Change Your Image
OsbourneRuddock
Reviews
Herr Tartüff (1925)
Not his best, but still excellent by anyone else's standards.
Personally I think the other reviewers have been way too hard on this film, and I certainly don't agree that it is "extremely average", "throwaway" or "plain and forgettable". OK - it's not his best by a long shot, but Murnau was such a talented directer/artist that even his weaker films urinate all over the films of most other directors. I thought that the 'film within a film' structure of it worked brilliantly. The cast were all excellent in their acting. The film is pretty great visually too (as one would expect from Murnau) - the 'outer' film is shot in a crisp, modernist style, with adventurous camera angles and no make up, while the central 'film within a film' section was filmed in a more classical, soft-focus style. The film was also quite risky for it's time in its depiction of sexuality, and corruption within the clergy, and several scenes were censored for American audiences.
The central theme of the film is hypocrisy, particularly with those who are overly pious, judgemental and puritanical. This is encapsulated in the words of Tartuffe when he admits: "Who sins in secret - does not sin". Murnau expertly exposes the true roots of fanatically pious behaviour - behind which lies its very opposite. This is very similar to what Freud termed 'reaction formation', whereby a character trait or impulse which one finds unbearable to oneself (the ego) is disguised and repressed by bringing a complete opposite tendency to the facade of ones personality - but this is always noticeable by its exaggeration. The Tartuffe character also indulges in another Freudian defence mechanism called 'projection', whereby one relieves the anxiety caused by an unwelcome trait by projecting it onto others.
It's important to mention that this film also works brilliantly as a satire, and at times I found myself laughing out loud at the grotesque character of Tartuffe. In one scene the obedient Emile is seen rocking Tartuffe as he yawns and lazes in a hammock like a selfish baby. Yet despite the ridiculing, there is always a deep humane concern underlying the film - as there is with all of Murnau's films.
So, like I said: this is not one of his best, but any Murnau film is worth seeing.
Rudy: The Rudy Giuliani Story (2003)
A bit of a mess really.
Apparently it was his admiration for the prurient right-wing mayor that led James Woods to play the part. But the portrayal remains wholly unconvincing, particularly as James Woods is such a familiar Hollywood actor. It would have helped a great deal in my opinion to have used a virtually unknown actor for the part, and Woods admiration for the man in no way justifies him being cast for the role. And surely there's no need in my pointing out the fact that the two men share no physical resemblance whatsoever?
The quality and style of the film is sub-standard TV movie. The September 11th section of this film switches from actual original camcorder footage of the collisions - to scenes of Woods pretending to be the mayor, back and forth. Back and forth. Whether the use of original footage was due to low budget, or 'experimental' reasons, I'm not quite sure, but whatever the reason - it sure looks tacky.
In many ways I admire the mayor, in particular for his calm and measured response in the days following 9/11 (in stark contrast to Bush). But I do feel the man is a philistine and does not support freedom of expression, at least within the arts (as evidenced by his banning of an art exhibition in New York simply because it offended his very catholic religious sensibilities). But of course this hagiography of a film does not explore this side of the man - only those aspects which depict him as heroic, saintly, yet redemptive and human.
Surviving Picasso (1996)
Very One Dimensional Indeed
I found this a highly disappointing film in that it seems to focus almost entirely on the misogynistic side of Picasso's personality, and his selfish insensitivity towards others. While these aspects of Picasso no doubt existed (his treatment of his children was appalling) the film fails to portray a rounded depiction of the man or what drove him. This very one-dimensional and oblique angled view is no doubt due to the fact that the film is based on the memories of his disillusioned wife, and I am reminded of the book written by Deborah Curtis about her husband the singer Ian Curtis, in which she whines on about the domestic reality of their relationship but offers virtually no insight into his art - which was surely the most interesting thing about him. The problem is that the relationships which these women have with their husbands is based on love and its commitments, and has nothing to do with their art or creativity. The world is full of brutal and misogynistic people, but what makes Picasso interesting is what he created. To make a film about an artist which ignores the inner imagination, psychology, and creative aspect of that person is pointless and uninteresting. Anthony Hopkins offers a fairly convincing performance, but this just isn't enough. For an artist biopic with more depth and substance I recommend Love Is The Devil (about painter Francis Bacon).
Bleak Moments (1971)
Leigh's Early Masterpiece
This was Mike Leigh's first feature length film, and to my mind remains one of his most powerful. I'm afraid I must disagree with other reviewers who refer to this film as a period piece or merely "a slice of social history". This film like many of Mike's other films is about the breakdown in personal communication within an increasingly alienated society, and as such is more relevant now than ever before. However in Bleak Moments this breakdown of communication results in a peculiarly British or English form of repression -virtually all the characters are introverted or repressed in some way. The theme of communication throughout the film is made obvious in a scene where a character discusses the author Marshall Mcluhan and his theory that in mass media the real message is in the method of communication. The lack of meaningful communication and silence in these peoples lives is reflected in the fact that there is no external music in the film. Like most 'Dogme' films the only music to be found is made by the characters in the film - in this case Norman playing his guitar.
The film revolves around the pleasant but withdrawn character of Sylvia (played by Anne Raitt) Lonely and always dressed in black she lives in a dreary suburban area with her handicapped sister Hilda (Sarah Stephenson) who she cares for. During the film Sylvia befriends a very nervous hippie from Scunthorpe called Norman (Mike Bradwell) who is renting her garage. But perhaps the most disturbed character is the chronically repressed and somewhat misanthropic school teacher Peter (Eric Allan). One senses that Sylvia and Peter both desire some sort of intimate relationship with each other, but that the level of communication and emotional development required for such personal involvement would make it unlikely to develop.
The truly astonishing thing about this film is how they succeed in taking this depiction of repression and nervousness to such an extreme level without it becoming farcical, and also retain well rounded and believable characters. This is due in large part to the strength of the acting, which Mike always manages to get from his talented performers. The characters inner worlds are shown not so much through speech but through their physicality and above all their facial expressions. We may never meet people quite as repressed or introverted as these characters, but the directors purpose in accentuating these tendencies is to make clearer the dangers and shortcomings of such tendencies.
Finally, although the film title is appropriate, and the awkwardness of the characters is often difficult to watch, the film is not without humour. In fact watching this the second time around i found myself roaring with laughter occasionally. We are not, however, invited to laugh at them in a cruel way, rather they make us laugh in the same way that real people's idiosyncrasies can make us laugh. I strongly recommend viewing this film. A masterpiece in my opinion, and a work of tremendous psychological depth.
Le souffle (2001)
A beautiful little film.
There are no crucial plot elements in this film, as it's not the kind of film that relies plot, therefore no danger of spoilers. Rather it is a film about one day in the life of a troubled and restless teenager (David), which is spent on his uncle's farm. This for the most part is a day of immense boredom, which he begins by being ordered by his uncle into doing various tedious chores around the farm (e.g.collecting wood and hay etc).These he does only with great reluctance. After the morning's work he is invited to a drinking session on the farm with his uncle and his friends, but although he joins in and becomes very drunk (and throws up) he just becomes even more bored and restless. Bored of the company of these older men, he begins to wander around the farm. Although there's not much of a plot there is a climactic ending however, which is propelled along by tragic event near the end of the film (which I won't go into).
The day is shown through a strange blend of realism, symbolism and dream. In the very beginning of the film the emphasis is on realism. One of the earliest scenes shows graphically his uncle cutting the throat of a sheep or lamb (have to admit that i turned away at this point because i knew it was coming). I think the idea of showing this scene was to dispel right away any idea of this countryside farm as being some sort of idyllic setting. For teenagers who have grown up in small towns, farms or villages, eager for excitement and brought up on mass mediated pop culture, TV and entertainment, the countryside is a place of inescapable and intolerable boredom,(I grew up in one so i should know). David's own attitude to animals and nature seems ambivalent or continually changing throughout the film. In one Scene David finds a dead rabbit and spends some time digging a grave for it, gently caressing and kissing it as he puts it in. But in another scene we see him repeatedly kicking a cockerel out of his way, and in another throwing stones at a donkey. Another reviewer described the David character as a 'tedious arrogant sociopath'. True, but isn't that a n accurate description of most teenagers. As teenagers go i found him quite likable. Frequently throughout the film we see what seem to be very short dream sequences, although these could also be merely describing Davids state of mind. Either way, no direct or obvious explanation is given to what these strange images might mean. They reminded me a bit of Lynch's 'Eraserhead', particularly the bit with glittering dust floating through the air like stars.
The entire film is beautifully shot in sharply contrasting black & white. The use of sound is also very striking and effective. Occasionally the sound of an airplane can be heard roaring past, (although we never actually see it), and sometimes with the sound trailing off into the next scene. In one part the sound dies off altogether in what would normally be the loudest scene of all - during a thunderstorm, and this creates a strange psychological effect. This along with some of the other poetically symbolic scenes reminded me of Tarkovsky's films. I really can't understand people who claim this film is boring and pretentious- i found it to be neither. As for the charge of 'boring', well it's a film partly about boredom- the boredom of youth, so it would have been totally inappropriate for it to concentrate on any plot, particularly a complex one. But that's not to say the film itself is boring. Far from it, it's a film full of interesting characters and beauty. And as for the 'pretentious'charge, pretentious seems to be a word used by people who are unable to appreciate artistic beauty, or who are unwilling or unable to engage with a film done in any other way than the typical Hollywood way, which is itself a form of snobbery. The word 'pretentious' means to make undeserved claims of distinction or importance. The director has not done that with this work, he has simply made a beautiful little film.
Definitely worth watching.