Billy Wilder was an iconic director of some massive hits, and while his career spanned decades, I’ll be looking at 5 of his most famous films from Hollywood’s Golden Age, starting with his directorial debut, 1942’s The Major and the Minor, starring Ginger Rogers and Ray Milland. Rogers plays Susan Applegate, a young woman who’s spent the last year trying to land a steady job in New York, but has finally given up and is ready to return home to Iowa, where she has a boring life with a boring homegrown man waiting for her. Unfortunately she doesn’t have enough train fare to get there, so she pretends to be 12-year-old Su-Su and purchases a half fare ticket. The train conductors smell a rat immediately, and while evading them, Su-Su jumps inside a compartment, occupied by Major Philip Kirby (Milland). Still in character, Su-Su explains she’s returning home alone, and Philip insists on watching over her until he has to exit the train in Indiana. Unfortunately, the train breaks down near there, and Philip demands that Su-Su not wait on the train by herself, but to come to his fiancee’s, Pamela’s, house, until the train is running again. Su-Su reluctantly agrees, but upon arrival, she is finally sniffed out by Pamela’s little sister Lucy. Lucy agrees to play along, but her time at the house, overlooking the military school where Philip works and constantly beset by boys who notice “something special” about Su-Su, will be a challenge. Doesn’t get less complicated as Susan falls in love with Philip. Though it loses a bit of steam in the epilogue, it’s a very funny film and endearing in the classic Hollywood mold. ★★★½

Double Indemnity, released in 1944, is cited as having “set the standard for film noir.” High praise, but as is rarely the case in my experience, the film delivers. Billy Wilder wrote the screenplay with crime fiction master Raymond Chandler, and it tells. The film stars Fred MacMurray as Walter Neff, an insurance salesman who is calling on a client when he meets the client’s wife, Phyllis. The viewer can see immediately that Phyllis is bad news, but Walter is smitten immediately. And after she tells him about how big of a brute her husband is, Walter wants to help. They devise a plan to kill the husband and make it look like an accident, so that she can cash in on a new life insurance policy. If they make it happen on a train, the insurance’s double indemnity clause kicks in, paying 100k instead of the standard 50k. But Phyllis is not all that she appears, and Walter’s bosses at the insurance firm are not easily fooled by an easy death. Fantastically dark noir with the perfect femme fatale role with Barbara Stanwyck as Phyllis. There’s some great twists in the end too that really keep you on your toes. ★★★★½

A trend I’m seeing in these movies is, despite wildly different subjects and themes, Wilder lands star after star in his films. Doesn’t get any bigger than Kirk Douglas in Ace in the Hole. He plays Chuck Tatum, a journalist with a flare for the dramatic, who can’t keep a job due to his constant drinking. He’s found himself at a small paper in Albuquerque, and his loud, cocky attitude gets him a job (and possibly his last chance). Assigned to cover a small-town event out in the boons, Tatum stumbles upon a story: a local man, Leo Minosa, has just been trapped in a cave that very day. Tatum runs straight to the cave and finds Leo, his legs trapped but otherwise healthy. Seeing a story, Tatum gathers the sheriff and engineers and concocts a tale: Leo is stuck in a cursed cave, in trouble by Indian spirits for traversing their hollowed grounds. The story spreads like wildfire, and people from all over start flocking to the cave. The engineer says they can get Leo out in 16 hours, but Tatum needs his five seconds of fame to last longer than that, so he gets the engineer to dig from the top rather than go through the side, a process that will take a week. And in that week, the people keep on coming, until a literal carnival arrives (satirically, the circus is most definitely in town). In the meantime, Leo’s estranged wife, who was about to leave him, stays behind to run their diner, which is now seeing hopping business, bringing in money which she still intends to use to leave her husband. But will Leo live to see the fruits of it all? If the movie weren’t so tragic, its over-the-top depiction of sleazy journalism gone mad would be comic, but Douglas’s cynical Tatum is full of energy and completely compelling. ★★★★

I had another epiphany about Wilder with Some Like it Hot. Some directors want to stress a point, some want to show off their ability, some want to push their own views; Billy Wilder just wanted to entertain, and have a good time doing it. You can tell he had a good time in this film, one of the greatest comedies of all time. It stars Jack Lemmon, Tony Curtis, and Marilyn Monroe at the height of her fame. (By the way, I had to choose between this film and the other Wilder/Monroe picture, Seven Year Itch, which features the iconic scene of Marilyn getting her dress blown up by the vent; I went with this one due to higher reviews and apparently more lasting appeal.) Taking place in 1929 prohibition era, musicians Joe and Jerry are playing at an underground speakeasy when it is raided by police, who are after crime boss Spats Colombo. Spats is of course surrounded by good lawyers and doesn’t do any time, but he hunts down the man who tipped off the police, and shoots him up. Unfortunately for Joe and Jerry, they witness the murder and are now on Spats’s hit list. Their way out: dressing in drag so as to join an all-female band who is heading south to Florida for a gig. What starts as a crime noir turns into a comedy for the ages. Speaking in falsetto, the “girls” fall in with the rest of the band, whose singer Sugar Kane (Monroe) says she always falls for the bad bad saxophone player. “Josephine,” now the sax player in the band, seems like he might be the next, and he’ll go to great lengths, including impersonating a millionaire once they hit Florida, in order to get and keep Sugar’s attention. The boys aren’t in the clear though; a big mobster get together in Florida brings Spats down from Chicago. Absolutely hilarious film, and looks to have stood the test of time. Despite the boys dressing up as girls, they don’t belittle women and in fact, Lemmon’s character (as a girl) loves being wooed by a wealthy older man in Florida. In the beginning, surrounded by girls in the band, he has to keep reminding himself, “I’m a girl.” When a rich man is lavishing “her” with gifts, he has to start reminding himself, “I’m a boy.” I’m pretty sure Wilder wasn’t trying to make a statement*, he was just trying to get a laugh, but in doing so, his film has been able to avoid today’s social warriors, and remains a hell of a good time.

*Or maybe he was. Joe goes by Josephine, but Jerry, instead of going by Geraldine as Joe assumed, chooses his own name, Daphne, much like transitioning people today may choose a new name. For the rest of the film afterwards, Joe is still very much a man in woman’s clothing, ditching the clothes whenever possible, but Jerry/Daphne rarely goes back, and embraces being a woman more and more as the movie progresses. Funny? Definitely. But was there more to it in Wilder’s eyes? ★★★★★

OK, now I’m in a quandary. I gave the above film 5 stars because it deserves it, but then what do I do for a masterpiece like The Apartment? I’ve painted myself in a corner! The titled New York apartment belongs to C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon), a lowly insurance underwriter with an eye for advancing quickly in the company, sort of in a How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying kind of way, for you musical fans out there. His job is dreary, but the one highlight of his day is riding in the elevator with the beautiful and charming elevator operator, Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine). Baxter’s been lending his apartment to higher-ups in the company to use for clandestine dates with their side-pieces, in order to keep away from their respective wives. To this end, Baxter spends more time away from his apartment than in it, but he does finally get that promotion when the personnel director, Jeff Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray) starts making use of the apartment too. Unfortunately (and unknown to) Baxter, Sheldrake’s current girlfriend is Ms Kubelik. She’s been on Sheldrake to leave his wife for some time, but of course he always has an excuse. It isn’t until Kubelik talks to Sheldrake’s secretary, herself a one-time girlfriend to the man, that she realizes that Sheldrake has been using the same old lines for years now, on multiple women. In a fit of despair, Kubelik attempts to kill herself in Baxter’s apartment one night after Sheldrake has left her there, by swallowing a whole bunch of pills. Baxter comes home in time to save her, but even then, he won’t mention a bad word about Sheldrake. In fact, Baxter’s too-good-to-be-true attitude throughout the film doesn’t have him thinking or talking bad about anyone, no matter how many times they rub his face in the dirt. You have to watch through to the end to see how it all plays out, but be ready for a film far more emotional than what you may have expected in the beginning. A taught film, with a tight plot, heavy on the laughs but equally heavy on the tears, this movie has got it all. And judging by these 5 films, Billy Wilder was one hell of a consistent deliverer. ★★★★★

• TV series currently watching: House of the Dragon (season 1)
• Book currently reading: Chapterhouse Dune by Frank Herbert

Everyone passably interested in film has heard of the French New Wave, but ever heard of the Black Wave? A film movement out of Communist Yugoslavia in the 60s and 70s, it too bucked traditional film approaches, and was led by a group of young directors, Dušan Makavejev being one. Today I’ll be viewing 5 of his films, starting with his first, Man is Not a Bird, released in 1965. It doesn’t have a traditional narrative plot (much like the New Wave), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t entertaining. The film takes place around a mining town and, at first, we think worker Barbulovic is the main character (I should have known better though; there is no “main character, as I quickly learned). He starts a brawl at a bar, which gets the woman singer knifed. She’s “known by the men” about town, and the police throw Barbulovic in jail for a couple days for starting the fight. When he gets out, he has to confront his wife, who is upset with him for giving her 3 best dresses to his mistress (yet another woman). Interspersed throughout, there’s another story involving a man named Rudinski, who is an engineer who has come to the town to modernize the mine, making it more profitable and more productive. Rudinski starts a relationship with the only blonde in town, whose hair color sets her apart from all the other dark-haired locals, and thus is the object of desire of many men. When Rudinski finishes his job at the mine and is ready to move on, he has to make a decision on what he’ll do with his new girlfriend, a decision we aren’t privy to. Much like the New Wave, the film doesn’t answer every question, and while this kind of film isn’t for everyone, if you generally like the New Wave (and I do), you’ll find plenty to enjoy. A great first effort from the director. ★★★½

The director’s second film had the unwieldy title of Love Affair, or the Case of the Missing Switchboard Operator. After a (seemingly, though it makes sense later) introduction by a sex expert, given in a documentary-like way directed at the camera, we meet our switchboard operator, Izabela. A beautiful young woman from Hungary, she has a first date with a member of the Yugoslav communist party, Ahmed, who works in the sanitation department trying to keep the rampant rat population under control. He gives off creepster vibes at first, but you soon realize that he does genuinely care for Izabela. Just as the couple is taking their relationship up a notch and moving in together, we get another break from the story. Instead of a sex talk, we hear from a criminologist, talking about how to dispose of bodies and whatnot. Afterwards, in a flash forward, a woman’s body is found in a well, and just a bit later, an autopsy is performed where we learn she was 3 months pregnant. If the title of the film didn’t give it away, an astute viewer will recognize the woman is Izabela, so the table is set for the rest of the film, and it definitely adds a layer of suspense. Izabela and Ahmed seem very much in love and all is good, until he goes out of town for work for a whole month, and Izabela succumbs to the advances of a postal worker who won’t leave her alone. The resulting pregnancy is a surprise, but Ahmed initially thinks the child is his. We never see how he finds out the truth, that little discussion/argument is kept from the viewer, but the end result doesn’t disappoint. Very well put-together film. A little more out-there with the breaks to the storyline (there are several I didn’t bring up here), but it is good overall. ★★★

Innocence Unprotected is an interesting film, but unfortunately one that is more interesting than entertaining. It is a quasi-documentary about a Yugoslavik film of the same name which was released in 1941 during German occupation. The 1941 film has the distinguishment of being the first sound film made in Serbia in the local language. As such it received a big ovation when it was released, which the Germans didn’t like (it squeezed out the German cinema), but then the director took the reels and hid them, so it never expanded past its opening showing. Then, after the war, the Yugoslavia government banned the film and there were whispers of charging the filmmakers with collusion with the Germans in making the film. All of that is ridiculous, because the film was made without German knowledge or approval. Anyway, fascinating story, so what the new film does is look back at the original production, as well as interview the surviving cast and crew about their experiences, mostly focusing on star Dragoljub Aleksić, who was a locally famous acrobat whose death-defying acts amazed Europe after World War I. Unfortunately the film didn’t do it for me. I think Makavejev was really going for a nationalist, pro-home country feel, and it achieved that, but for outsiders, the movie’s a bit dull. ★½

WR: Mysteries of the Organism is supposed to be Makavejev’s masterpiece, garnering acclaim at the 1971 Cannes Film Festival. I don’t get it at all though. It’s even more experimental than the above film, and opens basically as a documentary. The WR is Wilhelm Reich, an Austrian doctor who worked under Sigmund Freud until splitting off with his own ideas. Reich was a proponent of the powers of sexual energy and, specifically, the power of orgasm. He said this power could be harnessed through special machines and could do everything from calm nerves to cure cancer His radical ideas, even in the USA where he fled during World War II, led to imprisonment (he died in jail) and later, the seizing of his equipment by the FDA and a mass book burning right here in the USA. The film details much of these events, as well as a cobbled-together story in the latter half about a revolutionary woman in Yugoslavia who believes these ideas, and who tries to convert a pro-Communist young man. The woman exclaims loudly and proudly that Communism could be stronger if it didn’t suppress sexual desires in its population. Obviously the film is very graphic in spots; that part didn’t bother me so much, but it’s just so over the top weird. Its content obviously got it banned in its home country, and I’m confident that’s the only reason critics think so highly of it. They love a good pushing-the-boundaries kind of movie. ★

Sweet Movie started a lot better, maybe because this time, I actually got a story to follow. Two stories in fact. One follows a rich American tycoon who always wants the best, so he started a Star Search-like contest to find himself the perfect virgin to marry. As women are paraded on stage for a gynecologist to examine their rose buds, jokes are aplenty. The woman chosen, Miss Canada, is happy to be picked until that night, when the tycoon (played by Animal House’s John Vernon) takes down his pants and has had his penis gold plated. It scares her enough to want to leave, but rather than let her go, the tycoon has his henchman knock her out, stuff her body in a suitcase, and ship her off to Paris. There, she ends up in a wild cabal of sex and debauchery. The other story follows a woman named Ann, who is captaining a ship traversing around Amsterdam. Her boat is full of candy, with which she lures young boys onboard. Sex is never shown but definitely implied, so that’s tough to stomach. The movie as a whole started off fine enough. It’s an absurdist comedy, and while some graphic scenes are rough, they’re nothing like the above couple pictures. That is, until, the film devolves in the last act; both stories run off the rails and lose all narrative, becoming nothing more than garbage. Oh well, should have stopped after the first 2 movies today. ★½

• TV series currently watching: She-Hulk (miniseries)
• Book currently reading: Chapterhouse Dune by Frank Herbert 

Up today is a whole bunch of films from the silent era of American film. There’s a little bit of everything in here (except Chaplin, seen a whole lot of those already), starting with a trio of films by director Josef von Sternberg. Underworld set me off to a great start. A crime drama, it begins with a loudmouth gangster named “Bull” Weed as he’s pulling off his latest heist. Flush with money, he goes to the local bar to meet his girl, “Feathers” McCoy. There, Feathers is getting some attention from Bull’s rival gangster, “Buck” Mulligan, who also finds joy in belittling the town drunk, “Rolls Royce” Wensel. First off, let’s take a moment to enjoy all those names. Anyway, Bull comes to Rolls’ rescue and puts Buck in his place, but Buck swears revenge. Rolls and Bull become pals, and Bull is able to get Rolls sober, making him a confidant in his schemes. Clean and sober, Rolls is a different guy entirely, and Feathers appreciates his gentle touch, a much different man than the brash Bull Weed. Bull is the jealous type though, in fact, he later kills Buck at a party when Buck makes advances on Feathers. Now Feathers and Rolls have to decide if they should try to break Buck out of jail before he is hung for murder, or if they should take this chance to have a life together. This is simply a fantastic film. I don’t often look to silent films for stellar acting; there’s good stuff out there, but too often actors go overboard. Clive Brook in particular as Rolls is incredibly emotive and subtle, and George Bancroft as Bull is the perfect redeemable bad guy. One of those films that sweeps you up, and you forget that it is a silent picture. I was completely immersed. ★★★★½

The Docks of New York brings Bancroft back, this time as an antihero. He plays Bill Roberts, a steamboat stoker who has a reputation in every port as a lady’s man. Tattooed up and down his arms with crude pictures of naked girls, he works his tail off on ship, so he’s ready to party when they dock. He’s warned by the ship’s engineer, Andy, that he’ll only have the one night and is expected back the next morning. Heading to the local bar, Bill hears a splash, and rescues Mae from drowning. Mae, a prostitute, was attempting suicide, but Bill will have none of that. He steals some new clothes for her, nurses her back to health, and takes her down to the bar to party. In a drunkenly good mood, Bill exclaims that he’ll marry Mae to make her an honest woman. Mae can’t believe it (and neither can anyone else, including Bill’s boss Andy, who’s at the same bar; Andy likes to visit the ladies in port too, but this time he unexpectedly runs into his estranged wife, who has found comfort with other men in her husband’s absence). Bill hunts down a pastor and makes good on his promise that night, using Andy’s and his wife’s rings, since they obviously aren’t doing that couple any good. Of course, Bill has no intention of filing the marriage paperwork the next morning to make it legit, and deep down, Mae knows that too, but she’s happy with the one evening of bliss. But will Bill have a change of heart in the end? I think Bancroft made a better villain in the previous film; his surly character and sneering face don’t play as well for a hero, but the story is still wonderfully told. ★★★½

After The Last Command, I think I’ve found one of my new favorite directors. Von Sternberg’s last film today begins with Leo Andreyev, a Russian film director working in Hollywood in present day (1928). He’s reviewing photos of actors, looking for extras for his next film. He finds the picture of Sergius Alexander and sees something in him immediately. In Sergius’s bio, it says he was related to the former Czar and was a decorated general. Sergius is brought in for wardrobe and makeup, and the old man has a serious tick, and is obviously not all there in the head, making him the butt of jokes by the other actors. We then get a flashback 11 years ago, to 1917 Russian, during the Bolshevik revolution. Sergius leads the Russian army against a losing cause, but they don’t know it yet. Two spies are brought in to Sergius, a man and a woman, who are actors supposedly building morale for the troops, but who are really revolutionists. Sergius is instantly attracted to the beautiful Natalia, but astute viewers recognize her companion as the director in present day, Leo. Sergius beats Leo with a riding whip and sends him away, but makes Natalia his companion. She has a chance to kill him but sees that, while they are ideologically opposed, Sergius loves Russia as much as she, and she can’t bring herself to do it. She ends up falling in love with him, but their relationship obviously can never last. After Russia’s government falls and Sergius’s and Natalia’s love ends in tragedy, we go back to present day, and see that Leo had hired Sergius in order to exact a perverse revenge. But will he get what he wants (or want what he gets)? As Sergius, Emil Jannings won a Best Actor Oscar in the first Academy Awards ceremony in 1929 (there’s a neat trivia answer for you!). A tremendous film again, moving and heartbreaking, and I’ll need to look up more movies by this director in the future! ★★★★½

The 3 best silent film era comic actors were Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, and Buster Keaton. I’ve seen films from the first two (with more Lloyd coming up today), but The Cameraman is my first Keaton film. Known as maybe the best pure comic actor of the trio, Keaton did not disappoint. In the beginning of the film, Buster is selling tintype photos for a dime on the street when he sees and instantly falls for the beautiful Sally. He follows her to work, a secretary in the MGM news company. To be near her, Buster goes out and buys a (very cheap) video camera, in hopes of getting a job at MGM. Somewhere along the way, he does get a date with Sally. Everywhere Buster goes though, hilarity ensues. Whether it’s fighting with another man in the tiny changing room of a public pool (or losing his suit in the water), or getting stuck out in the rain after his date is driven home by another man, whatever the case may be, Buster is always the butt of the joke. At the same time, you have to appreciate his go-getter attitude, both in the role and as the actor. Keaton never met a stunt he wouldn’t do for a laugh, and took a ton of risks in his career. In one memorable scene in this movie, he climbs a long ladder up 20+ feet, and as he reaches the ledge at the top, the ladder falls away, leaving him dangling. He lifts himself up, only to see the ledge teeter and fall forward to the ground way down below carrying him (standing the whole time now) and landing on his feet. No nets, no mattress to catch him. Stunts like this pervade, and while a little scary to watch, I laughed and laughed, the whole way through. ★★★★

Keaton’s Spite Marriage unfortunately isn’t as strong. The story of a dry cleaner (Keaton) who falls in love with a stage actress (Trilby Drew, played by Dorothy Sebastian), it has the laughs but none of the emotional triumph that The Cameraman exhibited. Keaton is smitten by Trilby when he first lays eyes on her, and begins to attend her every performance, sitting in the front row and dressed to the nines. The cast and crew think he’s a millionaire, but Trilby isn’t interested; she only loves her costar Lionel. Lionel though has a wandering eye, and is now taken up with a young blonde. To get back at him, Trilby rashly marries Keaton one night, but immediately regrets it. Her agent tries to come to her rescue, begging Keaton to leave the city for a time so that Trilby can file divorce papers due to abandonment. Before Keaton can agree, fate pulls him off anyway. In a strange turn of events, he witnesses a crime, then hides from the criminals on a boat, which heads off to sea. Too bad for him that Trilby and Lionel are on the boat trying to reconcile. Keaton’s antics aren’t as hilarious in this go-around, though he still defies death (like when a mast swings out over the sea, with him dangling from the end). Instead of the laugh-out-loud guffaws of the previous film, this one elicited more chuckles. You do see the effects of sound film on this 1929 piece though. Though it has no spoken dialogue, the soundtrack is synced, and elements you see on screen are incorporated (the laughing and applause of the audience in the theater, the marching of solders on stage, etc.). ★★

Harold Lloyd is sort of the forgotten member of the “big 3” of silent comic stars, though he was just as big of a draw at the time. I read a story somewhere that he didn’t allow his films on television, as he didn’t want them chopped up for commercial breaks and whatnot. Until home movies became a thing, this led to a generation-plus of viewers who regularly got to see Keaton and Chaplin, but never Lloyd, so his star diminished some. VHS/DVD/BLU and now streaming have reminded people of his genius. First up is his 1925 film The Freshman. Harold plays Harold Lamb, an incoming freshman to Tate University. He’s completely gung-ho, a little too excited, and wants to go in and immediately make an impression. Of course, others take advantage of that spunk, and it isn’t long before Harold is the butt of jokes on campus. It gets worse when he tries out for the football team, and ends up being the tackle dummy on practices, and the water boy during the games. The height of the laughs come when he throws a party at his boarding house, and wears a suit that unravels throughout the night. But in the final game of the season, Harold may get a chance to prove his mettle. Lloyd plays the lovable loser well, and his ability to keep a gag going is on view the entire film, but the film isn’t a real standout like some of the above films. ★★½

Lloyd is the underdog again in 1927’s The Kid Brother, this time playing Harold Hickory. As an early intertitle tells us, the stork probably laughed the whole time he was delivering Harold to the Hickory family; he does not fit in. His dad Jim is the sheriff of Hickoryville, and his two older brothers are just as big and burly as father Jim. Harold is the skinny kid and is always left at home when “men work” is to be done. However, when they are away one day, a traveling medicine show pulls into town, and go the Hickory home to get the sheriff’s OK to peddle their wares in town, and mistake Harold for the sheriff. Harold later tries to make it right, but of course things don’t go well. Like in The Freshman, there’s also a lady he’s trying to impress, but he doesn’t need to try as hard as he thinks he does, as he has her eye from the beginning. I had harder laughs than the above film; the comedic highlight is when the girl supposedly stays the night on the couch, and the brothers think she’s still there, feeding her food and coffee over and around a privacy blanket, when in reality she had left during the night and it is Harold on the couch. When they find they’ve been duped, the brothers go after Harold, but he hilariously evades them. When the town runs into serious trouble from a thief, Harold will need to step in to try to save the day. ★★★½

Speedy was Lloyd’s last silent film, released in 1928 (afterwards, he would be one of the rare silent actors to successfully transition to sound). It’s also my favorite of this trio of his films. He loses the underdog role, and is a popular man with a girlfriend from the beginning, though he can’t keep a job, and always lives on the edge of being broke. Especially after a funny day at Coney Island with his girl when everything wrong happens (though they have a good time). Harold’s one-day grandfather-in-law runs an old school horse-drawn streetcar, the last in New York, and he’s under pressure to sell it to a group who wants to modernize. But, at Harold’s urging, the man won’t let it go for peanuts. The group wanting to buy is ready to play hardball though, so Harold must once again save the day. The memorable gag in this film: Harold’s (again, only lasting a single day) job of taxi driver, where he gets a couple speeding tickets while driving cops after robbers (who disappear just long enough to not provide Harold his alibi), and a turn driving, of all people, Babe Ruth to Yankee Stadium. Buster Keaton may be more daring, and Charlie Chaplin may be more sentimental, but Harold Lloyd has them both beat on how to keep a joke going. In all three films, there were a couple times where he did a gag, ran it again, ran it again, and kept building on it, until you, as the viewer, went from minor chuckles to huge belly laughs by the end of it. ★★★★

• TV series currently watching: Star Trek Strange New Worlds (season 1)
• Book currently reading: Chapterhouse Dune by Frank Herbert

A Chiara (English: To Chiara) is an Italian indie film, about a 15-year old girl (Chiara) who discovers the perfect little image her family has cultivated isn’t so perfect. At the beginning, the extended family is celebrating Chiara’s older sister Carmela’s 18th birthday. The sisters obviously love their father, Claudio, who seems to be the center of their universe. After the party though, when they return home, Chiara sees a few things amiss, such as whispered, heated exchanges, and suddenly, Claudio’s car, parked in front of their expansive house, blows up. The girls’ mother whisks everyone to bed, saying they’ll talk everything through in the morning, but when day comes, Claudio is gone, and no one says a word. Carmela seems to know what’s up, but she isn’t talking, so Chiara takes it upon herself to solve the mystery. And mystery it is, especially when news reports show that Claudio is a fugitive from the international police, with possible ties to the mafia. Chiara starts following her older cousin Antonio around, as he visits the local Roma community, as he might know where Claudio is hiding. When Chiara finds him, she’ll need to decide if she’s ready to join him in his new life. The film starts out slow (the “table setting” takes entirely too long), but does build to a fairly good whodunit, though unfortunately it suffers from amateurish “shaky cam” syndrome. I don’t know why so many young directors think handheld cams will automatically make the film feel more real or authentic. Yes, it can be done well, but more often that not it’s just distracting. And for my tastes, Chiara doesn’t always come off as a sympathetic figure; sometimes she’s just a snotty spoiled brat who likes to get her way. ★★½

If you are a frequent reader of my blog, you may have noticed a genre that is often lacking: horror. I’m not opposed to a good scary film, but I like *real* thrills and not cheap jump scares. Thus, I was excited at the prospect of Men when I first saw previews. However, despite an excellent director (Alex Garland) and tremendous lead (Jessie Buckley), the film got middling reviews, and I put it on the back burner. Finally got around to it, and I have to say, it is far better than you may have heard. In the film, Harper has retreated from the city to a quiet, expansive estate on the outskirts of a little town. She’s renting the place for some R&R and to get her life back on track after the suicide of her husband James. However, as the film goes along, we see that she is wracked by guilt over his gruesome death, guilt that she has been unable to face. At the same time, events around this quiet little town are unsettling, to say the least. While out walking the nearby woods one day, Harper comes across a naked man. He follows her back to the house before Harper is able to call the police and get him arrested. Then, she has a run-in with a creepy boy in town, a creepier town priest (who seems to make her feel worse rather than better when they talk), and not to mention the almost-too-congenial owner of the house she is renting. Something that Harper doesn’t realize but of course we see, is that all these men are being portrayed by the same actor. And when those men start coming after Harper in the end, shifting from person to person, the viewer is left with a mind trip wondering what the hell is going on. There’s a lot of metaphors and symbolism in this movie, which I’m sure is what garnered the poor reviews, but damn if it isn’t entertaining, and certainly scary. ★★★½

As an avid movie watcher, I love it when a film comes out of nowhere and surprises me. Dinner in America did just that. The two main characters are Patty and Simon. Patty is an awkward young woman, living with her parents in suburbia and working a going-nowhere job. Relentlessly and ruthlessly teased on the public buses or by the local high school jocks, she has a secret when she’s by herself: her love of punk rock, to which she lets loose when alone in her bedroom, dancing and masterbating to her favorite band Psyops. She even sends poetry and Polaroids of herself “in the act” to its singer, the persona “John Q” who hides his identity behind a ski mask. Patty is forced out of her shell when she meets Simon. Simon is Patty’s opposite; he doesn’t take shit from anyone, and will even get beat up when he is outnumbered by running his mouth when he sees an injustice to stand up for. Patty and Simon meet accidentally but immediately connect. What Patty doesn’t know is that Simon is actually John Q. The singer of the underground punk band, he is on the run from the police for his past transgressions, but the viewer can see that he has a good heart, and he won’t let people put Patty down anymore. This is a delightful rom-com in a very different style than what you’ve seen before. Newcomer director Adam Rehmeier is definitely learning on the job, but he has a steady hand and I see bright things in his future. Both of the leads are great too, especially Kyle Gallner as Simon, who is unafraid to make people uncomfortable, but yet has a soft spot for the downtrodden. The movie’s language will shock, but as with the punk scene (which the movie portrays amazingly), that’s part of the point. ★★★★

Werewolf by Night is the latest Marvel Studios experiment that seems to have worked. Coming in at just under an hour, it was too short for a theatrically released film, and apparently they didn’t want to stretch it out for a multi-episode series, so it was released as a special presentation on Disney+ (another one is scheduled for December, and the rumor mill is saying more are on the way). This one is taking advantage of the Halloween season to do an old school, black and white monster movie. At some unknown time (past, present, or future?) a group of monster hunters gather at the Bloodstone family mansion for a contest. Ulysses Bloodstone has recently died, and without a clear heir (his estranged daughter Elsa is present for the hunt too), he is leaving his Bloodstone relic to the hunter who can kill a beast this evening. The beast has been captured and set loose on their maze-like grounds, and the first hunter to kill it will get the relic. Of course, the hunters are also allowed to take each other out during the hunt, so what we get is a Mortal Kombat-like blood fest (good thing it’s black and white, or the Disney sensors may have raised an eyebrow). Elsa’s attendance is questioned by her mother, but the other hunters are all in, including the mysterious Jack Russell, who is the true main character of the film, and who may not be who or what he seems. The title obviously gives it away. But it’s a great little film, much different in feel and approach from the usual Marvel superhero fare. While I love the Marvel films, a breath of fresh air is welcome. ★★★★½

The Greatest Beer Run Ever is a war film, based on a true story about average joe John “Chickie” Donohue, who, in 1967/68, left his cozy New York neighborhood to bring beer to the soldiers he knew who were fighting in Vietnam. Chickie was a former Marine, but was stationed in the states during his service time before the war, and never left safe ground. Many of the young men he grew up with are now dying in the war, but there are still 4 or 5 over there that are living (including one that is currently MIA). Chickie gets the harebrained idea to bring them some beer from home, to raise their spirits and bring messages from family and friends back home. He joins up on a supply ship that very night, and heads to Vietnam with a bag full of PBR. As soon as he arrives, he realizes he can’t just hitchhike up the countryside to find his buds. One is in Saigon when he gets in, and as a civilian, even getting on the base to see him is a challenge for Chickie. The friend tries to warn Chickie off and tell him to head back right away; a war-torn country is no place for civilians to go on a vacation. Chickie is having none of that though, he has 3 days until due back on the ship to go back to the USA, and he goes north to where the fighting is going on. The rest of the movie is an eye-opening experience for Chickie and the viewers. I’m a 40-something, it was my parents who were alive during Vietnam (my Dad, thankfully, was not drafted). But to see this movie and be reminded of the lies our government was telling its citizens about what was going on over there, it is easy to see why there are so many people in that generation who are dubious (to put it lightly) about anything anyone in authority says on TV. The film is not as bad as the “professional” critics are calling it. It’s not great, but it is a decent film, and plenty emotional in the end. ★★½

• TV series currently watching: Yellowstone (season 4)
• Book currently reading: Time of the Twins by Weis & Hickman

I think I’m right in this, but I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen a film by Japanese maverick director Seijun Suzuki. A director whose style got him blacklisted for a decade, his films were irreverent but cool. Today I’m looking at five of his films before he disappeared for 10 years, starting with 1960’s Take Aim at the Police Van. The title refers to the opening scene: a police truck is transporting prisoners when it comes under fire. Two prisoners are killed, but one, Goro, survives, and he was to be let go soon anyway. The driver of the van, a security guard, is not content to let the police dig into what happened, as he doesn’t feel it is high on their priorities to find who killed some cons. The guard, Tamon, hits the streets. He checks in on Goro, who isn’t talking, despite Tamon feeling like he knows something, so he looks up the girlfriends of those who were killed. His hunt takes him to a prostitution ring and all the seediest spots and people in town. The movie is at times outlandish and feels a bit like a Hollywood B movie (which, I’m pretty sure, is Suzuki’s intent). While not my favorite genre, it is fun in the right spots. ★★½

Youth of the Beast was, for my tastes, a much more exciting picture, though stylistically, it is much the same. If anything, maybe even more over the top. But the story is more engaging. The film begins with the death of a police detective, Takeshita, who it seems was killed in a murder/suicide by a prostitute, his lover. From there, the story follows Joji “Jo” Mizuno, a hoodlum who seems hell-bent on getting the attention of both rival yakuza gangs in town, Nomoto and Sanko. His actions gain him a meeting with Nomoto’s leader, Tetsuo, who hires Jo as an enforcer. Unbeknownst to Tetsuo, Jo is investigating Takeshita’s death. Jo doesn’t believe for a minute that Jo was killed by a prostitute, thinking that the crime lords in the city are behind it, but he doesn’t know why, and he doesn’t know who the actual murderer was. Jo is getting to know everyone in Nomoto’s organization, and before long, he heads over to the Sanko family to do the same, pretending to be a double-crosser against Nomoto. Finally, we learn that Jo was once Takeshita’s partner, and he is out to get justice and the truth for Takeshita’s widow. An explosive film full of gunfights and action, and an ending that you do not see coming. It’s a hell of a ride from beginning to end. ★★★½

Gate of Flesh hits it out of the park, and shows me why Suzuki was so well thought of (and not just for showing lots of skin, though the title may imply it). The film takes place just after World War II, during the American occupation, in the slums of Tokyo, and follows a quartet of women who are earning a living the only way they can: selling their bodies. The film’s central character is Maya, who begins the movie by stealing on the streets after she lost her husband in the war. When she is caught, she is given a chance to not have to steal, by becoming a prostitute. The women she falls in with are not victims though; they wear their profession with pride. They live in a bombed out warehouse, take care of themselves, look after each other, and don’t take shit from anyone, not even the American soldiers that pervade the area. Their one rule: don’t give sex away for free. Their bodies are their currency, and everyone has to pay. When a woman does fall in love and doesn’t charge her beau, she is beaten by the other women and cast out of the group. Maya quickly learns the ropes and finds a home, but into this setting comes Ibuki. Ibuki, a former Japanese soldier, was shot while stealing from the local army base, and comes into the women’s shelter to hide out. They allow him to stay while he recoups, but his presence brings problems, as a couple women, Maya and the group’s leader, start to fall for him. There are moments in the film which are definitely hard to watch, and Suzuki doesn’t just skirt controversy but instead hits it head on, but the film has a much deeper meaning than just showing the hard knocks of life on the streets. Excellently shot too; the viewer is enveloped in the seedy underbelly of Tokyo and feels the plights of the films’ characters. ★★★★½

Story of a Prostitute follows a woman, Harumi, who is jilted by her true love, and rather than get back on the horse, she agrees to be sent to the front line in Japan’s war with China and become a prostitute for the soldiers. Roll with me here. Once in camp, she and the other half dozen or so girls are told they’ll be servicing a whole battalion, so they’ll be working from early afternoon to late night, every day. Harumi doesn’t seem like she’s going to mind it much, until she catches the eye of the camp’s commander, Narita. Narita is a sadistic a-hole, and loves demeaning Harumi. Making matters worse, Harumi is instantly attracted to a young soldier in camp, Mikami. And Narita being who he is, he won’t let either find pleasure, forbidding Harumi to sleep with Mikami. Don’t expect a happy-go-lucky film here. Unfortunately, don’t expect a great film either. Unlike in the above films, I could never connect with the main protagonist; she seems to get herself into trouble at every turn, and then spend a few minutes screaming (very loudly) about it. ★½

Tokyo Drifter is a chaotic mess, but sometimes it’s a fun mess. Tetsu is a former hit man for the yakuza boss Kurata, who recently has decided to get out of crime and go straight. Karuta’s former adversary, crime boss Otsuka, doesn’t quite believe it, and has sent his own assassin, Tatsuzo, to kill Tetsu. Unfortunately for all involved, Tetsu is one hard man to kill. Throughout the film, various people try, and no one succeeds. The man seems bulletproof. He doesn’t seem to care for anything other than 2 people: his girlfriend Chiharu (a singer at a night bar frequented by the mob) and Karuta, for whom Tetsu holds extreme loyalty. Karuta sends Tetsu away, ostensibly to keep them both safe, but more may be at play here. The gun and fist fights in this film are frequent and completely unrealistic; there is no such thing as too over the top for this director. So while you have to just go with some of the absurdity, there are moments where the silliness transcends disbelief and just becomes fun. ★★★

• TV series currently watching: We Own This City (miniseries)
• Book currently reading: Time of the Twins by Weis & Hickman 

Bros has been hailed as the first of its kind: an openly gay romcom with a predominately LGBTQ+ cast. It’s not the first film to do it, but it is the first to be produced by a major movie studio, because in the past, these kinds of pictures were done by indie studios and released quietly with little to no advertising. No such quiet release on this movie: it’s been plastered on promos and commercials, with a campaign as loud and proud as its lead and cowriter, Billy Eichner.

Eichner plays Bobby, a gay 40’s man living in New York, who hosts a podcast and radio show, and whose passion lies in spreading the history of gay people, making the world aware that some of its famous people of the past were in fact gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Furthering this goal, he’s put together funding for the National LGBTQ+ History Museum, the first of its kind, to open in Manhattan. Unfortunately the project keeps getting hit with delays due to lack of funding, and Bobby and his team butt heads over what displays they should even showcase.

In his personal life, Bobby, despite being 40 years old, has never been in love. He has casual sex with random men on Grindr but admits he’s never been in a serious relationship. Part of that comes from lack of confidence; though he’s comfortable talking work in front of a crowd, he’s much less so talking about his feelings to a single individual, and he feels he doesn’t meet the modern image of a gay man in a community dominated by muscular bodybuilding jocks. He’s come to the realization that he may just be single forever, but that stance may change when he meets Aaron. Aaron hails from a small town, which has made him more reserved and less comfortable in front of a crowd. But still, he is a big, strong dude, and initially, Bobby thinks he’s just another in the long line of one-night stands. As they continue to see each other though, they begin to start a relationship, and each man must face his demons if they are going to make it work.

The writing is pretty good when it sticks to what Eichner has been famous for: his comedy. The whole theater was laughing pretty hard in the first half of the film, where it pokes fun at gay and lesbian stereotypes, the world’s changing views on homosexuality and gender identity, and a host of other topics. Once the film settles into the romantic half of the romantic-comedy genre, it loses steam. If you were to substitute Aaron with a woman, you’d realize that this whole shtick has been done before, and done better. And honestly, some of the acting in the film is truly atrocious. The filmmakers obviously made it a point to fill the cast with LGBTQ+ people, many of whom are not actors, and it shows. I rate the comedy high, the drama low, and overall settle in at ★★★

Readers of my blog know I’m generally a fan of the French New Wave, so you may ask why I haven’t dove into François Truffaut yet. Honestly, no idea! He was one of the founders of the movement, and while I’ve seen a couple of his movies (I was lukewarm to The Last Metro, but liked Jules and Jim a lot more). Up today is his groundbreaking film The 400 Blows, its sequels, and a trio of other films by the director.

The 400 Blows, released in 1959, introduces us to Antoine Doinel, a boy trying to make his way through the tough situation that is life. At school, his mischievous nature makes him the target of the oppressive teacher, and his home life isn’t much better. His parents argue constantly, and his dad goes overboard trying to be the “fun parent,” made all the worse when he turns his back on Antoine later in the film. His vindictive parents, besides fighting with each other, are often downright cruel to Antoine. It’d be easy for him to give up on life, but through it all, he manages to keep his spirit. When he tries to run away though, and attempts a theft to get some cash, he ends up in juvie. The final scene of the film, with Antoine escaping and running as fast as he can, is incredible. He’s running from life, from his past, from all that was holding him back, and the scene encompasses all the pain he’s been through, and all the hope he has for the future. Best film I’ve seen in a long while. ★★★★★

Truffaut returned to Antoine 4 years later in the short Antoine et Colette (with actor Jean-Pierre Léaud returning as well; he would continue to portray Antoine down the years). Now 17 years old, Antoine is an emancipated minor doing what he says he always dreamed of: living on his own and supporting himself. His past comes back to bite him though, as he doesn’t know how to have a real relationship. Antoine spots Colette at a concert and is instantly smitten, but he smothers her. While Colette is giving off “friend vibes,” Antoine is moving across the street from her and her parents (who love Antoine and wish Colette would date him). Antoine doesn’t take no for an answer, and it isn’t until she brazenly goes out with another man right in front of him that he finally gets a clue. Cute little movie, which, if nothing else, sets up the man Antoine is becoming. ★★★½

Antoine is seen next in 1968’s Stolen Kisses. His penchant for getting into trouble never went away, and at the beginning of the film, he is being dishonorably discharged from the army for constantly going AWOL. He visits an ex-flame (Christine), but it seems that her parents, like in the above film, like Antoine more than she does. He bounces from job to job, always getting fired in bizarre, hilarious ways, until landing at a private detective agency. Here, he is tasked to spy on a shoe store owner’s staff. The owner, a cold narcissist who can’t understand why his staff doesn’t like him, wants the agency to “discover” the source of the animosity. Antoine does get something out of the job though; he becomes smitten by the boss’s wife, though he’s much too shy to hit on her directly. When she hears gossip of his crush though, she is intrigued and is not so inhibited. Though the first two films featured plenty of moments of brevity, this movie is more of a straight forward comedy. However, there are still moments of contemplation, including the very ending, which finds Antoine (at yet another new job) finally finding happiness in love with Christine. ★★★★

There isn’t a big time jump this time; Bed and Board came out just 2 years later. Happily married, Christine gives violin lessons out of their tiny apartment, but Antoine still can’t keep a job for long. The first full hour of this film is a lot of fluff, and unfortunately the humor is lot less “smart” and it falls prey to stupid gags, things like the argument over the new baby’s name, or Antoine working for an American though he doesn’t speak English. The only truly funny moment I enjoyed was the constant rumors amongst Antoine and his neighbors about “the strangler,” a mysterious man who no one knows anything about (though I did chuckle at the blink-or-you’ll-miss-it cameo of a Monsieur Hulot lookalike at the metro station). The movie (finally) takes off in the final 30 minutes, when Antoine begins an affair with another woman, a client of his boss. The final 20-30 minutes are outstanding, incredible, when the comedy is dropped and it turns into a drama, with some of the best lines in this film set so far. Five star stuff, but I can’t look past that first hour. This should have been a 30 minute short instead of a 90 minute comedy-turned-drama with a lot of extra weight. ★★★½

It was nearly a decade before Antoine Doinel appeared again, in his final appearance in 1979’s Love on the Run. I loved this movie, as a proper sendoff to the long-running character. The lovable Antoine has finally grown up a bit; he’s truly in love, for maybe the first time in his life, with a woman named Sabine. At the beginning of the film, Antoine is finalizing his divorce from Christine; their reconciliation at the end of Bed and Board was not to last. However, Antoine stands Sabine up on a date because he is taking his son to the train station, sending him off to camp, and there runs into his first “love,” Colette. In a moment of poor judgement, Antoine jumps on Colette’s train, to see how she’s been all these years, and thus misses his evening with Sabine. To make it up to Sabine, Antoine goes on a mission to prove his love to her. He has realized that he was a poor boyfriend to Colette, poor husband to Christine, but he’s (at long last) matured, and he just wants a chance. The film also sees him running into his mother’s former lover, one of apparently many men with whom she cheated on Antoine’s father, and he and Antoine share stories of Antoine’s parents, who have died in the intervening years. Here too, Antoine can look back at how far he’s come. Full of flashbacks to the previous films, the film is a very moving story about a man who came from a rough beginning and made something out of nothing. ★★★★½

Shoot the Piano Player was the first film that landed with a thud, for my tastes. A zany film that seems to defy labels or genres (which is, I guess, part of the point of the French New Wave), it follows a man named Charlie Koller, a piano player in a dive bar. He’s visited by his older brother, who’s on the run from some thieves he double-crossed, and this encounter sets off a crazy couple days for Charlie. For one, we learn that Charlie isn’t his real name; he used to be Edouard Saroyan, and was a celebrated concert pianist, but the story of his downfall is as crazy as the rest of the film. With his brother in hiding, the thugs go after Charlie instead, harassing him, his younger brother that lives with him, and his new girlfriend Lena, a waitress at that same bar. Then there’s a subplot involving the bar owner who also has eyes for Lena. And another about the prostitute who lives next door to Charlie, lending a hand to the younger brother as babysitter and a bed to Charlie when he’s lonely. Just all kinds of stuff going on, like Truffaut was throwing darts at a board full of plot lines, and ended up keeping them all. Parts comedy, parts tragedy, parts crime drama, it is tough to keep up. ★★

The Soft Skin is more streamlined, and also has a much different feel from any other Truffaut film I’ve seen so far. Truffaut admits he was watching a lot of Hitchcock at the time, and you can see his influence in this subtle thriller. At least, it’s how Truffaut does suspense. Pierre Lachenay is a well regarded author currently traveling a lot to promote some of his recent writings. Arriving in Lisbon one day, he is smitten by a pretty, young flight attendant, and the two come together for dinner and something more. The affair doesn’t end there; for the rest of the movie, Pierre increasingly finds excuses to escape his family and clandestinely meet Nicole, but his observant wife, Franca, catches on before too long. Franca is impetuous and can’t seem to make up her mind if she wants to throw him out or beg him to stay; Pierre does end up moving out, but finds that everyday life with Nicole isn’t as exciting as a fling with her. But Franca will have the last, very final, say in this relationship merry-go-round. Interesting film, and it grabs your attention in the beginning and doesn’t let go. It’s also a very real look at how humans can crave forbidden fruit but find it isn’t as sweet as you’d think. ★★★½

Day for Night is must-see for film lovers, and is considered one of best films ever made about filmmaking. Truffaut cast himself as a film director, Ferrand, who is making an international film titled Meet Pamela. The movie is to be made in a tight 7 week window, and everyone in the cast and crew have a feeling that it is going to be something special. However, it is beset with problems from the get-go. The story is about a couple, a Frenchman married to a British woman, whose marriage hits the rocks when he introduces his wife to his parents, and the woman falls in love with her father-in-law. A sticky situation in front of the camera, but there are even stickier affairs behind it. When writing the script, Ferrand envisioned actress Julie Baker (portrayed perfectly by Jacqueline Bisset) in the lead role, but she had a nervous breakdown a year ago, and she’s still shaky. The very immature Alphonse (Jean-Pierre Léaud) is to play her husband, and he takes any bad news very personally. Even his in-movie parents have baggage: Séverine is a former star past her prime and now has a drinking problem, and she once had an affair with her costar Alexandre, who is now a gay man with a much younger Italian lover. There are also constant problems on set: frequent delays despite the tight schedule, an actress who shows up pregnant, a cat that won’t eat on camera when needed, and a multitude more. Not to mention all of the sexual exploits between cast and crew! It’s a chaotic mess, but somehow, the movie gets made, and I have a feeling a whole lot of the films we see have these kinds of issues going on in the background. From a film lovers standpoint too, you get to see a lot of the “movie magic” that you just never get to see unless you work in movies: making it rain, stage sets, snow on the ground, stunts, lighting, props, makeup, and everything else you can imagine. The whole thing is a supremely wonderful experience. The movie won the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar (Truffaut was also nominated for Best Director), marking Truffaut’s only Oscar win amongst 6 nominations in his career. ★★★★★

• TV series currently watching: Tokyo Vice (season 1)
• Book currently reading: Time of the Twins by Weis & Hickman

A couple years ago I did a series of films by Roberto Rossellini. A whole bunch more today, starting with 1950’s The Flowers of St Francis (Italian: Francesco, giullare di Dio). Based on a 14th century book, it isn’t exactly the life of Francis of Assisi, but more glimpses at his piety and teachings. The movie is made up of 9 short vignettes, exhibiting various parables, each supposed to extol a moral code. The writing is decent (Federico Fellini was a cowriter), but Rossellini’s obsession with using nonprofessional actors is baffling. To make the film, he had actual monks play Francis and his fellow friars, and they aren’t good, to the point of being distracting. The stories are cute, and some are quite funny, but I can’t feel the emotions of the characters on screen when they are displaying none. ★★

The Taking of Power by Louis XIV (French: La prise de pouvoir par Louis XIV) was a TV film Rossellini did for French television in 1966. The title is a bit misleading because, while it does show King Louis XIV consolidating his power and making the French throne the most powerful it had ever been or would be again, that makes up only about 30 minutes of this 90 minute film. Fully the first 50 minutes deals with the dying and death of Cardinal Mazarin, the de facto ruler of France for a couple decades as Louis was growing up (he was coronated at the age of 6). When Mazarin was dying in 1661, Louis was by then 17 years old and ready to take the reins, but Mazarin had made powerful allies around him. Louis found that he was neither the wealthiest nor the most powerful in his own country, and he meant to change both. The final third of the film deals with the changes he made at court and with rules governing the nobles so that by the time he would die, the French royalty (and France as a whole) would be on solid footing. It’s a lovely shot film, with colorful costumes and authentic-looking sets, and while not exacting thrilling, I did (mostly) enjoy the story. However, again, we get non-professional actors. I hate to keep harping on this, but Louis was a wet paper bag. It literally looked like he was reading lines at times, and at others, his dialogue was delivered in such a deadpan way that he might as well have been. Zero emotion, no facial movements. At least he never looked at the camera, though a few of his fellow “actors” did, here and there. It’s a shame because it hurts the experience of something that could have been quite good for lovers of period drama. ★½

Blaise Pascal is another (very dry) French TV film, about the life of the Pascal, a French scientist and philosopher. He’s someone I knew nothing about going in, and seems to have been a smart dude back in the mid-17th century. He invented a few things that progressed mathematics (one of the first mechanical calculators) and was an early proponent of the concept of a vacuum. He also theorized on religion and a host of other topics, all by the time he died at the early age of 39, after always being a rather sickly person. The film spends a lot of time looking at other “signs of the times,” like a woman accused of being possessed by the devil. Much like Louis XIV, the best part of this film is the costumes and sets, which are amazingly authentic. Parts of the film can really drag, and it doesn’t help that no one is ever in a hurry. Literally, actors walk SLOWLY across the screen before engaging in conversation with someone, time and time again throughout the film. Speed these people up and the movie would have been about half as long. Still, some interesting discussions, and the actors weren’t quite as bad as the earlier films. ★★

Maybe these historical made-for-TV films are starting to grow on me, because I thought Cartesius was better, despite overall being more of the same as the previous handful of pictures. Once again we visit the 17th Century, this time looking at the life of French philosopher René Descartes, whose character showed up in a brief scene in Blaise Pascal. A two-part film roughly 2 1/2 hours long, I think it helps that the film has a true “villain” for Descartes to fight against, namely, the long-standing scholarly view that everything Aristotle said was fact, and could not be disputed. Descartes continually ruffles feathers by putting forward new viewpoints, and even bothers other scholars with his refusal to perform experiments in the established ways that science has followed before. He even has to dodge the church, for his viewpoint that the Earth revolves around the sun, and that the Earth is not in fact the center of the universe. In order to avoid persecution, Descartes stays on the move, often staying away from his home of France and traveling Europe, always keeping an eye out for new ideas or new math problems to solve. The film spends a little too much explaining various experiments that Descartes and his friends perform, down the minutest detail (yes, we get it, it was a long time ago and things were done differently), but at least the film is interesting. ★★★

I still have one more TV film of Rossellini’s to watch, but I needed a break, so I’m going for a real narrative film this time. 1959’s General Della Rovere (Italian: Il generale Della Rovere) stars Italian actor/director Vittorio De Sica in the lead role of Emanuele Bardone. Near the tail end of World War II, Bardone’s heart is in the right place, but his penchant for gambling (and losing) keeps getting him into trouble. Calling himself a colonel, he’s been approached by many Italians around town with pleas to get family members out of jail, people who’ve been arrested by German police and are at risk for getting shipped to Germany. Bardone takes money from the families to use as bribes on the German officers, but gambles the money away, sinking himself further and further down the hole. When his schemes finally crash upon him, the Germans arrest him, but the lead German officer takes a liking to him. Rather than charge him with crimes that will most likely get him hung, the officer offers Bardone a deal: impersonate the recently deceased Italian resistance fighter Della Rovere (killed trying to escape arrest) and get intel from other prisoners in jail. It’s an offer Bardone can’t refuse, but once inside, he finds that it is hard not to get swept up in the movement for freedom for Italy’s people against their fascist leaders. It’s a wonderful film, showing what Rossellini can do when he hires real actors, has a true narrative story to tell, while still putting his attention to detail to use. The film is all the more fascinating when you learn that it is based on a true story. Names and facts are changed, but there was a thief who impersonated Della Rovere, a family name well known in Italy with a couple popes in its ancestry (including Sixtus IV, who built the Sistine Chapel). ★★★★

For you Hulu watchers, my final film today looks at a generation of the Medici family, a couple hundred years before Catherine Medici of The Serpent Queen show currently airing there. The Age of the Medici (Italian: L’étà di Cosimo de Medici) is last up today, a 3 part television series released in 1973. A lot of Italian films were filmed silently and the soundtrack was dubbed in later (for various reasons — I encourage you to look it up if you are interested, it’s all fascinating), so it’s not uncommon that the lips don’t match the actors. It is more pronounced here, because the series was filmed in English, with Rossellini hoping to find an American distributor. When he failed to do so, he added the Italian soundtrack and it was released there. The film begins with the death of the wealthy Giovanni di Bicci, and all of Florence is whispering about what his sons, Cosimo and Lorenzo de Medici, will do with the newfound riches. As Cosimo expands the banking enterprise, and his power grows, the nobles in Florence worry that he wants to set himself up as a local king. They are able to get Cosimo arrested, but rather than face time, he bribes his way out and is instead exiled to Venice for 10 years. The first episode ends with him pledging support to the Doge of Venice, and we see that he plans retribution on those who went after him.

At the start of episode 2, it’s been about a year and Florence is selecting new leaders, pulled “randomly” from the guild leaders, and wouldn’t you know it, Cosimo’s buddies are now in charge. After an almost-war breaks out between those who oppose and those who favor, things settle down, and Cosimo returns to Florence. Outwardly, he says it is time for the city to heal and he doesn’t seek vengeance, but in private, he pays off the debts his friends have wracked up in his absence, and gets the city’s rulers to trump up charges against his detractors. By the end of the episode, having survived an attempt on his life, Cosimo gets 80 enemies exiled from the city, and is the de facto ruler of Florence. Unfortunately Episode 3 takes a turn for the worse; it touches on Cosimo a bit here and there in the beginning, but spends a lot more time with Leon Battista Alberti, an architect and artist, and the last part gets bogged down in the detailed minutia that plagued the Louis XIV and Blaise Pascal films. Alberti goes around talking about sculptures, and building churches, and pulling up Roman ships from the bottom of the sea, each subject explored exhaustively, but none of which have anything to do with the plot of the first two episodes. This film had a lot of promise, but devolves into more of the (boring) same I saw in the beginning of this set. Before going into TV films, Rossellini in 1962 quipped that, “Cinema was dead.” Maybe the only thing that was dead was his skill behind the camera. ★★

• TV series currently watching: Vikings (season 1)
• Book currently reading: The Chrysalids by John Wyndham

Benediction is the latest from highly acclaimed director Terence Davies (I’ve only seen one other, A Quiet Passion, which I hated, but more are on my radar). This one too is based on the life of a poet, this time Siegfried Sassoon. The film begins during World War I, and Siegfried, despite being a decorated officer for bravery on the front, has just published his A Soldier’s Declaration, in which he decried war and refused to further participate in it. A move like this would normally be treasonous, but his powerful family gets him sent to a hospital instead of to jail, and there, Siegfried finds his first love. A gay man living at a time when, while not exactly having to keep his private life secret, he couldn’t live openly, the film follows his relationships, with glimpses to his later life as well, dealing with the fallout of those relationships. The film features brilliant acting with Jack Lowden principally as Siegfried, as well as Peter Capaldi as the older version, but the plot is light, and honestly grew old as it went along. I think Siegfried is supposed to be portrayed as a man unlucky in love and unable to find happiness, but he and his lovers all come off as brash, narcissistic assholes, who demean each other and themselves, and he doesn’t get any wiser with age. ★★½

Petite Maman is the newest film from Céline Sciamma, star director of international hit Portrait of a Lady on Fire a couple years ago. This is a less daring and, unfortunately, less impactful movie. The film opens on eight-year-old Nelly, who is at a home with her mother, cleaning out her grandmother’s room after her death. Nelly is upset that she didn’t give her grandmother a proper goodbye, as no one knows when your time is up. Nelly and her mother, Marion, go to grandma’s house to clear it out, joined by Marion’s husband/Nelly’s dad. Overcome with emotion after the first night sleeping there, Marion leaves suddenly the next morning, before Nelly wakes up. Nelly joins her dad and tries to help clean up, but grows bored and heads out to explore the woods behind the house. In doing so, she stumbles upon a fellow little girl, with the coincidental name of Marion. When it starts to rain, Marion leads Nelly to her house, which is surprisingly, an older version of Nelly’s grandmother’s house. As Nelly realizes that going through the woods takes her back in time to when her mom was her age, she realizes she can get to know this person, who is sometimes an absent, depressed mother to her, as well as see her grandmother again. A cute story, but it lacks the emotional punch of Portrait. ★★★

Samaritan is a standalone superhero film staring Sylvester Stallone. He plays “Joe Smith,” a man hiding from his past, but the film focuses on the 13-year-old boy living in an apartment across the plaza, named Sam. Sam has grown up on the stories of the city’s great superhero Samaritan, who died fighting his evil twin brother Nemesis 20 years old. Rumors have always circulated that Samaritan survived the fight but went into hiding, and Sam has come to suspect that Joe is him, especially when Joe easily fends off bullies attacking Sam one day. At the same time, the criminal underbelly of the city is ready to step up their game. Headed by the villainous Cyrus, who wants to take up Nemesis’s mantle again, the bad guys want to light the match that will get the city’s poor, struggling with unemployment and lack of opportunity, to revolt and tear the city apart. Joe wants to stay out of the bigger struggle, but when he can no longer hide his powers, he is forced to come out and take on Cyrus to save Sam. No one will argue that this is great cinema, and the acting is rough pretty much throughout, but it is entertaining (even during the moments where you have to roll your eyes). Unfortunately a bit too predictable, but a lot of these types of action movies are. And at a swift 90ish minutes, it is just the right length for an action flick. ★★★

The newest Pinocchio is dazzlingly beautiful, and exceedingly boring. It stars Tom Hanks as Geppetto and Benjamin Evan Ainsworth as the voice of the titular wooden boy, in the Disney’s live action remake of a cartoon classic. It’s a fairly close adaptation, with some new songs to fill it out and “update it.” Updates it didn’t need, as the original cartoon is obviously a classic that every child has seen for the last 80 years. Just because modern technology allows us to “pretty  it up” doesn’t mean that we should. The film is dull, lacking the magic that the original brought. For the film that originated the song “When You Wish Upon a Star,” the iconic tune that has become Disney’s de facto signature song, this film’s deficiencies are glaring. ★

Crimes of the Future is David Cronenberg’s newest, and it is also his fourth collaboration with Viggo Mortensen (A History of Violence was particularly good). This film hearkens back to earlier Cronenberg pictures, especially the body horror aspect, though it bears no resemblance to Cronenberg’s 1970 film of the same name. This movie takes place at some unknown point in the future, when mankind is evolving over the course of a generation or so. Humans have started living without pain or any kind of infectious disease; things like hand washing have become a thing of the past. This has led to surgeries being able to be performed without anesthesia and, in fact, body modification has become rampant, since anyone can have things done anywhere by anyone, with no fear of pain or infection. Saul Tenser (Mortensen) and his partner Caprice (Léa Seydoux) are leading figures in public performance art. Tenser has what is called “accelerated evolution syndrome), which makes his body quickly and constantly produce vestigial organs, which Caprice surgically removes in public. They are approached by a government agency, the National Organ Registry, who is seeking to document new organs cropping up in the populace, led by Wippet (Don McKellar) and Timlin (Kristen Stewart). At the same time, an underground movement is attempting to disprove the government’s stance that these organs are dormant and that humans aren’t truly evolving, by bringing forth the case of a young boy, Brecken, who was murdered by her mother after he was discovered eating (and, presumably, digesting comfortably) plastics. Lots of freakishly weird stuff in this movie, not the least of which society’s movement away from “old sex” to couples getting turned on by cutting into each other. It’s a stomach-churning film at times, but one that does morbidly fascinate. ★★★½

• TV series currently watching: Yellowstone (season 3)
• Book currently reading: Anthem by Noah Hawley

A couple years ago, I watched a handful of films from Japanese master Kenji Mizoguchi. Two in particular were incredible, so I’m visiting more of his films today, starting with 1936’s Osaka Elegy. Though he’d made over 50 films before this one, Osaka Elegy was his first critical hit in his home country (it would still be some time until his name spread outside Japan). Like a lot of Mizoguchi’s film, this one follows a woman facing a society that gives her a lot less power due to her sex. Ayako lives with her father and younger sister; a brother is away at college. Their dad has been unable to find work and is about to be jailed for debts. To cover his debt, Ayako becomes the mistress to her company’s boss. When that relationship ends (after the man’s wife discovers the affair), Ayako discovers her family is in the hole again, this time due to her brother’s tuition being unpaid. To the rescue again, Ayako lures a man to a room, only to take his money and leave before “giving him the goods.” Apparently hooking out is OK by her dad when he needs money most, but thievery crosses the line, and he kicks her out of the house. A dark and depressing film, and one of those rare instances when I wish the film was longer. A tidy 71 minutes in length, a lot of the scenes felt stunted. Don’t know if it was a director still putting it all together, or a studio wanting a quick runtime, but it could have been better letting the scenes breathe a bit more. ★★★

Much of the same cast stuck around for Sisters of the Gion, released the same year. A lesser picture but, for me, more entertaining, the film follows sisters Umekichi and Omocha, both geisha, who have very different outlooks on life. They are struggling to get by; living together in a small house in the pleasure district, they don’t have a wealthy patron, which is what a geisha needs to survive. Umekichi was raised traditionally and has more traditional Japanese values, holding loyalty to her former patron Furusawa, who is now broke and can no longer support her. Omocha, educated in public schools and dressing in western (American) clothes, has no such loyalty to any man. She uses her looks to curry small favors here and there, but knows the family needs more than that. As such, she devices a scheme to get Furusawa out of the picture and find a new wealthy patron for her sister. Omocha will say and do anything to bring money to the house, but all her devious plans backfire on her before the end. I think Osaka Elegy is better “cinema” but the pacing is a lot better on Sisters, and the story is “cleaner” and easier to follow. ★★★

The 47 Ronin (not the 2013 film with Keanu) is an epic released in two parts, in December 1941 and the second half following in February, coming in at just about 4 hours in total length. A re-telling of the Japanese true-life legend (and only the second film to ever do so), it begins in Edo Castle, where Lord Asano has just heard Lord Kira besmirch his name. Asano attacks Kira, who survives, but the Shogun lord sentences Asano to death by seppuku. He doesn’t punish Kira at all for his words. Asano’s household, his wife and retainers, are left without a lord, but his loyal samurai, now leaderless ronin, vow revenge. Oishi organizes them, and has them swear in blood to avenge their slain lord. With the court against them, Oishi knows it will take time and planning, but that is something he has. The film was a bust in theaters, releasing just a week before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and brought them into war with the USA. Japan had been waring with China and Mongolia for years already, and the film was supposed to be a rousing nationalistic movie, but Mizoguchi took a different approach, making it much more of a “thinking man’s” movie, with a lot of dialogue and debate, and lighter on the action. In fact, even when the Asano clan goes after Kira, it isn’t shown on screen. The result is an overly long, wordy drama that makes you wonder how this event became such a long-lasting legend. ★

Mizoguchi returned to the underbelly of the city with Women of the Night, following two sisters and a third, younger friend, as they see their lives spiral out of control. Fusako’s husband died in the war, making her the “head of the house,” but it is a house deep in debt. She’s struggling to keep everything afloat, and has turned to prostitution to pay the bills. Unfortunately, her younger sister Natsuko is following in her footsteps, running away from home, only to be raped and impregnated her first night out. She turns to the streets to try to get by too, but thankfully Fusako finds her and gets her to a hospital before it is too late. A younger, impressional friend of the girls, Kumiko, isn’t so lucky. A stark drama shining a light on the plight of single women in post-war Japan, the movie is about as bleak as it gets. ★★★½

Street of Shame was Mizoguchi’s last film, released in 1956 just a couple months before his death. He revisits women on the lower rungs of society again, a subject for which he ended up becoming most well known. But this was an entirely new take, and the best movie out of this set. The film revolves around 5 prostitutes working in Tokyo’s Yoshiwara district (their red-light district). Rather than take the same approach as the above films, showing what got them there, we instead get a sympathetic view of their day-to-day lives, and we find that these are not the kinds of women you’d expect. One has an out-of-work husband and a sick kid they are trying to support. Another is desperately seeking a husband to take her away, but when she finds one, she discovers he wants a maid more than a wife. A third woman has worked the streets her whole life as a single mom to raise her son, only to see him rebuff her in shame now that he is a grown man. A fourth is scrounging every penny in order to leave this work, but it almost costs her her life in doing so. Finally, the fifth, the youngest and prettiest, seems to not have a care in the world, until we see the family from which she ran away. All of this takes place against the backdrop of a changing Tokyo, where the current political environment is threatening to make prostitution illegal, thus taking away these women’s only means to live. Fantastic, humanistic film. You start out feeling maybe a little disgusted by them, a natural reaction by many I would think, but you grow to hope for something better for each, though you know that’s probably not in the cards. The film proved prophetic too; Japan did indeed criminalize prostitution shortly after the movie’s release. ★★★★½

• TV series currently watching: The Dropout (miniseries)
• Book currently reading: Anthem by Noah Hawley