Jacques Demy
Lola and Model Shop (the ‘sequel’)
Lola- 1961, B&W, french w/subtitles, Anouk Aimee, set in Nantes
This was Demy’s debut film. A note – the version I saw had bad subtitling, so that by the end of the film the subtitles often did not match the person speaking, it was very disconcerting by the end, however an excellent movie. 1.5H.
Model Shop- 1963, Colour, English, Set in low-rise 1960’s LA. Anouk Aimee and Gary
Lockwood, who was in 2001 A Space Odyssey. A surprise – colour and America, and pop music. 1.5H.
Viewed at Cinematheque Ontario, Aug 11/05, a double-header. Alone for the first film. I had thought Rosalind would come – she had wanted to when She, Darren and I saw Une Femme Est Une Femme on Tuesday PM and went over to ‘The Village Idiot’ for a couple glasses of wine afterwords. However I could not reach her and she did not call.
Pierre and Georg from Knox (Pierre: from Montreal, philosophy PhD studying Federalism, Georg from Frankfurt, last evening of his 2 month stay in Canada as placement from his Medical degree). Very pleased to see that Pierre and Georg both very much liked the film (Georg: Gay-org). See review below. Afterwords the three boys went and had a drink at the Idiot and than finished off Georg’s Molson Canadian and peanuts while playing cutthroat three-man elimination billiards in the basement of Knox. See photo.
(In Canada, we explained to Georg, all one needs for a good time is a six pack of Molson’s, a poorly lit basement and a pool table. We are a simple country, and this, for us, is the height of luxury).
Lola –
The attractive and almost frail Aimee is in Nantes, I think, although one might think it was Paris. She is in a Cabaret, chased by a straightforward and disarming sailor. He likes her very much, and must be leaving for America, so they are having a ‘romance’ while the other sailors visit the cabaret to dance with the leggy women ‘on demand’ (it is not a whorehouse). Lola has a young boy, blond hair, and 7 years ago her man left, without marriage. And yet – faithful Lola waits for his return expectantly, with a stringent yearning. Her childhood friend is a sort of cynical intellectual who gets fired for not caring about his work, for not liking his city or his time: he is an interesting disillusioned young man. Lola – her stage name, she is Celine, I think – and he are charmed to see one another again. He wants to take her away with him. But at the last moment, who shows up? and so she drives off, seeing her childhood friend on the street, walking, not knowing that he will not see her and that his suddenly declaration of love, out of nowhere, will be just as suddenly unrequited.
A very nice little film, with a sort of sedate enigmatic quality to Lola especially, but to the other characters as well. It is like the ‘gap’ in life is being filed, the spot between what we know and what we feel, and what we don’t know and what we don’t know we are feeling. Something like that, in any case. These characters do not ‘know’ what they want, as a business manager does: however they have a longing, and they go directly after whatever it is when it presents itself before them in circumstance.
A lovely musical score and footage.
—————————————————————
Model Shop.
1969
Pierre, Georg and I all admired the driving sequences as we follow the American around, for the whole movie. It’s like we see everything he does, and the music kicks in while he drives his little convertible MG through old LA. The pop music, by some band called ‘Spirit’ (featured as friends in the film) is rested from with classical sections, a great relief from the turgid swirl of 1960.
And Lo! There is Lola, from Paris, her son left behind her, and it has been, I believe, another 7 years. The young man is about 24, an architect, who has just quit his job as he cannot be bothered to wok on ‘plumbing’ when he wants to make something real, something definitive.
Filed under: 1960's, Bergman, Ingmar, Cinematheque, Sweden, Uncategorized
Ingmar Bergman
BW, 95 min, Swedish w/ subtitles 1964
Cinematheque, June 2005
Went alone however ran into Zsuzsa on the way out.
Two sister, beautiful, one ill, one with a son perhaps 10. They are on a train, than a hotel. Zsuzsa said that what she liked about it was that it portrayed people as we very rarely see them portrayed – when ill alone, dying. The woman I assume had cancer or something. Ester is sick, Anna feels revenge against her and finds solace in going out and sleeping with some random man. The boy runs in the halls of the extremely elegant hotel.
I didn’t like the movie very much, although a fair amount of it was beautiful to look at. The suffering was dwelled on too much; the close-ups are too close and too long. It becomes not only a picture of morbidity but somewhat morbid itself. I do not mind the portrayal of sickness – but I do not want me, and the director, to be a part of that sickness as well. Some bland/over-wrought/affected European-art sexuality, between the sister and with regard to the escape to the random sexual partner.
OK. Nice to see Zsuzsa.
Zsuzsa says to see CRIES AND WHISPERS on June 25, I do not know if I will go or not.
Filed under: 1960's, Cinematheque, Cukor, George, Loren, Sophia, Quinn, Anthony, USA
Dir George Cukor
1960, USA
Sophia Loren and Anthony Quinn
Costumes Edith Head, Producer Carlo Ponti
Novel by Louis L’Amour
A technicolour pseudo-Western. It is the story of Quinn, an itinerant producer of theatrical productions, and his wayward, headstrong and beautiful young star, Loren. Quinn’s character is 43. It is the free-ranging, rambunctious west from the point of view of non-ranchers, of non-gun slingers. And it’s good. The productions are florid, and the characters are over-drawn, as one would expect from L’Amour, but it also has all of that theatrical charm. nd there is a real story, as the troop runs into trouble but also manages to find a home, and become ’settled’. For is that not the goal of all westward bound homesteaders?
In particular, Quinn is very good, and Loren has a few very good moments. It’s very entertaining, which is clearly what it was intended to be. The opening titles give you a clue – they are cleverly drawn, a giant scroll as from an old western movie marquee sign. They let know that the filmmaker a good story to tell, are going to do it with style, and everyone is going to enjoy themselves. Myself and the 30 or so old people in the Cinematheque did enjoy ourselves.
IMDB gives it a 5.6, but it’s much better than that. Liek the L’Amour books,dower souls will overlook their historical quality because of the simplified dramaticism and the typecast characters, but that in part is the strength of the narrative – it is very unaffected. And the Anothony Quinn fist fight is one of the best I have ever seen.
Cinematheque
aug 2009
Rohmer
1968
One of the moral tales – and again , the message is indistinct. I think it may be Rohmer’s intension to bring out subtle, ambiguopus moral situations in contrast to the typical moral situation which involves and unambiguopus rule and a simple, applicable situation. In this case, it is the question of young, unmarried French persons, in 1968, over the age of 30 (at least some of them) – and catholic. As the lead character himself says – he treats his persaonl life and his religious morality entirely separately.
It is a movie of clever talking people, and romantic and sexual tension. Our hero is caught between his ‘morality’ and the opportunities before him. But it is difficult to tell – it appears his concern to remain true to his own feelings of love and romantic affection have more sway than his religious background, when it comes to the offer of a night of pleasure.
So a delicate little film, and very nice to watch.
La boulangère de Monceau. 1962, Rohmer, first of the 6 moral tales. Cinematheque, July 2009, at the the end of sign of Leo – a short.
Nice little film. The moral issue is a bit tough to figure out. He claims to be true to himself, in being unfair to another. It’s French, I’d say; an Englishman would put the societal norm first, and find pride in doing it the right way, right down the line. But the Frenchman is more cavalier; his pride is in defying the norm, even if it means being brusque, to prove (or make) the right of their own independent judgment.
So it’s clever. Makes you think, if you want, and of course is very nice to watch. Little romance. Paris, and cookies.
A short film at the end of Breathless screening. 20 minutes or so. Cinematheque, July 2009. With Lisa N.1961. Done with Truffaut
We were a little weary after the first film, but this little short is very nice to watch, so we were happy to stay. It’s a little romance, amid Paris in a flood. Liek Winnipeg, but a bit nicer. 4/5. Godard narrates.
1960. Premier film. Viewed July 2009 (again), Cinematheque, with Lisa N. She was a good one to take.
Good to see, dispite later inconsistent films, that this one is as good as I remembered. The Girl from the New York Herald Tribune is Jean Seberg.
Cinematheque, July 2009, on my own.
Godard thinks he’s very clever with this one. And he also appears to know that Breathless was really very good. And he misses it. So there are series of tounge-in-cheek references to films and film-makers, and double-talk dialogue that leads nowhere. People in the audience laugh, but it is uncomfortable rather then funny, and arbitrary rather than clever. So it’s a painful film. It’s the one that follows Breathless, chronologically. Thank goodness he did the good one first. He is inconsistent. 2 stars.
Filed under: 1960's, Antonioni, Cinematheque, Delon, Alain, Italian, Vitti, Monica
Antonioni, 1962.
Saw this long ago. Hated it. Excruciating long shot of – I don’t remember what. A clock? It might have well have been nothing.
Now it’s got Monica Vitti and Alain Delon, so we’ve got something to look at for sure. But ui still went to see Blow Up this year (2009), in part because it’s in the film canon, and because of teh Mel Brooks spin off. Blow Up shows you that the fellow had a glimpse of that horrible,stifling plague on film we call narrative – who could imagine such a terrible restriction? Plot! Something to hold your attention! Sunstance, attached to style…
But as far as I recall L’Eclisse was a real auteur film, meaning in the unfortunate way, where the film becomes a sort of pragmatic neurotic expression of goodness knows what fetish the director has on that certain day, instead of being a cohesive tale for an audience. Myself, I’m not very keen on a diary, simpley because it is indescernable, being passed off as art. Um, so, I dont recommend this film.
Blow Up by Michelangelo Antonioni, 1966.
imdb 7.6 – undeserved.
Cinematheque, saw by myself. Thank goodness. I was in a foul mood getting out. Viewed summer 2009.
Antonioni’s first American film – shot in English – and in 1966 technicolour. Like Demy’s ‘Model Shop’, which is 1969. Demy’s film is better. However, Blow Up has a fantastic plot, perfect for cinema – which is almost buried in a second (or perhaps third, or fourth) rate tv-worthy melodrama of the tacky pass-times of a photographer. The famous plot of a photograph taken in the park of an unknown couple making out (one of whom is Vanessa Redgrave) is everything we could hope for. It’s visually low-key, and the the storyline (this part of the storyline) is carried by the images, not by dialogue. This is perfect for film. Also, there’s the wonderful dimension of having the scene where he’s taking the pictures (in the park), followed later by the scene where’s he’s in the studio blowing up the photos, realizing that there is more there then simply a couple having what may be an extra-martial affair. There’s a gun. You can hardly see it. So he revisits the ‘film’ (motion) sequence with his still-shots, teh same way we, the entertained viewer, revisit the film later in broken down sequences, like still-shots. It’s great. Like a more art-house rendition of ‘Rear Window’ – but with a possible murder, it’s just like rear Window, with that same classic narrative appeal.
So what went wrong? Why did I almost walk out? Why did I want so badly, for almost the entire film, want to walk out? OK, it was not as excruciating as the ending of “L’Elipse” (the other Antonioni film I have seen – and I’m done. I’ll never watch another). We can see the reason in a look at two stills from the film.
The first shot, B&W, shows the photographer inspecting his print to find teh mysterious circumstances. We are hooked.
The second shot, a promotional poster, gives us the spice! It’s fashion, and hot chicks. And yes, they were pretty hot. And unappealing. And our great photography treats them all like garbage – which is fine. What do I care if my investigator is a nice fellow? I don’t. But why do we have to spend 85% of the film watching this fellow run around town in his convertible Rolls, seducing worthless wannabe models in his tacky ‘boho’ photography studios, and generally showing that whatever skills he has as a photographer, he is certainly, when it comes to everyday life, a worthless individual. But Antonioni must like it. The great plot gets a scattered 15 minutes of screen time, but the ‘hero’ showing everyone how clever he is by being impolite and pretentious gets the rest. It’s like reading a national enquirer article about Conrad Black, or better, Pierre Trudeau. Take someone with a brilliantly interesting story, and spend all your time trying to demonstrate how lurid their salacious private life is. That’s Blow-Up. A potentially great film. An excerpt from a great film.
I remember years ago seeing a Mel Brooks film with a short spin-off portion, where Mel Brooks if framed but there’s photo they keep blowing up – bigger and bigger – 10′ tall – to prove that Mel Brooks was innocent, because he was actually in a glass elevator visible way in the background. Mel Brooks knew which part of Blow-Up was worth emulating (it was a credited comical rip-off, and it must have been good, I can remember it from when I was about 12).
Now let’s give some credit. The film has a magnetic, memorable quality. It belongs in the cannon. Sure, its’ 85% pulp, and the ending – provide us a great plot, and purposely throw it away? Is it really that ‘clever’ top just stop a film dead in what is clearly the middle of the plot? Is that what art is? Give me a break. And it makes one ill to think how the pretentious gliterary will love it. Wow. That’s me giving it some credit. But that one snippit of plot, about teh photograph, was magnetic. So it is a film with a good portion, if one can endure the whole.
