, sometimes panning shots around the hotel in New York. The building is old and dated, and the camera examines everything from long, dark hallways; to rooms (with or without inhabitants); to its dingy basement. An early 12 minutes are devoted to a continuous shot of the elevator going up and down, stopping at various floors, to see the doors open to people or empty halls alike. It’s an avant-garde film for sure and not for everyone. I usually steer away from these kinds of pictures (I can not get into Stan Brakhage despite several attempts) but I was enthralled by this piece. Some of the slow, creeping walks down tight hallways give a Kubrink Shining kind of vibe, several years before that film was made. Beautiful shots throughout, and it’s amazing how a quiet, unmoving camera can either elicit tension or peace, depending on the view and/or the mindset of the viewer.

Je tu il elle (I You He She) was Akerman’s first feature film, released in 1974, and stars herself in the lead role. Julie is a young and depressed woman, living in a small apartment. After trying to change the things she has control over (painting the room twice, moving all the furniture around, then removing it all except the bed, and finally just lying naked on the floor), she writes letters to herself, then edits and revises them. She hints through narration that she’s waiting for something, but what, we do not know, and most likely. When she finally runs out of sugar, her only sustenance, she gets dressed and leaves, with the feel of a finality that she is not coming back. She hitches a ride out of town with a trucker, who provides food in exchange for sexual favors. Ultimately, Julie ends up at a woman’s house, obviously her former lover, with their breakup being the reason for Julie’s depression. The two have sex, during which Julie holds her partner so tight, it looks like she will never let go. Julie gets up in the morning, grabs her clothes, and walks out. Throughout the film, we never hear Julie speak to anyone with whom she comes in contact, her voice is saved only for narration to us as the viewers. It’s a slow burn of a film, doesn’t move much faster than the silent documentary described above, but it is rewarding for those with the endurance to sit through it (even if the sex is a bit too gratuitous for my tastes).

News from Home is just what it sounds like. This documentary is a series of shots by Akerman around New York, where she lived for awhile. In the busy city, Akerman focuses on visions of solitude and loneliness within the greater hustle-and-bustle of the metropolis. In voice-over throughout, she reads letters sent from her family back in Belgium. The letters are exactly what you’d expect from a mother who misses her child in a time before the internet. She begs for her daughter to write more often, tells her how Dad is doing, warns her to be careful in dangerous New York, etc. I see and talk to my parents regularly, but even I felt homesick with the letters oozing love and warmth, in stark contrast to the lonely video of the cold, uninviting city. The mom’s a bit passive aggressive, sometimes more than a bit, but you can tell she loves her daughter. An achingly beautiful film, and a fantastic time capsule of 1976 New York.

By now, I’ve realized Akerman has a thing for telling stories about single women living in a man’s world. That’s the nuts and bolts of Les rendez-vous d’Anna (The Meetings of Anna) too. Anna is a filmmaker who travels around Europe for work, and she must have the kind of face where people just want to tell her their problems, but no one seems to care much what she wants. Everyone seems to tell Anna all their woes, while she listens silently. First a man in Germany with whom she has a one-night stand, lamenting the state of his divided country after World War II, then her friend Ida, who talks about her terrible marriage, and then a stranger she meets on a train. It’s not all doom and gloom though, there are surprisingly funny moments too, like when Ida takes a break from bashing her husband to tell Anna she should marry her son, because women should marry. I enjoyed the first half, but the film really got good in the second, when it became clear that people aren’t just unburdening their souls to Anna, but are in fact just using her. She’s been going through life letting people say and do whatever they want to her. Even though she’s successful in her career, as a woman of the 70s, she has little power in relationships and no voice for her own desires. I’m dense, so it too me awhile to realize this (very late in the movie), but the film took on a whole new light upon this revelation. It moves at a slow pace, so it will test you, but a really great picture.

Up last is Akerman’s most critically acclaimed movie, and the one that got me interested in watching these films of hers. Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai de Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (yes, that is a long title) has been lauded as a masterpiece since its release in 1975 on the art house circuit. It clocks in at over 3 hours long, and having seen 4 previous Akerman films, I came ready for lots of long, slow shots sans dialogue, and when there is conversation, for it to be deliberate and, perhaps, a bit meandering. Our main character is Jeanne. Extremely methodical, from the way she dresses (with hair perfectly coiffed) to how she cleans herself to the way she eats, you get the impression her routine is exactly the same every day. After a very staid dinner with her son (husband is 6 years deceased), she gets out her knitting, and I thought, “Of course she knits!” The movie begins in the middle of her routine, preparing said dinner for that evening, but then something unexpected happens. A man arrives, they retreat to the bedroom, come out an undetermined amount of time later, he pays her, and he leaves, saying, “See you next week.” Our little homemaker is turning tricks! The evening plays out, then the next day, when the doorbell rings again, to a new man. Same story. And that’s the first 90 minutes of this film, so we aren’t even half way through yet. Here, I did have a single doubt creep in. To this point, I was invested in the film, it sounds boring watching someone just going about their day, but I was fascinated. However, after her john left, I wondered if we were going to see the whole ritual again. But no, the camera thankfully skips ahead through the mundane events we already saw, and, in a change, we start to see cracks in Jeanne’s veneer. Even the camera lets us know this, by showing her kitchen from a different angle than we’ve seen before. Jeanne picks up a pot of food, and wanders around the house listlessly, like she can’t quite place where to go with it. She begins to repeat actions in an increasingly frantic manner. Her normally perfect hair is messy. Day 3 starts worse, with Jeanne forgetting to fully button her house coat when she puts it on, and then forgetting to turn off lights when leaving rooms, having to stop mid thought to return to do so. The viewer definitely gets a sense of foreboding, of impending catastrophe. Whether something does or not, you’ll just have to sit through 3 ½ hours yourself to see. I can see what the hype is about, this is a compelling film, but like all of Akerman’s stuff, be patient and let it come to you.

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World was groundbreaking when released in 1932. Preceding World War II, the science envisioned in the book would seem far-fetched at the time, but isn’t too far off from things that we are capable of today. It is a dystopian novel, dealing with one man’s personal fight against the society that exists a couple hundred years in the future.

The book starts by introducing characters Bernard and Lenina, and through them, we learn about the world they live in. They live in a place where no one is born anymore: all are raised from test tubes, which are fed the exact amount of chemicals and proteins to make them become exactly the person society needs. Those destined to be leaders and teachers are fed the best stuff, and called Alphas, and they live (figuratively and literally) above the Betas, Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons, who are each progressively “grown” with less social drive, less goals, less smarts, etc., so that everyone is happy with the live they live. And when a person becomes unhappy, they can take a pill (called soma) to get high and forget their misgivings.

Bernard and Lenina are Alphas. Lenina, being a woman, is encouraged to sleep around (but carefully, and always using contraception, so as to avoid pregnancy), and as a high Alpha, she has no lack of partners. She is intrigued by Bernard because he is different, and the reason he is different is because (it is whispered) his tube was given a bit too much alcohol, leaving him shorter than all the other Alphas. This has given Bernard a big chip on his shoulder, and he finds solace in hanging out with a professor named Helmholtz, who secretly wishes to teach his students from banned books (which is basically anything pre-Ford, who is their deity for ushering in the assembly line). Lenina agrees to go on a weekend trip with Bernard to a Savage Reservation in New Mexico, where uncivilized people are allowed to live as they always have.

On the reservation, Bernard meets a man named John, who was raised among Native Americans, but was born to a woman named Linda. Linda is from the World State but became lost years before, and has lived here ever since. She has grown old and ugly (which people do not do in the World State anymore thanks to anti-aging chemicals, and a swift death before they can lose their mental capabilities), and is ashamed that she actually gave birth to someone. John has been raised on stories of where Linda came from, and as a white man, has never been accepted by the local population. John agrees to return to the World State with Bernard and Lenina, on the condition that Linda come too.

Back home in London, Bernard is a superstar for the first time in his life, for bringing The Savage. John becomes a curiosity and all the rave at Bernard’s parties. But it isn’t long before John realizes the awfullness of this civilization. Linda dies from taking too much soma, and in this place where people are taught from birth that death isn’t a bad thing, no one gets why John is so upset. When Lenina attempts to have sex with John, he fights her off. Raised on a single book of Shakespeare and ideals removed from the World State, he wants courtship and romance, but Lenina just wants casual sex. John and Helmholtz end up attacking a hospital to “free” the children (who don’t want to be freed), and they, along with Bernard, end up arrested and meeting the leader of Western Europe.

This leader, Mustapha Mond, admits to John that he too has read Shakespeare, as well as the Bible and many other banned books. In fact, he was once a scientist whose research nearly got him expelled. Instead, Mustapha embraced the World State. John (and the reader) now realizes the absolutely chilling existence that is the world now. The government has created a world where there is no sadness, but also no real happiness. There are no attachments to people or things, no fear of death or disease or war, no individualism of any kind. By creating people to only care about the group rather than the self, to take away pain with a pill of soma, they have created a perfect society where nothing bad (but also nothing really good) ever happens. Afterwards, Bernard and Helmholtz are banished to islands where they can live with other people that are “slightly different than the norm,” and John the Savage is sent to live in a lighthouse in northern England.

John thinks that here, he will finally find peace and happiness. He starts a garden and enjoys the quiet, but he cannot get Lenina out of his head. He inflicts pain on himself to purify his soul, which is caught on camera by a hidden reporter. The next day, swarms of people arrive in helicopters to see the curiosity again, including Lenina. John attacks her and the others flee, but this makes even bigger headlines, and more people come the following day. They approach the lighthouse, only to find John has hung himself.

The book starts really slow. It begins with a tour being given in the birthing center, with artificial wombs, chem labs, childhood indoctrination centers, and “sleep-learning” beds (where tapes are played while the child sleeps, subconsciously telling them how to live and how to think). It’s a bit heavy for quite awhile until the real plot gets going, but once it does, it is a wild ride. Scary to think that something like this could happen, but at the same time, it isn’t all that far fetched anymore. We aren’t too far away from being able to put whatever genes we want into our offspring, and many of the methods discussed in the book have been used by some of the less scrupulous, totalitarian governments in our world. Great read.

After his film The Weekend (which I really liked) in 1967, the man who became famous for ushering in the French New Wave in 1960, Jean-Luc Godard, decided he was done with traditional movies and started making political films. He teamed up with radical leftist Jean-Pierre Gorin to make a series of heavily Maoist pieces. The first was Un film comme les autres (A Film Like Any Other) in 1968. The whole film is just 5 mostly faceless people discussing the repression of workers and what to do about it. The small group is made up of workers and students, who have lofty ideals of things that should be done, but I couldn’t help but get a sense of nothing but a whole lot of talk going on. It comes off as very pretentious, just a bunch of intellectuals bitching about the wrongs of capitalism. There’s some arguing among the group, because the workers, who have to work for a living, push back against some of the more extreme ideas of the students who are way too idealistic. The film is passably interesting, but really just boils down to watching a one sided debate for 90 minutes.

British Sounds is even more extreme. Godard isn’t pulling any punches anymore. It opens with a long side cut of workers in an auto plant putting together cars, and a voiceover talking about how repressed they all are, how they are just slaves working for the bourgeois, how much better their lives would be if they could work under communism instead of capitalism, etc. Then it REALLY started to lose me. The next scene has the camera focused on hall in a house, and narrates how if you think the worker is downtrodden, then the female worker is even more so. How they are exploited for their sex, can’t face equal treatment, and on and on. Hilariously, during the narration, a naked woman walks in and out of the screen. But I guess that’s not exploitation? Or are we being sarcastic? Whatever it is, like the first movie, the film is very condescending. By this point, I just wanted Godard to go back to making fun movies.

Le Vent d’est (Wind From the East) is finally a bit better, at least it has a (loose) plot and feels more like a movie, albeit one with an agenda. Again, it is about the plight of the worker. There’s a strike going on at the local factory, where workers are demanding better conditions and higher pay. At various times, members of the both the workers (dressed as normal, everyday people) and the owners (dressed like English high society from the early 20th Century) are kidnapped by the other side. Over it all is a narration, sometimes about what we are seeing, but most often going off on separate tangents, such as railing against the state of traditional cinema, which is “run by the bourgeois.” In poking fun at traditional films, Godard breaks the fourth wall by showing his actors having their makeup applied during the scenes, or in one instance, having the actor lay down comfortably where he “died” and then splashing blood on him from off camera. We even see a scene when “production” is halted because pro-capitalist people hold the “anarchist” actors hostage. The whole thing is mildly amusing, but it never loses sight of its defense of Maoism, communism (even glossing over Stalin’s evils), and the predicament of the working class. The second half of the movie becomes a quasi-lecture/rant against moviemaking, and no one is safe. The main target is “Nixon Hollywood,” but the narrator goes on to target progressive filmmakers too, saying they don’t go far enough. Then we get a quaint little tutorial on how to make weapons and bombs at home. Good family flick.

The next film is actually a good one. Lotte in Italia (Struggle in Italy) is about a girl coming to grips with her goals as a Marxist, and how to find a way to achieve those goals. The film is told with her telling her story to the camera in her native Italian, with an unseen narrator translating to French (and us English twerps reading the subtitles from the translation). She talks about her life as a student, and how she wishes life should be, and it isn’t before long that she realizes she’s a bit of a phony. She tells workers who want better wages to just strike, but doing so wouldn’t put food on the table for their families. She talks about independence from her parents, but returns to them when she needs money or a place to stay. She admits to the camera and to herself that she doesn’t have enough life experiences to achieve the sort of social freedoms she envisions, and her attempts to learn more have failed (for instance, she took a sewing job in a factory to talk to real workers about their struggles, but found that the grueling work and big deadlines kept her and them quiet and focused on their jobs). In the end, she seems to have a clearer picture of what she wants to attain for society, but seems no closer to reaching the goals. Her final thoughts are that even the film she is in, the medium to which she is speaking to the viewer, is owned by the bourgeois as a system of control. I genuinely liked this movie, more than the 3 previous, and though I obviously don’t agree with everything our girl was putting out there, at least it was more “real” than the previous showings.

Finally comes Vladimir et Rosa. This movie starts with a narrator telling us we are going to watch a film, introducing the characters, what we are going to see, etc. They admit that this film was only made to raise money for a different project, but say that it is still worthwhile because it advances their cause. That argument is debatable. The film is loosely made as a response to the 1968 protests in Chicago after the Democratic National Convention (look it up if you want more info). Godard and Gorin themselves are in this film, Godard playing the accused, Vladimir, but also a policeman later, and Gorin is the judge, but also Vladimir’s friend Karl Rosa. Sometimes it seems the two are playing as themselves too. It boils down to their revolutionary ideas themselves put on trial, but Godard and team use it to show how stacked the system is against them. The whole thing is a jumbled mess: a bombardment on our senses with people talking over each other, half-assed ideas that aren’t explored, and pure propaganda. In the end, I enjoyed 2 of the 5 films from this period of Godard’s work, but not sure I’d rewatch any of them.

Metropolis was one of renowned German director Fritz Lang’s last silent films, and was groundbreaking for being a very early feature length science fiction film. It is set in a dystopian future where a privileged upper class frolics in high rises while the working class slave away a mile below the surface of the planet, keeping the machines running that power the city above. One day, Maria, a woman from the underworld who preaches a future peace and understanding between the classes, sneaks upstairs and runs into Freder, the son of the master of the city. Freder has been oblivious to the hardships below him, and he goes down to see it with his own eyes. Meanwhile, a scientist, Rotwang, who wants to take over Metropolis, has created a robot who can take on the likeness of any human, and he uses it to make a copy of Maria. While the fake Maria sows rebellion underneath, Freder searches for the real Maria to attempt to soothe the mob. There are a lot of elements of the film that have been copied copiously down the years, but I thought by itself the movie was just all right. Plenty of good moments, but it does drag, and at over 2 ½ hours, it feels very long for a silent film.

M is quite possibly one of the most influential psychological thrillers of all time, and widely regarded as one of the best. Lang’s first sound film in 1930, it is about a serial killer who has been preying on the most innocent of people, as his targets have all been young girls. The city is on lockdown, but the cops have been unable to find any clues, so they are leaning heavily on the criminal underground, performing nightly raids on gambling establishments and “houses of ill repute” in hopes of turning up something. These raids are cutting into the profits of the crime lords, so they also set out to find the killer, employing the town’s beggars to be on the lookout, just so that things can return to status quo. It’s not much of a mystery, because the viewer sees early on who the killer is (Peter Lorre in perhaps his most famous role, which is saying something since he shows up in The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca 10 years later), but knowing the killer does not lighten the suspense in any way. Watching the cops and the robbers tighten their noose around the murderer is thrilling, but when he lures another girl to his side, we hope that noose would tighten just a little faster. Amazing film, Lang himself considered it the best movie he ever made.

The Testament of Dr Mabuse is a sequel to a silent film Lang did in 1922 (which I have not seen). Dr Mabuse is a brilliant but insane man locked up in a sanitarium. The only thing he does is write, all day, every day. The notes he writes are fool-proof plans on how to pull off crimes, and someone is using those notes to do just that. There is a secret organization being led by an invisible “man behind the curtain,” a shadowy figure who issues orders and kills those who don’t obey. A police chief, Lohmann, is at a loss for solving the perfect crimes and murders going on his city. He does find that clues seem to be circling Dr Baum, who runs the asylum, and pulls at those threads until the exciting conclusion. This is a tremendous film, with exciting action sequences and a superb mystery that keeps the viewer guessing as much as Chief Lohmann.

Ministry of Fear came out in 1944, after Lang fled Nazi Germany, and was now making movies in Hollywood. A film noir, it is about a man, recently let out of an asylum for an as-yet unknown reason, who becomes the mistaken target of a nefarious group of spies from Germany. As he unravels the mystery surrounding himself, various people come into his sphere, most of whom he can’t trust. It’s one of those movies where a lot happens, but at the same time, I felt like it wasn’t getting anywhere fast. Honestly I was bit bored for a good stretch of the film, but it ended well. It has a few too many tropes of 40’s Hollywood, and overall just an OK movie experience.

By 1956, Lang’s monstrous ego had burned a lot of bridges in Hollywood, so While the City Sleeps comes near the end of his career. It is a star studded affair, with names like Dana Andrews, Thomas Mitchell, Rhonda Fleming, Vincent Price, John Barrymore, Ida Lupino, and George Sanders. It follows a news organization owned by the Kyne family as a serial killer is terrorizing the city. Rather than focus on the murders, the movie mostly follows the head of the various news outlets (tv, wire, and paper) run out of Kyne. As the old man Kyne dies and his unprepared son takes over, the son promises to give a big promotion to whoever can break the story and identify the killer. The heads of the three above departments race each other to hunt down the bad guy. Part film noir, part drama, and even with some comedy thrown in, the film is entertaining, even if the plot is a bit thin. Dana Andrews as TV anchorman Ed Mobley is fun to watch as a man without a hat in the ring, but who cares about helping his friend reach his goals. And any movie with Thomas Mitchell (most famous to my mom as Uncle Billy in It’s a Wonderful Life) is a plus for me. The movie feels very different from Lang’s earlier work, but it’s a good one.

I’m not much of a documentary person, but I thought I’d give a shot to a few older ones, and I’ve really enjoyed these. Harlan County, USA won the Oscar for this category in 1976, and follows a strike by coal miners in Kentucky, a strike that went on for over a year. It follows the miners attempt to unionize, a move that was obviously fought by Duke Power Company, and much of the behind-the-scenes issues that the families faced before and during the strike. They didn’t want a huge raise, they just wanted healthier working conditions, better insurance for when they inevitability got sick or injured in their dangerous work, and pensions that allowed them to retire rather than work till they died. Their attempts to keep solidarity, fights against local authorities who often seemed to be on the side of the company, intimidation by the company’s hired goons, and their own intimidation to scabs brought in to work the mine during the strike are all shown. A great film where the filmmaker let the people involved do the talking without narration, which allowed the dire situation of their predicament come through to the viewer.

In 1974, filmmaker Barbet Schroeder was given full access to Ugandan leader General Idi Amin Dada Oumee to make a documentary about himself. He wanted to show the might of his country to the world. Schroeder did deliver a 1 hour film to Amin that he liked, but added an additional 30 minutes for a film to be shown to the rest of the world. This second film Schroeder ended up making was very different from what General Amin wanted, and he was furious at how he was shown in it. But outside of a few very short interjections here and there to set facts straight, Schroeder lets Amin do all the talking. After a short introduction by Schroeder describing Amin’s rise to power and the current inflation-ridden status of Uganda due to his policies, the filmmaker watches Amin boast about himself non-stop (he is a world heavyweight boxing champion and could run the 100 meters in 9.8 seconds!) and about the might of his military (he trains troops for water attack and paratroopers yet has no navy and few military aircraft). Schroeder’s access to Amin’s cabinet meetings show a man who tries to sound in total control but instead appears to be a man paranoid of his detractors. If this sounds familiar, it isn’t far different from the dictators across the world today, and listening to him proclaiming the greatest of his accomplishments sounds much like our current president. Pretty eye opening. Today General Amin is called “the butcher of Uganda” and is known as one of the most brutal world leaders in history, having killed hundreds of thousands of his citizens and opposers during his reign from 1971 until his ouster in 1979.

Sociologist Edgar Morin and anthropologist/filmmaker Jean Rouch teamed up to make Chronicle of a Summer in Paris in 1961. They wanted to interview average people in all walks of life and get a feel for how people were feeling in a post-industrial, post-colonial, increasingly consumer-driven society. Starting with the general question, “Are you happy?”, they veer off into other subjects from there. What the viewer comes away with is generally, no, people were not happy, and probably for the same reasons as today. Overwhelmingly people wanted more money. While some took a relaxed view of work with an “it is what it is” kind of attitude, many downright hated their jobs, and didn’t see a comfortable end to the cycle of getting up, working hard all day, going home tired, and doing it again the next day. This feeling of hopelessness and helplessness led many to anger. Life was generally (and continues to be to this day, I think) easier for us than for the previous generation, but it is hard to see that when society is telling us you need to own “this” car and live in “that” neighborhood to be considered successful. Later in the film, talk turns to the war in Algeria, race relations, a feeling of political impotence, and other serious topics. By the end of the documentary, the filmmakers realize that the film has become something very different than what they set out to do. Another film with stark comparisons to today, though if anything, I think the resentment in the working class and the push to keep up with the Joneses has only gotten worse in the last 50 years.

Dont Look Back is from famous documentarian DA Pennebaker, following Bob Dylan’s 1965 British tour. Pennebaker was given complete access and we see a relaxed, unfettered Dylan, someone who is now known for being so reserved, who rarely gives interviews. It starts with his arrival in London in 1965, now a star after a meteoric rise (Dylan quips that he was just here 2 years ago and no one noticed). From there we see the daily life surrounding Dylan for this short, acoustic tour, performing his early hits that he is all ready tired of playing. His first electric album has all ready been released, but the fans obviously still want to hear his acoustic hits. It’s a fantastic documentary and a superb inside look at the industry. We see Dylan’s interactions with fans (including his frank recounting of these interactions behind stage), brush-ups with hotel staff complaining about noise, run-ins with other musical acts and professional friends, an argument with a reporter from Time, and negotiations over money between Dylan’s manager and local venues. The young Dylan (only 23 or 24 years old) is sometimes fun (and funny!) and engaging, sometimes surly and combative, sometimes quiet and contemplative. Pennebaker gets it all on tape for a close, personal look at a man whose music spoke to a generation, who seems unsure that his music means as much to himself as it does to others. Truly an amazing film, even for people who aren’t necessarily Dylan fans. I myself only have a passing knowledge of his biggest hits, don’t own a single record of his, but I enjoyed this film.

Winner of the 1974 Oscar for best documentary, Hearts and Minds is a real look at the Vietnam War, from director Peter Davis. It is about as all-encompassing as you can get, albeit all from a skeptic’s point of view. Starting with a recap of why the government took us into the war in the first place (buildup of communism in the area and the ego of the USA that they saw themselves as world policeman after World War II), we see a series of interviews with dozens of people. We get viewpoints from politicians, generals, Vietnamese citizens, front-line soldiers (with the sounds of bullets flying by just overhead), religious leaders, and many others. We see the destruction on the ground, with citizens crying for lost loved ones and destroyed homes. Very frank discussions are included, such as a Native American who says he signed up to kill “gooks” but now admitting he was brainwashed, not realizing at the time that they were derisive of the Vietnamese population while he himself was called racially insensitive names by his own commanders. Another soldier doesn’t even remember why he signed up, and says he has seen nothing good since arriving. Soldiers burning villagers’ homes while the owners can just watch in silence. And through it all, the brass and politicians continue to talk about how important the war is to the future of our way of life, while citizens (there and here) grew angrier. Probably as inclusive a documentary as you will find, with lessons that still need to be learned today. Those who do not learn history, etc. etc.

Often when a film gets sterling reviews from professional critics but is lambasted by the general audience, I side with the audience. The exception is The Souvenir. It is currently rocking a 90% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes and a 33% audience score. But it is a lovely film, the story of a girl doing all that she can to save her love from himself. Julie is a talented film school student when she meets a charming man named Anthony. They fall for each other pretty quickly, move in together, and it is a typical, loving relationship. They have the same kind of conversations we all have, things like who is taking more space on the bed. When she sees bruises on his arm, she asks if he hurt himself and he says he did, but it is healing well. She doesn’t think twice when he asks to borrow money now and again. But when they have dinner with some of Anthony’s friends, and he gets up to get more wine, the friend privately asks her if dating a heroine user has been hard. Of course Julie had never put two and two together, and is shocked, but still doesn’t confront him about it. She starts to pay his bills on top of her own, borrowing money from her mom. She even is unsuspecting when their apartment is robbed and all the valuables stolen. It only gets worse from there, as Anthony succumbs to his sickness and Julie continues to enable him. As an outside viewer, you want to scream at Julie to wake up and see what is right in front of her eyes. I can see why people say the film is boring; there are a lot of conversations that take place throughout which are just normal conversations, which don’t seem to further the plot or develop any of the characters, but I found they added rather than subtracted from the movie. It created real, breathable people that anyone could relate to. A heartbreaking look at what a person can put up with to try to hold on to love that was once there, but is sadly long destroyed.

I usually do newer (or much older) movies on this blog, but I’ve never seen Léon, the Professional, and a coworker said I needed to remedy that. Directed by Luc Besson, it tells the story of a hitman (Jean Reno) whose carefully orchestrated life is upended when he takes in an orphan. Léon lives alone at an apartment at the end of the hall when his neighbor and the entire family is killed in a drug deal gone bad. The only survivor is 12 year old Mathilda (Natalie Portman in her debut role). She wants to learn Léon’s trade in order to take down her family’s killers, but it turns out, the killers are corrupt DEA agents, headed by a sleazy drug addict himself named Norman Stansfield (a mesmerizing Gary Oldman). There are some absolutely terrific moments in this film. The camerawork is fantastic and the gun fights are intense, but the whole creepy vibe of an adult man and a 12 year old girl (the movie hints at more of a romantic relationship than a father/daughter one) is off-putting. And from what I read online, it was even toned down a bit from the original script at Portman’s parents’ wishes. Still, a good, fun, action flick.

The Mustang is a beautiful film about a man finding his way back to peace. Roman is in jail, and you get the impression that it is for something really bad, and that he has been there a very long time. He’s been transferred to a prison where the inmates train wild horses as part of a program that raises money for the state (in the sale of the horses) but also as a rehabilitation for the prisoners. Roman is completely closed off emotionally; he cannot communicate with anyone, even the counselors on staff to help. When he starts working outside though, he immediately becomes attached to a wild mustang named Marquis, a horse no one has been able to tame. When he finds he cannot force the horse to listen, he has to finally open up to the animal and to himself, freeing emotions that he’s had buried for over a decade. In the process, he reaches out to his estranged daughter (a daughter he doesn’t even recognize on her first visit to the jail, it has been so long) and is finally able to move on from the crime he committed long ago. Tremendous acting by Matthias Schoenaerts in the lead; he’s been around a long time but has had several acclaimed roles in the last 5 or so years.

Hotel Mumbai is based on the attacks on that city in 2008, and focus specifically and the long standoff at the famous and luxurious Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. It begins with a group of radical Muslims beginning their coordinated attacks throughout the city, and then shifts to the twelve hour siege at the hotel. The young killers target everyone, but try to take any Americans or foreigners hostage. The story of the siege revolves around a few key people. There’s a family: a rich Indian wife and her American husband, with their baby; and a local worker at the hotel who bravely spends the day saving people despite numerous chances to make his own escape. The film has a great cast including Dev Patel, Armie Hammer, and Jason Isaacs, and while it has some assuredly tense and exciting moments, I couldn’t shake the feeling that the whole thing felt a little too “Hollywood” in dramatizing such a horrific day. There was even a moment when one of the guests pointed out how young the attackers were. That may be true, they were depicted as young men who had been horribly swayed to commit these crimes, but they were killers nonetheless, and things that like irk me.

The Kid features a good cast showing off their chops, but the film falls short due to a lackluster, and frankly boring, story. It isn’t quite an action flick, and isn’t smart enough to be a good art film. Rio and his sister are chased by their uncle (Chris Pratt in a rare bad-guy role) after Rio has killed his own dad (the uncle’s brother) for beating his mom. They run into Billy the Kid (Dane DeHaan) who is on the lamb, running from Sheriff Garrett (Ethan Hawke). Garrett catches Billy and takes him in to town to be hung, and in the meantime, the uncle catches up the Rio and kidnaps the sister, warning Rio that he’ll kill her if Rio tries to follow them. Rio sets out to rescue Billy for some help in getting his sister back, but the easy-going Billy is more interested in doing whatever he wants than helping Rio. The movie tries to create tension, but it never feels like it’s going anywhere. The whole thing is a wasted opportunity for the people involved, including director Vincent D’Onofrio.

Somehow I got to my age without ever having read George Orwell’s short novella Animal Farm. Written during World War II when Britain was ostensibly an ally of Stalin’s Russia, Orwell wrote it as a satire against Stalin in particular and communism as a whole. It follows a farm full of talking animals as it rebels against its human master to set up a utopian society, but inevitably it falls into dictatorship with a despot at its head.

All of the animals at the Manor Farm find life rough under their drunk owner Mr Jones. They dream of freedom from tyrannical oppression and want to run the farm properly. A song is written titled “The Beasts of England” that talks about this freedom, the geese take up the chant, “four legs good, two legs bad,” and all the animals decide enough is enough. Led by the smartest animals on the farm, two pigs named Snowball and Napolean, they launch a coup and drive Mr Jones from the farm. So as to avoid a rule like that again, they set up the “Seven Commandments of Animalism” and paint them on the wall. Though most of the animals can’t read, they are jubilant at their new-found freedom. For once, they have plenty of food and life is comfortable. They even fight off a human attempt to take back the farm, in which Snowball heroically is shot (but survives). Snowball sets up a team to build a windmill to help the farm, and things are looking good.

Things turn when Napolean and Snowball start butting heads about how the farm should be run. Napolean has some strong dogs (dogs he has secretly raised since pups) chase Snowball off the farm, and begins to exert his control over the other animals. When a storm blows down the construction of the windmill, Napolean has his minions spread lies that the windmill was sabotaged, and that Snowball was behind it. He goes so far as to say that Snowball was in league with Mr Jones all the time. Napolean replaces “The Beasts of England” with a new song glorifying himself, and moves himself and the other pigs into the old farmhouse. After a year of hard work, the windmill is just about done when a human neighbor sneaks onto the farm and blows it up. Back to square one, Napolean has Squealer routinely go out into the crowds to extol how great Napolean is, how much better life is now than under Mr Jones, how terrible their enemies are, etc. Despite reduced rations and harder daily work required, the animals believe the lies, because Squealer seems to have an answer for every argument. Any animal that does clearly speak up a dissent is killed.

Over all this time, the “Seven Commandments” have slowly been amended over the years. Original rules like “No animal shall sleep in a bed” has been changed to “No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets,” and “No animal shall drink alcohol” changed to “No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.” These rules have been amended of course for the sake of the pigs, now living in luxury in the farmhouse. The final commandment used to be “All animals are equal.” At the end of the book, all the commandments have been painted over on the wall, and only one remains: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” The pigs, now in clothes and having parties with humans in the house, emerge from the farmhouse walking on two legs, to the chants of the geese now saying, “Four legs good, two legs better.”

Lots to digest from such a short book (just over 100 pages). I even left out the whole plot of Boxer the horse, strongest of the animals, who basically worked himself to death because he believed so much in what they were trying to do. Obviously Orwell was not a fan of Stalin and his rule. He praises the ideals the free farm was based on (the Bolshevik revolution) but scorns the corruption that followed. Orwell had a really hard time getting it published when complete, his own country was afraid of pissing off the Russians, their wartime allies. But it is a great little book, and easy to read.

The Sun Also Rises is the last Ernest Hemingway book on my list. It was his first full novel, released in 1926, and is considered by many to be his best. I have to admit I thought it was pretty dull for the first third to half, but once everything started coming together, I couldn’t put it down.

The book follows an American veteran of the war named Jake and his half dozen or so friends living in Paris. He is in love with a flirtatious girl named Brett (as is every man she comes in contact with), but Brett is wild and unable to settle down. Already twice divorced, she is engaged now to a man who lives as wild as she does, a man named Mike. Mike spends freely (or more accurately, borrows freely, knowing he has an inheritance coming in sometime soon), and unlike every other guy who runs into Brett, he isn’t possessive of her, allowing her to have her affairs so long as she returns to him. Jake loves Brett, maybe deeply, but a war wound prevents him from having sex, which both know would never fly for the sexually free Brett. Jake’s other friends are Bill and Robert. While Mike is away, Brett has a short affair with Brett, but she isn’t into him for anything serious. Shortly thereafter, the group decides to head to Spain for some fishing and the running of the bulls.

Jake and Bill end up fishing on their own for a week. Brett and Mike were running behind, and Robert, unable to let go of Brett, stayed behind to be with her. When they all convene together in Pamplona, Jake learns that Robert and Brett have slept together again, and this time, Robert is unable to see it for the fling that it is. Brett has all ready moved on to the next piece of eye candy, a young matador named Romero. Robert has taken to following Brett around. Mike finds it all very amusing and goads Robert into fighting him, a fight that splinters the group’s friendship. They all go their separate ways.

A week or so later, Jake is about to return to Paris when he gets an urgent note from Brett, asking him to come to Madrid. When he gets there, he finds Brett alone and penniless; she has driven Romero away and wants to get back to Mike. Jake and Brett share a taxi to take her home, and confess to each other that through all of this, they still love each other, but they can only sigh at things that might have been.

Being a very early Hemingway work, this book doesn’t have the “choppy” dialogue that is found in pretty much all of his books that came later. It is more fleshed out, less abrupt, and maybe more lyrical if that makes sense. He does a great job of developing all 5 friends, and the story is engaging once it really gets going. I’ve liked most of his books I’ve read, but this one is definitely my favorite.

Pandora’s Box is a late silent era film from 1929, directed by G.W. Pabst in Germany. It is about a girl, Lulu, who always seems to find trouble. Extremely good looking and flirtatious, she has the attention of an old man (who ends up dead), the man’s son (who ends up broke and on the run from the cops), and a con artist (also dead). The title hints of the Greek mythology of Pandora unleashing evil into the world, and while murder and crime does follow Lulu wherever she goes, it seems often the real culprit is an older man who seems to be a father, or at least, fatherly figure, to Lulu. This old crook is the one who hints to her boyfriend to cheat the casino, gets Lulu to go prostitute when he wants a Christmas dinner, etc. The film was a bit slow to get going, but I ended up really enjoying it. The soundtrack isn’t great in my opinion (on the version I watched) and that’s a bummer for a silent film, but still a good picture. Pabst wanted American actress Louise Brooks in the main role, and she only came on after quitting at Paramount when they hesitated to give her a raise, thinking she might not be as good in sound films as she was in her previous silent hits. She proved to be fantastic in the lead role.

The King of Kings is arguably Cecil B DeMille’s most famous silent film. A director most known today for the Golden Globe lifetime achievement award given in his name, and for his final film (the Charlton Heston-starring The Ten Commandments), DeMille made 70 silent and sound films in his career. The King of Kings is just what it sounds like, the story of Jesus, and specifically his final days, crucification, and resurrection. Like just about every biblical film, there are a lot of liberties taken to “flesh out” Jesus, showing everyday events that were not in the Bible, but as a whole, the film tries to keep as close as possible. Even much of the “dialogue” (intertitles) is direct quotes from the Bible, with book and verse number in the bottom right. It’s a good film, though it definitely feels dated, and not just because it came out in 1927. I’ve seen a lot of those old films by now that are just as entertaining today, and while this one is well acted, well shot (for its day), and uplifting in all the right spots, it still “feels” old.

Nanook of the North is one of the oldest films I’ve ever seen, released in 1922. Ostensibly a documentary, but with its fair share of “directorial liberties,” it follows a far northern Eskimo called Nanook and his family. The film receives a lot of criticism today for having some scenes staged, but it was ground breaking at the time, for both the effort that went into its filming (with very large gear in 1922!) and for giving the documentary genre (a name that wouldn’t be coined for a few more years) some direction and story, giving it an almost romantic-like feel. Obviously pre-code, there are a lot of scenes that would never fly just a decade later, such as showing the hunting and gutting of animals, Nanook’s multiple wives (and their nakedness when they prepare for bed), etc. But it is a startling film depicting the harsh life in the far north, so long ago.

People on Sunday is a German silent film which, I’m convinced, has only stood the test of time because of the people involved in it. The quasi-documentary has a loose story about people enjoying their day off. A duo of men spend the time trying to pick up women, who both end up interested in the same man, creating jealousies. The film is interesting because it depicts Weimer Germany in 1930 before the rise of the Nazi party, and it is funny, because the clothing, hair styles, antics, and style of life could just as easily be USA at the time. Oh what the course of history can do! Honestly the film is a bore until they get to the beach, then it opens up in the second half. But as I said, this film is most notable for the pre-famous people behind the camera. It is directed by Robert Siodmak (Hollywood noirs) and Edgar G Ulmer (noirs and Hollywood B movies), with a screenplay by Billy Wilder (big name obviously, with movies like The Apartment and Some Like It Hot), and cinematography by Fred Zinneman (who would later win 4 Oscars). All four men fled Germany during Hitler’s reign and found themselves in Hollywood to launch their stardoms.

Ending today on a high note with one of the best comedic actors of the silent era, Harold Lloyd, in Safety Last! This is a romantic-comedy about a man who comes to the big city to get rich so he can marry his girlfriend, but finds himself working as a salesman in a department store. He regularly sends letters home pretending that he has made it big and will send for his girl soon, but in reality he is just barely scraping by. When she decides to go to the city and surprise him though, he needs to find a way to make money quick so as to marry her. He approaches the president of the company about a scheme to climb to the top of the skyscraper as a publicity stunt, to which the owner agrees and offers to pay $1000. Of course it doesn’t go so well, but does generate the famous scenes of Lloyd hanging from the roof. A fantastic film that is truly laugh-out-loud funny, it showcases Lloyd as the perfect everyman comedic actor of the silent film era.