Furious on Film 11.08.07: Issue 113
Posted by Arnold Furious on 11.08.2007
Vampire history, African genocide, surrealist anime and German Oscar winners.
Furious on Film 11.08.07: Issue 113
Vampire history, African genocide, surrealist anime and German Oscar winners.
Before we start this week I'd like to remind everyone why it's taken so long to get back to reviewing films. Here below lies a list of links to the Furious on Film top 100 director's column. The one that took a huge chunk out of my life but earned me more positive feedback than a bundle of WCW reviews. Be warned though, this is a long read.
Thanks for reading, thanks for taking the time to email me and thanks for your continued support over the past hundred odd columns. I'll keep writing them if you keep reading them.
This week I have the following cinematic delights for your reading pleasure;
Shadow of the Vampire, Shooting Dogs, Paprika, The Lives of Others
But first
ONCE UPON A TIMELINE Herre Be Vampyres
1700's. "Vampires" were mentioned in a treaty in 1718 when it was noted that local Serbians often got together and killed them.
1845. The vampire myth was so popular it became a series of "penny dreadfuls" called Varney the Vampire, which was eventually released as a book in 1847.
1871. "Carmilla" published. A tale of lesbian vampirism.
1897. Bram Stoker's Dracula. The definitive vampire story was published. It portrayed vampirism as a disease. The book still remains popular to this very day.
1913. Earliest vampire on film in Robert Vignola's "The Vampire".
1922. FW Murnau makes the first' vampire film "Nosferatu" based on Stoker's book. He didn't get permission to use the plot though and lost the resultant lawsuit, which saw all copies of Nosferatu destroyed. However many were in circulation and the film survived.
1931. Universal made their first vampire movie the approved "Dracula" starring Bela Lugosi.
1936. Dracula's Daughter. Seeing the success of Dracula, Universal put out this sequel although without Lugosi.
1948. Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein. The beginnings of parody in the horror genre. Lugosi reprises his role as Dracula to add to the fun.
1958. Hammer horror produces its first Dracula movie starring Christopher Lee. It fares well and spawns seven sequels.
1960. Blood and Roses. The first film to explore Carmilla's subject matter; the lesbian vampire. Directed by Roger Vadim.
1967. The Fearless Vampire Killers. Roman Polanski parodies the genre.
1969. Vampirella. Comic books finally get themselves a vampire title.
1970. The Vampire Lovers. The first direct adaptation of Carmilla.
1972. Blacula. Another genre piggybacks the vampire success story with its own spin on it.
1973. Blade. The now popular movie franchise begins life as a comic book.
1976. Rabid. David Cronenbourg successfully re-tells the vampire myth as a disease. Nothing about it is traditional.
1979. Nosferatu is re-made by Werner Herzog. Klaus Kinski takes on the main role showing vampires to be repulsive bucking the usual trend for the alluring vampire that most films prefer to use.
1985. Vampire Hunter D. Animation wants a piece of the vampire pie. Unfortunately it comes during a period of lazy animation and isn't very good.
1987. The Lost Boys. Cult favourite with vampires taking over the teenage population of a small town.
1992. Bram Stoker's Dracula. A big budget horror film starring Gary Oldman, Anthony Hopkins and Keanu Reeves.
1992. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Average teen horror flick starring Kristy Swanson. Would of course garner huge success as a spin off TV series starring Sarah Michelle Gellar.
1994. Interview with the Vampire. Striking while the iron is hot Hollywood teams up The Cruiser and Brad Pitt in this adaptation of Anne Rice's novel.
1996. From Duck til Dawn. Robert Rodriguez directs George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino in what appears to be a film about two brothers on the run from the law until they hit a Mexican strip club and all hell breaks loose.
1998. Blade. Mainstream horror and comic book adaptation starring Wesley Snipes. Highly successful and very popular it spawned two sequels.
2002-2003. Queen of the Damned/Underworld. In an attempt to make money a few rushed vampire movies come out. While Underworld looks good the plot is awful and the acting worse. Queen of the Damned is just an enormous disappointment. Nowhere near as good as Interview with the Vampire and one of the worst adaptations I've had the misfortune the see. The book is really good incidentally.
Shadow of the Vampire (2000)
EXPECTATIONS During a discussion in the pub about FW Murnau's Nosferatu it was pointed out to me that this film existed. Shadow of the Vampire being a film about the making of Nosferatu. I was sold on a strong performance from Willem Dafoe who I've liked ever since his epic turn in Platoon in the late 80's. Seeing as Nosferatu was so fresh in my mind I felt Shadow of the Vampire would be a good Halloween follow up piece.
TRAILER
PLOT FW Murnau (John Malkovich) is obsessed with the idea of creating the perfect vampire film. In order to do so he hires Max Schreck (Willem Dafoe) to be his Count Orlok. The swerve being that Schreck is himself a vampire; an urban legend that surrounded the actor after his convincing performance in Nosferatu.
OPINION The best thing about Shadow of the Vampire, other than Willem Dafoe's superb performance, is that is takes scenes from Nosferatu and goes some way to explain why they look like they do. I had many issues with the acting of Gustav von Wangenheim (played here by Eddie Izzard) so it was nice to see Shadow of the Vampire play up the fact that Gustav wasn't a good actor. Murnau keeps telling him how good he is while Izzard mimics the stupid facial expressions of the actor to perfection. Izzard is clearly a fan of Nosferatu because his performance is near flawless. Malkovich is also very good as Murnau playing the condescending director to a tee. Udo Kier is also strong as the producer. But it's Dafoe's film. From the first time he walks onscreen he just owns it. And unlike in Nosferatu the director is aware that the vampire is the selling point. Every scene committed to film, bar two, by Murnau has the Count in it. He is the film. He is the story. Something Murnau himself didn't quite grasp when shooting Nosferatu. In Shadow of the Vampire the focus is on the star. And Dafoe doesn't disappoint. He's almost lost behind the makeup. It's like his performance in Spiderman only not quite so campy (in fact the producers of Spiderman hired him for the part based on this performance). Any scene where he gets to talk and misbehave is terrific. He's obsessed and driven but he's also a showman. It's a little like Danny DeVito's turn in Batman Returns as the Penguin, which I really liked. Dafoe's vampire is even deeper in the role though having to be shaken out of his blood lust by Murnau at crucial moments. Although it's hard to say who's more obsessed. Schreck with his bloodlust or Murnau with making his picture. I'm sure there's something to be said about insane directors in that statement. The supporting cast come up trumps. There's the stiff upper lipped Wagner played by Cary Elwes. While I can't look at him without thinking "Princess Bride" he's good for the part and brings another good performance to a table already filled with them. Finally there's British actress Catherine McCormack (best known for her role in Braveheart). She's the lead actress and the focus of the vampire's attentions. It's her participation in the film that gets Schreck on board. He wants to bite her. To do so he'll agree to pretty much anything. The portrayal of the vampire as animalistic is in line with Nosferatu and many of the shots are close to identical to the original film. It's a loving tribute to a silent classic, which for me at least provided that 1922 film with a little more depth. The criticism would be that Hollywood does so like to make movies about making movies. Although it often provides us with some interesting insight (The Player, Sunset Blvd) the feeling is that Hollywood loves the idea that everyone wants to be in Hollywood. So much so they make movies about themselves, which is a little self fellating. Regardless Shadow of the Vampire does an excellent job of doing what it set out to do; show us the making of Nosferatu and convince us there was more to it than simple film making. Job done.
BEST BIT "Dracula hasn't had servants in 400 years and then a man comes to his ancestral home, and he must convince him that he... that he is like the man. He has to feed him, when he himself hasn't eaten food in centuries. Can he even remember how to buy bread? How to select cheese and wine? And then he remembers the rest of it. How to prepare a meal, how to make a bed. He remembers his first glory, his armies, his retainers, and what he is reduced to. The loneliest part of the book comes... when the man accidentally sees Dracula setting his table." Schreck recalls his reaction to reading Bram Stoker's book.
RATING - ***1/4. It helped me to better enjoy a film I'd already seen. I can't argue with that. Dafoe is tremendous here. It's up there with his turn in Platoon as the best he's done to date. Quite how he doesn't get more big roles is bemusing. Perhaps Spiderman will open more doors for him.
Shooting Dogs (2005) aka Beyond the Gates.
EXPECTATIONS Having seen, enjoyed and been shocked by Hotel Rwanda I made a point of also checking out this BBC financed film on the Rwandan genocide. After all the more films point out the failings of groups like the UN then the more likely they are to act correctly in the future. Shooting Dogs is based directly on a true story about the Ecole Technique Officielle school in Rwanda's capital Kigali. It was a safe haven for Tutsi's because of the UN presence there. It was for 5 days until the UN ordered its troops out.
TRAILER
PLOT When the Hutu President of Rwanda is killed in a plane crash it signals the beginning of the genocide of the Tutsi people by the Hutu militia. In the capital city Kigali many Tutsi's take refuge at a local school run by Father Christopher (John Hurt). A teacher there Joe Connor (Hugh Dancy) is an idealistic young man trying to make a difference. As the horrors escalate he tries specifically to save his favourite pupil Marie (Clare-Hope Ashitey).
OPINION Hotel Rwanda exposed the world to the horrors of the Rwandan massacre and showed how little the world did to help. Shooting Dogs goes one step further. It takes the United Nations to task for failing to help out, refusing to send more troops and then pulling out the ones that were there. In the process signing the death certificates for thousands of innocent people. The Hutu militia wasn't equipped to deal with soldiers and weaponry. Most of the Hutu's were armed with machetes. They had very little in terms of firepower. A UN peacekeeping force could have prevented genocide. Watching representatives try to squirm out of their guilt on TV was perhaps the most sickening aspect of the entire affair. After all how many "acts of genocide" have to occur before it's an actual all out genocide. The UN seemed unclear and indecisive on this. But in the end the death toll was officially 500,000 people. In actuality there are so many missing it could be legitimately double that. The UN has blood on its hands over Rwanda and it's good to see film makers putting them over the barrel for it. Especially Michael Caton-Jones who has a pretty horrendous track record when it comes to making films. He includes Doc Hollywood, Rob Roy and Basic Instinct 2 in his resume. Career killers, all of them. His high point has to be 1990's Memphis Belle so it's nice to see him attempt to make a film that means something. It's sad though that they were forced to centre the film on a young white European man. Much like Last King of Scotland it was probably felt that the Western audience would have trouble connecting to African people. I can understand John Hurt character being needed as he plays a Western missionary who's been out in Africa for many years. He knows everyone in Kigali and he knows Africa. The inclusion of the Joe character as well ends up being pointless. There's not much he has riding on Rwanda. He's been there a few months and has an attachment to some folk there but ultimately he's a teacher in a foreign country trying to do the right thing. Compare him to Don Cheadle's character in Hotel Rwanda. There was a man who had everything riding on the outcome. Shooting Dogs does do a fine job of showing how expendable life is in Africa. It would be shocking if it wasn't the hundredth time it had happened. Africa is a continent of death. Life isn't valued very highly in a great deal of African nations. Especially when it involves different sects and tribes. The horror show goes on. TIA as Leonardo DiCaprio said in Blood Diamond. This is Africa. What's really frightening about Shooting Dogs is how unprepared the UN is to deal with problems. Yes, they had troops in place but they pull out. Where is the USA, the mighty defender of the world, here? Nowhere to be seen. There's no money in Rwanda. There's no oil. And yet the level of death is so much higher than anywhere else in the world. It's the one place the USA needs to be. The one place they can make a difference. The one place that desperately needs intervention. In the end Rwanda sorted itself out but at what cost? Clare-Hope Ashitey btw is fantastic here and secured herself a dream role in Children of Men because of it. At the moment she's well on course to becoming one of my favourite actresses. Here's hoping she's able to get important roles in the future.
BEST BIT Marie running on the road outside of Kigali. It's a quite startling visual in a film filled with horror. Here's a moment of hope.
RATING - ****. Not as stunning as Hotel Rwanda but just as heartfelt and horrifying. The Western world left people to die on masse. The end credits feature photos of cast and crew members who lost people in the genocide. The numbers are scary. It's like the Holocaust. Like with Hotel Rwanda the story is a can't miss because of the events it's dealing with. Hotel Rwanda is much slicker with better performances. This is decent companion piece for it although it's far more depressing.
Paprika (2006)
EXPECTATIONS I've never tried to disguise how fond I am of Satoshi Kon's movies. Perfect Blue was entertaining and weird albeit surreal and ridiculous. Visually it was stunning. It seems Kon's aim ever since is to make better looking movies every time out. While Tokyo Godfathers was more plot driven, and incidentally my favourite Kon movie, Millennium Actress relied heavily on visuals and overlapping fantasy and reality. It's basically the same premise as Perfect Blue and that's where Paprika is headed. I'd personally love to see Kon work in a more straightforward genre because his animation is so mind blowing and detailed that it'd be the perfect backdrop to any number of animated films. His love of complex fantasy films is probably better for his imagination but not so great for storytelling. That said Millennium Actress is so fantastic that as soon as Paprika was available on DVD it went right to the top of my rental list. In my mind Kon will perhaps one day be considered the greatest Japanese animator of all time. He has Hayao Miyazaki in his sights and Katsuhiro Otomo's reduced workload has allowed him up to #2 IMO.
TRAILER
PLOT When a scientist called Tokita invents a machine that allows therapists to enter the dreams of their patients it seems like a great invention. Even when renegade therapist Paprika acquires a version of it. But when the invention is stolen people's dreams are invaded leaving them comatose in a magical world. Tokita's fellow scientist Chiba sets out to locate the device while trying to cover up the fact that she is also Paprika.
OPINION It's really hard to explain the plot of Paprika. Essentially it's a dream world. The basis for our introduction into this world is Paprika analysing a police detective's dreams as he struggles with his latest murder case. The ensuing visual onslaught manages to sneak in scenes from From Russia With Love, Tarzan and Roman Holiday. The latter being a moment of genius as the detective becomes the photographer and Paprika assumes the role of Audrey Hepburn bashing a thug over the head with a guitar. That's pretty much the opening scene. As you can imagine I was instantly won over. As Paprika leaves the apartment she initially rides on a scooter but then transports herself from one billboard to the next establishing that the character only exists in a dream realm. This helps us to follow the film later whenever Paprika appears. Effectively Chiba can exist in both worlds but Paprika is only in dreams. The film is perhaps even more visually stunning than Millennium Actress, which is REALLY saying something. Every shot features beautifully drawn animation but unlike the majority of films instead of re-using backdrops and trying to keep things basic other than the central characters Paprika goes out of it's way to animate various things in the background. Just to make the shots look more visually stimulating. One scene in the office sees Tokita sitting and Chiba asking him questions. In the background a fan blows at a package of tissues. It's these tiny little details that Paprika such an interesting viewing experience. There were more than a few scenes where I had to rewind and pause to check out some of the animation. Like when Chiba chases through an apartment looking for a potential thief only to find herself in another world and chasing after a creepy little girl. She leaps over a railing to get to her and is pulled back into reality by her partner as Chiba is leaping over the balcony of the apartment. As she's being pulled back I noticed a load of stuff in the shot and paused it. There are piles of books and all sorts of things. Not just the usual background crates but actual details like a walking stick leaning against the wall. I did this many times during Paprika and was glad to be able to do so because of the DVD technology. The main complaint surrounding Paprika is that it's near impossible to follow. But I found it quite easy. Basically the entire film's a dream or takes place in a dream world apart from the bits that are clearly taking place in reality. I heard one reviewer complain of how "dream logic is confusing" (Stephen Whitty Newark Star-Ledger). Have you never had a dream Mr Whitty? Seriously now. You might as well complain that you don't like how the Earth is round or how sprouts taste bad. Back to the animation though as it's by far the best thing about Paprika. The animation of buildings and trees is incredibly accurate. I was thinking the shot of Tokyo from the air was actually a photograph. I really couldn't tell if it was or not, which should tell you something about how great the drawing was. Then they insert these incredible visuals into it of a dark source just emerging from a hole in the imagination and Tokyo is being sucked into it. Then there's a source of good just eating up all the evil and growing off it. It's the kind of visuals that you just don't see in films, ever. Paprika isn't quite the same level of amazing as it was for me seeing Akira growing up because there have been so many visually stunning films in recent years especially if you've seen anything Miyazaki has done lately (Spirited Away springs to mind although My Neighbor Totoro would also do as an example). But visually Paprika is one of the best looking films I've ever seen. And I've seen quite a lot. There were times when I paused shots just to check on the detail on the rain. Just to see if it'd hold up to still. And it always did. While you may struggle to follow the plot of Paprika you're best just admiring its sheer beauty.
BEST BIT Paprika as Audrey Hepburn. Or the moment when the detective goes to watch a movie and the cinema has Perfect Blue, Millennium Actress and Tokyo Godfathers showing. Cute.
RATING - ****1/4. I prefer both Millennium Actress and Tokyo Godfathers but this is another excellent film from Satoshi Kon. He has his visual style down to a fine art and it looks less cartoony than Miyazaki's work at a similar period in his development (My Neighbor Totoro was his 4th film)
The Lives of Others (2006) aka Das Leben der Anderen
EXPECTATIONS Well it obviously won best foreign picture at last year's Oscars beating out favourite Pan's Labyrinth. Having seen Pan's Labyrinth I can totally understand it not winning. While it's decent and imaginative it's not "best" anything. Lives of Others comes from first time director (feature length) Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. Hell of a name. Seeing as he has no previous work it's hard to judge how this will turn out. I don't know any of the cast. It's basically a step into the unknown at the behest of Oscar. I'm always willing to try and watch different movies from directors and actors I've never heard of so what the hell.
TRAILER
PLOT - Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Muehe) works for the Stasi (secret police) in East Germany, 1984. He's ruthless, humourless, efficient and dedicated to socialism. After Minister Bruno Hempf (Thomas Thieme) declares writer Georg Dreymann (Sebastian Koch) to be a potential troublemaker Wiesler is given the case. But the Minister's attentions are less to do with the writer and more his actress girlfriend Christa (Martina Gedeck).
OPINION I must admit I wasn't thrilled at the idea of watching the Lives of Others. It seemed very much like I'd be in for a look back at how evil Communism was and I'd probably have to sit through hours of talking. In German. It took the film all of about 5 minutes to completely draw me in. I was totally engrossed and remained so for the entire 137 minute run time. The characters were so well set up. The cold hearted Wiesler first. He's a calculating bearcat who only sees in black and white. He has no emotional attachments and his only company outside of work is a hooker. Not even a good looking one. He's a man lost in the system. Too old already to change and set in his ways as a tool of the government. Then we are introduced to Georg. He's clearly a smart man. Smart enough to not question authority but smart enough to realise when it's wrong. He has radical friends who he keeps under control but it's his own mind that's the most radical. He keeps this side hidden away in the privacy of his own home. What better place than there to put him under observation despite his general track record being exemplary and loyal to East Germany. Then we meet his girlfriend Christa. She's a very complex beast. Clearly loyal to Georg, she may even be in love with him but not so much so that she won't consider the advances of the Minister as she believes it has a chance of furthering her career. Wiesler is then put in a position to see everything and hear their private conversations. As he listens in so do we. Wiesler gets more and more attached to the couple as we do. He might not believe in love or have even experienced it but he believes in something after hearing them speak of beautiful emotions. He even steals one of Georg's books in order to read about these things. Western literature wasn't generally well spread behind the Iron Curtain. It's another eye opener for Wiesler. It's one thing after another and soon he finds himself ignoring infractions of the rules. He doesn't want to draw attention to the couple because then he'll lose his link to them and his link to the real world. One he's never been a part of. Meanwhile Christa is torn apart by the conflict within. She wants to do the right thing but also wants her career to be a success. Georg is also torn apart inside by feelings of remorse over his former director Jarska (Volkmar Kleinert) who got black listed because of his views. Georg wants to do something about the situation but is also mindful of his career as a writer. Very few writers are allowed as much freedom as he is because he stays in line. When the opportunity comes to truly make a difference with his writing will he take it? Will Christa be tempted by the Minister and the promise of an easy life? And how much of this can Wiesler cover up? It's the tip of the iceberg as the great relationships develop throughout the film. Wiesler's relationship being particularly one way as he changes without coming into contact with anyone. The Lives of Others is an extraordinary film about normal people in extraordinary circumstances. It's a surprise and a hidden gem that the Academy Awards somehow found and voted for. Believe it or not they actually got something right.
BEST BIT Wiesler sits alone listening to the couple. Georg is upset at the death of a friend and plays the Sonata for a Good Man on the piano. The music had been a present from the dead man just weeks earlier. Wiesler hears all of this, knows the music and knows the significance. A single tear rolls down his cheek. It's not played upon. He remains stony faced. He can't help but cry.
RATING - ****1/2. Probably the best foreign film of the year. It knocked Letters from Iwo Jima out of my top ten best films from anywhere incidentally.
NEXT Sunshine, 28 Weeks Later, Devil in a Blue Dress, Manderlay.
