Blow-Up

Here Antonioni takes the British New Wave and completely makes it his own. We see the elements of singing 60’s London, but the Mods do not run rampant. This is the real underbelly of the society. We have a fashion photographer who has everything yet doesn’t like it. He wants to be something more but never exactly knows what. This makes his predicament with the supposed murder all the more encompassing to him. It is the first and only time something has happened to him in such a meaningful manner. This is a film with the famed British color stocks of Peeping Tom and with an indifference not felt in any other 60’s work. Instead of focusing on the fashion and music culture, we are given only glimpses of just how meaningless it all is. Yes, those are The Yardbirds, but why should we care? Jeff Beck can’t even care enough to emphatically smash his guitar. (Something Pete Townshend would have never done.)

Was there a murder in the park? Did we or the photographer really witness anything? It doesn’t matter. Supposedly Antonioni spent his entire budget lavishly and was thus unable to shoot the rest of the script. He then took what little material he had and formed it into this haunting tale of indifference. I think this is exactly what happened. It absolutely makes the movie. We need not know about Vanessa Redgrave’s character or her motivations. The Sarah Miles character is pointless. And why in the hell do we end with mimes playing a game of tennis? Because they were there and because of this Thomas would have run into them anyway. They serve as a framing device to his crazy and inexplicable life. We begin and end with mimes of all things.

Despite all of the wealth, women, and elements of the high life no one is happy. No one knows what to do because they are going about at what they are supposed to want. The film mimics this in that it goes about playing at a narrative that really isn’t there. Here is one of the true founding films of the Hollywood Renaissance, produced in England and directed by an Italian.

Let’s go and buy a giant propeller. Why? Because it takes my fancy.

Blow-Up is a blow-up of a time where our excesses revealed just how empty our lives were. It simply hides under the pretense of an “art movie”. The masses were drawn in by the promise of interesting looking pudenda but were given a glimpse into the excesses of the high living and in turn into the nature of living. On the surface the film is meaningless. However, by just taking a glimpse beyond you can start to see the grain take shape. We are Thomas the photographer and the film is the still he examines through the magnifying glass.

HR: The Hollywood Renaissance moves to Britain

The HR took cues from British working class cinema and realism (Alfie, Ipcress File, Peeping Tom, etc) and low budget horror (Witchfinder General, etc). This use of handheld cameras, cheaper and grainy film stocks, realistic and down to earth stories characterized these films.

Americans made films in England in similar ways: Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange and Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs. Both Americans used the freedom gained by filming in remote British locations to create masterworks that would have been unfilmmable in Hollywood due to subject matter. These films combined the Renaissance with a sense of British working class realism to stunning effect.

This freedom extended to British filmmakers as well:

British horror of the 70’s-The horror of this period was primarily constructed as a reaction against the tired Hammer sequels that had become so one dimensional. The Wicker Man portrays modern day paganism on a small island. Nothing is far fetched, and the inhabitants of the island are all friendly and very rational. Just don't mess with their crops. Don’t Look Now’s use of location and cinematography effectively highlights the overall creepiness present in day to day life. When a father pulls his daughter's corpse from a dark pond, it is at once haunting, stunning, and sears its imagery onto your brain.

David Lean turned his epic vision inwards in Ryan’s Daughter. The film focused on a single tiny Irish village and how tensions boil over due to the rebellion and IRA. The epic scope of Lean’s vision gives the story a uniquely odd sense, as it is really more suited for an intimate and simple camera. The 70mm gaze is overpowering and simultaneously provides a romanticized vision of what life could be and what it actually is underneath the surface. This is also when the romantic in Lean finally broke away from the restraints of British society. The postcard romanticism in Doctor Zhivago now becomes a full examination of a love scene between the young girl and the British officer in an almost Eden like setting.

The HR even influenced the greatest British film export-the James Bond series. The films were going elsewhere from public opinion of the late 60’s and had lost star Sean Connery. Some drastic changes were needed. Thus the experiment of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service produced the greatest of their canon. At once fantastic and firmly grounded in reality, OHMSS presents a world that is our own and deeply interesting. Here James Bond is mortal once more and capable of being both a human being and an actual spy. The casting of inexperienced actor George Lazenby adds a great deal of credibility to the film as it allows for the filmmakers to get away from all of our preconceived notions of who Bond is. The masterstroke is Peter Hunt’s brilliant direction. Being the editor for the previous five Bonds, he was the one man who knew precisely what worked in a Bond film. Thus the gadgets, double entendres, hollowed out volcanoes, WWIII scenarios, unrealistic women, and campy humor went out the window. This is revolutionary in the way the series was handled and of course was never repeated again, like much of the Renaissance films.

As this 007 says: "This never happened to the other fellow."

HR: Straw Dogs

Sam Peckinpah moved to England and explored a story that would go on to embellish his low opinion of humanity and women in general, rape, a film that has very little of his trademark slow motion and quick editing, little to no action, blaring bagpipes, and little Dustin Hoffman finding his primal nature. What resulted is an indisputable classic.
We are introduced to the Sumners with Amy’s chest. Braless, she is quite free indeed. David is right off the bat skittish and inferior to every other male in the village. He is the balmy American. The foreigner who will always be an outsider. In one instant we are told everything that we need to know about these shallow characters.
All our young, happy couple does in their giant farm house is argue over the most meaningless things. David cannot complete any of his precious work due to Amy’s constant nagging and later her dawning suspicions of just what the village hands are thinking. At night, this all seems to be forgotten as our two lovers become lovers once more. So they simply fight all day and make love until they pass out. Romantic, isn’t it?
Amy is shown to almost welcome the actions of the other men. She walks around the house naked in full view of the hands. She proceeds in this most blaring way until her ex-boyfriend cannot take it anymore. He appears at the door when the rest are supposed to be out hunting with David. We all know why he has returned to the farmhouse. The interesting thing is that Amy actually lets him in. He does not force his way in at all. He kisses her. She begins to sluggishly resist. Her resistance builds until he slaps her and states that he doesn’t want to hurt her but will if necessary. Then it begins. Now she openly refuses but is forced down. Then during the act itself she gives in to the passion of the moment. Well, what more could you do? The thing is, one gets the sense that she really begins her objections by the fact that she is over this man and now married to someone else. Only when the second man appears and forces his way into the festivities at gunpoint does the dislike actually become truly apparent. She has been beaten into submission and is now nothing more than a bleating animal.
This is the first time we have actually felt any emotion towards either of the two people. They have been caricatures up and until this point. When the Sumners go the church recital, Amy cannot take the pressure of seeing those around her and those who raped her. This leads to a sensory overload perfectly conveyed by lightning reactionary editing. Sensing her obvious discomfort, David decides to leave. On their way back to the farmhouse they accidentally run down the village idiot. They take him back to their home to wait for the doctor to arrive and examine his injuries. Unfortunately, the man was last seen with a girl who has disappeared. That girl is the daughter of the town drunk, and when they discover that the man is holed up at the American’s place…they of course decide to go and lynch the man.


This is where David actually discovers himself. Throughout the film it has been suggested that David was attempting to run away from the turmoil in America at the time. He is obviously not one for combat in any sense. Turmoil causes him to clam up like a highly stressed turtle. He wears large turtlenecks, thick sweaters, and thick glasses as almost a type of shell to ward off all outside forces. Yet he cannot let himself stand idly by and see a sick man murdered. The last straw is beginning to break inside of him. Woe to any who stand in his way once this has gone. Those outside include the village hands who have harassed our couple the entire film. They accidentally kill the only town official and thus resolve that there is no going back. They begin an all out assault on the house. David is now forced to defend not only his house, but also his life. This is no longer about any petty little girl, but about David’s self finally breaking through the years of repression. He is acknowledging the primal sense of man. Amy is having none of it. David asserts himself as the dominant male. They come in through the windows, the doors-assaulting every inch of the house. The frenzy begins. At one point David plays a record that consists of nothing but blaring bagpipes. This serves as an extremely bizarre yet fitting soundtrack to the chaos.
David is enjoying all of this. We can see it in his every move and in his murderous glare. He bashes one man’s skull in and sees that the man is dead. He then slowly as if in a daze looks down at his hand and at the man then he continues the bashing anyway. When the carnage finally ends, everyone lies in a bloody mess. All five men have been brutally dispatched by David, and the last by Amy in complete instinct. Even the woman can embrace the inner primal sense. David leads the injured man out and into the car to drive him to safety. Amy is left in the house alone with the corpses. In the car the man tells David that “he doesn’t know his way home”. David reflects for a moment and then says “That’s OK. I don’t either.” He then smirks in a way to himself realizing that in the end absolutely nothing matters except that he is still alive.
The vast majority of people who see this film react violently to it, but they completely miss the point Sam was attempting to get across. This is not a call to violence, but a reflection on just how useless we are. Nothing we do really means anything. In the end we are just another breed of animal. Better educated, more sophisticated maybe but nonetheless animals. Paramount to us is the will to survive. We have suppressed our basic needs and wants so deeply that it takes a massive prodding to bring them out again. Once this happens, we discover ourselves again. The film spends an entire hour on meaningless day to day life for this reason. Peckinpah wanted to show us just how despicable we are. Normally this would be a most depressing way to end things, but here one actually gets a sense of empowerment and inspiration from all the madness.
It’s OK.

Star Wars in 3D-I officially now despise Lucasfilm

Star Wars is currently being "dimensionalized" along with Titanic for an upcoming theatrical re-release in 2012. This includes both the original films and inferior prequels.
As a lifelong Star Wars fan I thought I would never say it. But now I have to: I HATE YOU GEORGE!
Adding new dimensions to classic films is far beyond what colorization did to Black and White cinematography. Now we have programmers clicking away at the actual depth of the image to suit their own visions. It's the pan and scan editor to the ultimate extreme.
The OT will not be released until 2015 on a film per year basis. If they were unwilling to restore the original films for a home video release because it was deemed not cost effective-then why in the hell are they spending around $15 million to do this to every film?
Come on guys. How stupid can you be? Modern 3D is an absolute joke and the only reason why you do it is so that you can charge more per head and make more money. Don't you have enough already?
Guess not.
Do yourself a favor George: go and watch the 70mm print of Star Wars that you have sitting in your cold storage still kept in perfect condition. Don't deny it-you know it's there. Go and watch and realize that you used to be able to make movies.
3D and digital cinema will never equal 70mm, Cinerama, Super Panavision 70, Ultra Panavision 70, 35mm prints, craftsmanship, passion, and the ability to tell stories. If you can't do that last part then you certainly don't deserve to be making films.
By the way George, you ruined THX 1138.

HR:“You don't make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets. You do it at home. All the rest is bullshit and you know it.”

“You don't make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets. You do it at home. All the rest is bullshit and you know it.”

These words open Martin Scorsese’s Mean Streets (1973) one of the most personal and visceral of all of the new Hollywood films to emerge. It fulfills every single promise made by Scorsese’s earlier film Who’s That Knocking at My Door? (1967) and explicitly states who and what he was.
This is one of the films that knows how to speak “movie”. It knows the “reel” power of film inside and out and joyously exploits every trick it can. The story is minuscule points of life strung together into a more cohesive whole. It is a representation of a time and place in America.
It is so visceral and so vibrant and so energetic one can easily parallel the French New Wave. However, I believe that Scorsese was actually the only American New Wave filmmaker in this entire period. He made what he knew into movies with the same passion that he had for them. When the characters are in trouble or don’t know what to do with themselves-they go to a movie. When they are in turmoil and torment, they are in Roger Corman’s The Tomb of Ligeia (1964) which is the most tormented of his Poe adaptations.
The Catholic guilt Scorsese is famous for is present here, but it isn’t really about religion overtly. Religion is supposed to be a guide and Charlie just can’t find any guidance in it whatsoever. Yet, he will continually test himself over the flames both physically and mentally.
Since the 1970’s Scorsese has never made any films as visceral as Who’s That Knocking At My Door?, Mean Streets, and Taxi Driver. This is not to say that his later films are bad, but that they are completely of a different nature. His good films in the modern day and age all have the hallmarks of his earlier more cinema verite work. He needs to make movies to express the giant movie in his head. This I can completely associate with. I’ve never been to New York, but I can connect completely with what he is trying to get across. This is because these early films completely use every single frame to communicate with the audience in a completely direct way. Marty was coming from New York into a completely closed off world in California and has always really remained the other guy who makes passionate films.
There is a moment in Mean Streets that is almost a throwaway moment that has stayed with me ever since. It is such a simple moment where Robert DeNiro is supposed to come into a bar with two girls. Harvey Keitel watches intently. Anyone else would have just presented the scene normally, but Marty has the bar just completely bathed in red light and DeNiro comes into the bar in complete slow motion and you can just feel the ambiance and Keitel’s frustration. The soundtrack kicks in with Jumpin’ Jack Flash from a 45. The entire film is completely of a homemade quality because it really was done that way. The opening credits are 8mm home movie footage of the actors just goofing around. And it just works.
Scorsese had learned how to make an official feature on Boxcar Bertha (1972) for Roger Corman. This was really his first true movie of his own that was an official production. And it shows. It flawlessly blends the innovation and liveliness of Who’s that Knocking with the studio technique of Boxcar. Yet it is one from a personal place and this maintains the feeling of real life on the streets. Scorsese even participates in the film himself as both a gunman and the speaker of the opening narration with which I opened. Those words are not just scripted, but from the heart.
Since Taxi Driver, Scorsese’s films have been nowhere near the energy level of his debuts. The great ones have a more realistic grittiness; The King of Comedy, After Hours, The Last Temptation of Christ, Bringing Out the Dead. Goodfellas hearkens back to Scorsese’s childhood experiences with the Mob and all of the things that surrounded his existence. However, it has always left me out in the cold somewhat. Casino is often referred to as the lesser Goodfellas yet it has so much more to experience as a film. It is long (nearly three hours), convoluted, visually stunning, massive, and just full of so much to chew on that you could essentially get drunk on cinema.
When was the last time that you could actually claim you did that? Movies are an experience. Scorsese’s best works are a testament to that. The rest is bullshit. And you know it.

Apocalypse Returns

The new Apocalypse Now Blu ray will be the best the film has looked on home video. We finally will get the original 2.35:1 aspect ratio left intact, and a brand new transfer of the Technicolor IB negative for Redux. This source will be used for both versions of the film.
My only gripe is that the original film wasn't mastered separately, but that's me being nit picky...also they could have included the original 70mm mix from 79...
The Digital Bits posted an interview with the team producing this new release, and it is extremely refreshing to hear that people want to preserve a film the way it was intended to be seen and not to make it look like digital video.
check it out at: digitalbits.com
Original 2001 transfer:


new 2010 capture of the same IP:

HR: The complete death of the Hollywood Renaissance-The Two Jakes and The Godfather Part III:

The Two Jakes presents us with a Jake Gittes that is older, heavier, and still consumed by what happened in Chinatown. He has been through the war, and seen LA morph into a caricature of the movie world it creates. This is one of the major problems with the film. It allows the period setting to dominate the feel and thus everything becomes unrealistic and very structured. The magic in the original film was in containing the action to central locations and completely infusing them with the prevailing sense of doom. It is not really Nicholson’s fault as a director that this is not achieved, but what he does is provide an extremely stable hand so that the film is allowed to lumber onwards with at least some support.
It is nearly impossible to understand this film without having at least some knowledge if Chinatown. Yet they are almost completely unrelated. Two Jakes is more of a spiritual sequel instead of a direct one. We see the same Gittes just more successful and even more tired of wallowing in other people’s filth. Throughout the course of the film he is on a journey. We never really realize what this is for until the final moment where he tells someone that the past never goes away. The entire point of The Two Jakes is that Gittes regains himself. The ending of the film presents us with an older and wiser version of the man who appeared at the beginning of Chinatown. Up until that point Gittes existed only as a shell; with a membership at a country club, a worthless fiancée, a plush office and firm which are all the contrivances awarded someone who plays the game as dictated by society. He knows what he is but can’t live with it.

The Harvey Keitel character also being named Jake is no coincidence. He and Gittes begin to relate to one another almost immediately and this leads to a deepening relationship that reveals how they are like two halves of the same whole. The demise of one Jake leads the other to question himself and the motive of murder, if there ever was one at all. The film itself is flawed and meandering, but eventually like Gittes gets to a self realization that will keep in your brain for ages.


The best parts of Godfather III are those that deal with seemingly un-cinematic moments-those being the simple reactions from Michael and how he carries himself in his older years. The most gripping confrontation is not between Mafia chieftains, but between Michael and Kay after all these years. What Al Pacino and Coppola do with Michael nearly 30 years on is riveting. That is the reason why Part III is worth watching. If you could strip away the other superfluous elements you would be left with a vastly superior film.
The director’s cut streamlines some things and rearranges others so that a vastly superior narrative emerges. Originally the film opened with Michael involved in discussions with The Vatican. The new version does not. From that change onwards the overall experience is heightened. This is not to say that the film is great or rescued by any means. The subplots are generally uninteresting and we constantly reminded of this every time we are arrested by Pacino’s performance as Michael. To simplify things Coppola should have focused entirely on Michael since that is both the only thing that works and the thing that audiences most want to see.
Both of these films share numerous parallels that it becomes almost as if they were somehow linked. Both were released by Paramount Pictures in 1990. Both are sequels that occur 16 years after the previous installment. Both are over two hours and so full of detail that prior knowledge of events is mandatory. One closes a trilogy and the other was meant to be one. Both are carried by a single performance by a great actor. Both are set in a historical period. Finally, both were released with critical backlash and relative financial failure. Part III did moderately well mostly due to the fanfare and notoriety of the franchise. The Two Jakes failed to even make its budget back.
It is strange to see the products of such a creative time as the early 1970’s appear so much later and be so similar. The union between themes and tone I believe stems from the fact that everyone had become tired of the industry and the failure of the Hollywood Renaissance to change anything. It is astonishing to compare the audiences of today to those of 20 years ago. Back then, we were expected to accept works such as these that while flawed, presented us with great morsels to chew upon in our minds. Our patronage was rewarded with actual concepts and ideas. Today we are lucky to get even a glimpse of substance amidst the CGI jungle that is the Hollywood of 2010. One of the biggest hits of 20 years ago was The Hunt for Red October. To even suggest making an “action film” that had the intellectual content of Red October today would most likely get you thrown out of the conference room.
I’d sure like to be the one to suggest finishing the Gittes trilogy. I’m reminded of something Kirk Douglas once said to Stanley Kubrick about how Paths of Glory (1957) would likely make no financial returns: “Stanley, I don't think this picture will ever make a nickel, but we have to make it”. (1)
I think the overall bloated production for these two films and their ineffectiveness and their failure is what officially stated that the ideals and leaders of the Hollywood Renaissance were dead. This is the final nail in the coffin.

(1)-Paths of Glory DVD insert, MGM Home Video-1998.
(Kudos to Paramount Home Video for releasing these films in respectable transfers with original audio mixes intact. Godfather Part III was given light work after the previous two were painstakingly restored by Robert Harris and now has a warmer color palette. The Two Jakes looks light years ahead of the old worn VHS I saw many years ago. I was very surprised to find it on DVD in a Special Collector's Edition.)