The Passion of Joan of Arc Review- by Michael Carlisle

 Though this site is still under construction, here is my fourth review, the spiritual journey of the 1928 French silent classic The Passion of Joan of Arc.

Title: The Passion of Joan of Arc
Year: 1928
Director: Carl Dreyer
Country: France
Language: French
Running Time: 82 Minutes
Rating: N/R

To see Carl Dreyer’s Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) and not weep tears of incredible sadness seems like an impossibility, especially with the combination of close-ups, Renee Maria Falconetti’s impressive performance as the ultimately doomed Joan of Arc and Richard Einhorn’s chilling Voices of Light score. Passion of Joan of Arc is truly a remarkable silent film that will live throughout the ages.

“Long thought to have been lost to fire, the original version was miraculously found in perfect condition in 1981—in a Norwegian mental institution”  Dreyer’s Passion of Joan of Arc tells the legendary story of a country maid who claimed that she had divine visions, sent from God, to lead the French to victory against the English. Dressed as a boy, she eventually did lead the French to victory over the occupying forces of the British. Unfortunately she was captured and brought to a church court, where they laid down severe charges of heresy against her. I praise the director, Carl Dreyer for his writing contributions to this film, he was given a script and threw it away. Instead he focused on the actual transcripts of Joan’s trial. Had he kept the script given to him, the film would not be as authentic and heartbreaking as it is.

Saint or Mentally disabled woman, does it matter? Fearful and consumed with heartache Renee Maria Falconetti’s first, and only, onscreen performance is hauntingly beautiful. She is profoundly human; full of suffering, sorrow and despair as Joan of Arc. Falconetti’s eyes are a window into Joan’s tortured soul.  

A reason Falconetti’s performance is so great has to do a lot with Passion of Joan of Arc’s  unique visual style and camerawork. There are no long or establishing shots, rather the film is comprised entirely of medium, close-ups and extreme close ups. These incredible shots create a fearful, convicting and confrontational mood between Joan of Arc and her accusers, a bunch of self righteous religious hypocrites, who have either sent a saint or a woman with a severe mentally disability to her untimely fate.  Dreyer knew the impact close-ups had on the viewer, he knew that if he was going to make such a solemn and emotional film he would need as many close-ups as possible. As well, for a film of such historical content, there is very little scenery. This was obviously intentional, to make the viewer feel like the film was located in a closed off environment and Joan was being treated like an animal in an enclosure. 

The sets are very German Expressionistic, very odd sizes and lengths. This was also intentional, to create a nightmare-like feel. The sets give us a feeling of imbalance, disharmony and doom, showing Joan’s horrors of finding out that the Church wasn’t a happy place, but a place of great evil and conviction where she would ultimately be burned at the stake. Richard Einhorn’s Voices of Light score brings even more emotion to this film, it’s a heartbreaking and emotionally draining score that, combined with the imagery of Passion of Joan of Arc, will bring you to tears at the injustice Christianity has gotten away with for centuries.

In conclusion, Passion of Joan of Arc is an incredibly beautiful film about pain, suffering and the evils and hypocrisy of Early Christianity. Passion of Joan of Arc is a plunge into the soul, a voyage into human history and a trek through great film making. There is a lot to be gained from watching Carl Theodore Dreyer’s 1928 silent masterpiece. This film is an uneasy, unsettling, intimate experience in which we may find out more truths about life than we could watching any other film. I urge anyone who has ever been interested in films to take this journey, for it will truly be life altering. 5/5

Martha Marcy May Marlene Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Martha Marcy May Marlene
Year: 2011
Director: Sean Durkin
Country: U.S
Language: English

 Well she, she's just a picture. Martha Marcy May Marlene  is one of those rare gems that accurately portrays trauma and cult. Elizabeth Olsen proves herself to be a better actress than her famous sisters as the emotionally fragile and psychologically damaged young adult known as Martha by birth, Marcy May by the charismatic yet violent cult leader played by John Hawkes, Marlene by the name all the girls in the frightening cult use to pick up the phone.

This film does not fault Martha for joining a cult, it sympathizes with her. The film begins with a shot of her frantic escape and a grim phone call to her sister Lucy. Their relationship does not sound like it’s a powerful one, there is no happiness in either party’s tone when they pick up the phone. For Martha calling Lucy is a last resort, she would rather be anywhere else but considering the danger she is in her life depends on this call. Her sister allows Martha to stay at her lakeside cottage presumably just because she is family. However, Lucy (Sarah Paulson) seems indifferent towards her younger sister, a controlling woman who has never dealt with any type of traumatic disorder in her life. Lucy’s husband Ted (Hugh Dancy) is a self absorbed British architect who sees Martha as a burden and refuses to let her “hysteria” get in the way of his projects.

Together they cannot help Martha at all, instead they make Martha feel worse by isolating her and making her feel like a mental patient. “What’s wrong with you?”, “Don’t you know any better?” Martha doesn’t know how to answer these questions as she herself is not aware that she has a disorder. She needs a professional to help her with her various increasing problems, not people who know nothing of what they’re doing. Unfortunately this is the case with many families, parents are not educated enough to know that they need to take their child’s erratic behavior seriously and in the end it seriously harms the child. Until a decade or two ago depression was seen as a joke, something that would go away in a day or two, something that could be overcome easily. Nowadays depression is acknowledged as a very serious disorder among professionals. 

Martha’s unstable relationship with her sister Lucy provides an insight to why she, and so many other people, would enter a cult. Martha used to be a girl with incredibly low self esteem and self image, this “cult” preached that it was sunny, carefree and  based on complete freedom where there are  no authority figures to tell her what to do or tell her she wasn’t good enough. At the very beginning of her stay she was taught to do very helpful things such as caring for small children, having conversations with various members of the cult and  cleaning dishes. She met the charismatic leader Patrick who wooed her with his great voice and guitar skills. It’s easy to see why her and so many other girls would be drawn to a cult like this. However as time goes on everything sunny tends to fade, Martha gets raped in her sleep by Patrick, the projected innocence of this cult is lost.

My favourite scene in this melancholy film is when Patrick plays “Marcy’s Song” around a group of girls. It’s that “uh oh” moment where we finally realize how Patrick is able to lure  women in his cult. Unfortunately like most cult leaders in the real world Patrick is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and he is very skilled at brainwashing the young minds of the women in the cult. They are told that it’s their desire to be raped and to just give in to their natural desires. Later in the film when some members of the cult kill a man after breaking into his house Martha is told by a fellow woman that death is the most beautiful and rare experience in life. It’s this group unity on such shady and false philosophy that makes it very hard to question the group, never mind decide to leave it.

Hawkes portrayal of Patrick may be the best villainous performance I’ve seen since Robert Michum’s role as the sly maniacal Harry Powell in Charles Laughton’s Night of the Hunter. He convincingly shows how easy a man like Charles Manson could gain your love and trust via sneaky mind tricks. He seems like such a nice guy that you as the film viewer have to remind yourself not to join his side. Scary enough there are still men like Hawkes and Manson lurking around, this film is a great warning that many charismatic people are not like they appear to be.

The film cuts back and forth through time to show the extent of how Martha’s trauma is increasing the longer she goes without proper treatment. Her condition gets much worse as the film progresses, in an early scene she has a major panic attack because a man serving drinks at Lucy's  party looks like the cult leader she thinks may be stalking her (for all we know this “stalking” business is likely in her head). In a later scene she kicks Lucy’s husband down a flight of stairs because she is unable to sort nightmare from reality. This is the nature of trauma, this can happen to post traumatic stress disorder victims if they do not get proper treatment.

A lot of people discredit the ending for being too quick and sudden. I say it ended perfectly for a film that tries to accurately depict trauma. Victims of PTSD, even if they go to therapy and get the best professional help still may never get past their experience. They may still wake up screaming in the night, or having random flashbacks and panic attacks. Lots of Holocaust victims could never rid the horrible images in their heads and as a result committed suicide. Trauma sticks with you wherever you go, I doubt this cult leader was following Martha in the first place.

In conclusion, I feel very grateful to have seen this film. It may seem a little confusing at first, but that's forgivable as one may confuse their viewer when making a film about a traumatized person’s distorted reality. Can anybody truly understand a traumatic experiences unless they’ve gone through it themselves? Martha Marcy May Marlene is a fantastic study about the nature of cult and trauma and a great warning about wolves in sheep’s clothing. Truly an achievement for Sean Durkin, I hope to see what he makes in the future. Praise it! 5/5

Did I mention how much the cinematography contributes to the themes of isolation throughout the film?

Night and The City Review-- by Michael Carlisle

 The site is still under construction, but I felt like writing another review. So here it is, Jules Dassin's 1950 classic, Night and the City.

Title: Night and the City
Year: 1950
Director: Jules Dassin
Country: Britain
Language: English
Running Time: 101min
Rating: N/A

A film noir is only as good as the corruptness of the characters within it. Jules Dassin's Night and the City is a gripping British film noir about a man, admittedly a slimy and manipulative man, and his dreams vs. the soul crushing atmosphere of post war London.  Harry Fabian (Richard Widmark) dreams of a life of "ease and plenty". He is a two-bit street hustler who has brilliant plans to invest in Greco-Roman wrestling and make a lot of money.  Fabian seems to be the only optimistic person in this dark, decaying and incredibly pessimistic post war London, he also is also the only American in this British film. Richard Widmark brings a fury of energy to his role, never missing a step as he goes through the many mood swings, which range from hysterically energetic to suicidal unhappiness, as Harry Fabian. The pessimistic acting from the rest of the cast is incredible as well.
  
Night and the City is filled with seemingly apocalyptic landscapes, shadowy lighting and unconventional melancholy camera angles that put us in full view of Fabian’s corrupt and isolated world. Director Jules Dassin does a fantastic job of displaying the incredible isolation of Post war London from the rest of the world. The moody tone of the film is apparent even before the film begins, in the opening titles that are presented in flickering neon light against a foggy  London night. The photography blends seamlessly with Jules Dassin’s masterpiece. The energetic score blends seamlessly with the quick and daring pace of Harry Fabian.

Harry Fabian represents post war America. Both have a very optimistic “we can do anything if we just try” attitude. On the surface both seemed very honest, but have had a checkered history. Post war Britain was not as optimistic, the people of this war torn country had to ration certain things and rebuild a lot after the war because of  the German invasion in 1940. This is why I think the writing is superb, it captures the moods of both post war America and Britain and puts it into a gritty film noir.

The Greco- Roman wrestlers represent the anger of post war  Europe, the self destruction, and the corruption within Britain. There is an incredible scene (one that could dwell among the greatest of scenes) where a young wrestler loses his temper and attacks an old but very experienced wrestler. They fight and fight and fight, but eventually the younger wrestler loses...however the older boxer is so exhausted  he dies. What happened during the war? An old Empire, Britain, died and a new Empire, America, rose to power.

However if you don't take the film as a post war historical "lesson" and you choose to only view it for its entertainment value then you will still really enjoy this film. Night and the City is a film noir that rivals its American film noir counterparts. This film, as well as The Third Man, put British film noir on the map. Night and the City  is an incredibly dark story about struggle, betrayal and desperation, it’s a tragedy about a man who is always looking for shortcuts and it is one of the best examples of the Film Noir in the history of the genre. Not to mention one of the greatest British films of all time. 5/5

Fight Club Review by Michael Carlisle

 Hello there and welcome to Piss on It's first film review by me, Michael Carlisle. Though this site is still under construction I thought I would start Piss on It off with a bang and review the 1999 cult classic Fight Club


Title: Fight Club
Director: David Fincher
Cast: Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter
Year: 1999
Country: U.S
Language: English
Running Time: 139 Minutes
Rating: R

Before I begin my review/rant I must say that Fight Club is a well made film from a technical point of view. The edits,  lighting, shots and overall look of the film is fantastic. The lighting definitely highlights the mood and tone of the film, which is a bitter, unhappy and angry tone. The makeup and special effects used are exquisite. There were many scenes that left me in awe, scenes that left me asking “how did they do it?”. I feel the casting was well chosen, the narrator (Edward Norton) looks like the average joe who has been pushed around a little too often. Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) looks like everything the average joe wishes to be, “smart”, confident and good looking. Marla (Helena Bonham Carter) looks like a very sexual  and possibly intelligent person yet unhappy with her miserable life. I do not have a problem with this film on a technical stance, if I was to make a moody film and needed some inspiration I would definitely watch this film again, however I definitely have a problem with this film on a philosophical and moral level

The average Fight Club fan

The first time I viewed Fight Club I thought it was an incredibly deep film about a bunch of lonely rebels who were fed up with being pushed around in life. Five viewings and six years later I am disgusted by Fight Club on a moral level. It’s a mediocre film that celebrates fascism and glorifies violence, thinking that it can get away with this by shouting philosophical catchphrases at the viewer. Fight Club is masturbation material for angry teenagers and testosterone filled men. Had the film not been as technically well made as it is, the moral issues would be much clearer.

              

 I won’t deny that I thought everything before the introduction of Brad Pitt’s character wasn’t completely stupid.  Fight Club begins with a bitter and frustrated Edward Norton. He is unhappy about his meaningless life, he is unhappy about his accurately described insomnia. He goes to odd group meetings, possibly to make himself feel better about his pathetic life. He meets an equally upset woman named Marla (Helena Bonham Carter) at a testicular cancer meeting. The film at this point is watchable, it has a nice sarcastic dark comedy feel to it. Then Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) enters the film as a kind of mentor for the depressed Norton...and that's where the film starts to decline in quality.

As I said in the beginning, Brad Pitt is a good choice for the character of Tyler Durden. Pitt looks and acts like everything Norton's character wants to be, but the character and "mindfuck" itself is not necessary! Why did so many films in the 90's think they needed some grand plot twist??

Featured: The reason so many 90's films felt they needed a grand plot twist

Durden's biggest sin was introducing this "fight club". This introduction is where any logic and humour the film has had is completely thrown out the window. What philosophy can explain the reason why these men fight (unrealistically) in a dark basement? Brad Pitt (as Durden) says "We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off." Any intelligent person will look at this quote and realize that it's not true, Norton and Pitt are millionaires and movie gods. The philosophy doesn't work.

Indeed it's as if the writers of Fight Club skimmed through some basic philosophy books at their local library and threw all the crap they could find into this film. Durden is a charismatic bully who fools the members of Fight Club into thinking that they're some great rebellious army,in reality Fight Club never helps anybody. They all become mindless parasites. Infact Durden's cult-like charisma and backwards philosophy reminds me of a man named Adolf Hitler.

                 

Of Course the film isn’t supposed to portray Durden as an anti-hero, however the film is so poorly written, the violence is so intense and the cast is so well known that most viewers reject the approach the film attempts to make, that Fight Club is not supposed to agree with Durden’s philosophy, and instead think that Durden’s philosophy has some real value. My point is proven when you read about how much fight clubs came into existence in 1999 because of this film. My point is proven again when you talk to the delusional fans of Fight Club and they quote a ridiculous philosophical catchphrase from the film

                 

In conclusion I cannot forgive Fincher for making the monstrosity known as Fight Club. A celebration of fascism , shady philosophy and gratuitous violence. The “twist” ending is completely ridiculous, very poorly executed and written. Getting rid of a split personality by shooting yourself in the face is the most asinine thing I have ever seen in any movie. From a technical aspect the film is well made but on a moral level it's appalling. Piss on it and while you’re at it, follow the first rule of fight club, do NOT talk about Fight Club! 1/5

Note: This is shortly after Edward Norton shot himself in the face. Completely ludicrous.