Discussing "We Rob Banks"

 Title: Discussing "We Rob Banks"
Year: 2013
Writer: Michael Carlisle

Throughout cinematic history there have been lines of dialogue so thrilling and unique that they stay fresh in our minds forever. Who could forget when the calculating anti-hero of Casablanca, Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart), said "We'll always have Paris" to his ex-lover Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman)? How about when Dorothy (Judy Garland) arrives in the magical land of Oz and says to her beloved dog "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore"? Some lines of dialogue are timeless because the can fit in any time period, this brings me to "we rob banks".

For those of you who don't know, "we rob banks" is a line from Arthur Penn's classic New American Wave film known as Bonnie and Clyde. It is a loose biography about the criminal careers of the legendary couple Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) and Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty). The film starts with Bonnie's desire for freedom from her small Southern depression hit town and ends with the Barrow gang's death at the side of a road.

Clyde Barrow says the famous line "we rob banks" near the middle of the film. It happens while introducing himself to the farmers who used to own the house that he and his lover are now temporarily squatting in. The farmers had stopped to take one last look at their home, which that unfortunately lost due to bank foreclosure. Seeing Clyde makes the former home owners hesitate, but as soon as the charismatic says "we rob banks" a mutual respect for one occurs. The bank, it seems, is the common enemy of the common man during the depression era. To rob a bank is to do a great service to a great number of people.

Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker could only be considered heroes because of their situation. If they did their notorious acts in our modern era they would be considered terrorists and sent to Guantanamo Bay for intense interrogation. The situation which made robbing banks socially acceptable, at least among the incredibly poor, was the Great Depression.

The great depression began around September 4, 1929, after the fall in stock prices. However most historians would agree that complete devastation began Octover 29,1929 the the complete collapse of the stock market, this day is infamously known as "Black Tuesday".  By mid-1930, interest rates had dropped to low levels, but expected deflation  and the continuing reluctance of people to borrow meant that consumer spending and investment were depressed. In 1931 a vicious deflationary spiral started and unemployment was up by an astounding 600%.  The decline of the US economy assisted in the decline of many other countries economies, soon everybody was pulled down and by 1933 the world's economy hit rock bottom. 

Though we cannot possibly comprehend the devastating effects of the great depression, many films and novels have simulated the tragic experience. John Steinbeck's novel The Grapes of Wrath paints a portrait of how the average family in Oklahoma suffered because of the economic collapse and tremendous unemployment rate. Charles Chaplin used his wildly popular Tramp character in Modern Times to make light of  a situation which had left most in ruin. 

Not even famous actors could avoid being affected by the world's disastrous economy, especially since this was also the transition period between silent film and talkies. In 1927 Warner Brothers created the first feature film, The Jazz Singer, that included sound, a new technology at the time. Its popularity exploded and soon audiences were demanding that more talkies be made, out with the old and in with the new. The transition was unavoidable; most Directors/actors/producers who refused to adjust would be thrown on the street and left to fend for themselves. Silent movies weren't making any money, though Chaplin refused to change until 1940 with his anti-nazi The Great Dictator, his 30's films would be money losers. The sound era demanded a different breed of actor and unfortunately history is loaded with too many actors who couldn't make the jump to sound, then lost their money in the depression.

Though the depression died out during World War Two, because a greater number of jobs are available during wartime, we are still affected by the foolish choices of the rich and powerful to this day. The US is in an economic recession because they fought two wars they found they couldn't afford, banks are being bailed out of bankruptcy by the government while the average joe is left to fight for themselves. "We rob banks" was not only a powerful statement for the depression era , it is a powerful statement in our modern era. Though Bonnie and Clyde might be treated as terrorists in 2013, they would still receive the affection of the public who are absolutely sick of reckless bankers. I have a feeling Arthur Penn's film will be relevant for a long time to come.

Examining Badlands

Title: Examining Badlands
Year: 2013
Writer: Michael Carlisle

Terrence Malick is a polarizing figure in the world of cinema; many claim he is an absolute genius, creating astonishing works like Tree of Life, The Thin Red Line and Days of Heaven, others think he is a talentless hack only capable of making flawed and/or sleep inducing films. I once thought the latter until I watched his complex 1973 debut Badlands. His directorial introduction the the silver screen was an atom bomb full of thought, imagination and originality. Even months after I've watched the film I find myself in deep thought over it, attempting to grasp the characters, their motives and the many themes within this 94 minute spectacular.

For those of you who don't know, Badlands is based on the Starkweather-Fugate killing spree of the 1958, in which a fifteen-year-old girl and her twenty-five-year-old boyfriend slaughtered her entire family and several others in the Dakota badlands. Martin Sheen (Apocalypse Now) stars as the charismatic James Dead look-alike Kit, and Sissy Spacek (Carrie) plays a secondary role as his girlfriend Holly.

In many ways Badlands reminds me of Arthur Penn's 1967 breakthrough Bonnie and Clyde. Both films are about a notorious couple who murder a lot of people, doing what they can to escape from their impoverished lives. Both films begin the same way; with the heroine in her bed, wanting to escape their dull world in hopes of adventure. The female protagonists eventually do find their adventure in the form of two handsome men, but eventually realize they have dug themselves far too deep and find themselves passive victims of male domination and manipulation.

The two male lead characters in both Bonnie and Clyde and Badlands are also strikingly similar. Clyde Barrow is an ambiguous man who is incredibly insecure about himself. He's very charismatic and opportunistic, but has deep feelings of anxiety and fear. Kit is pretty much the same way; on the outside he looks calm and cool like James Dean, but on the inside he is a ticking timebomb. Many of his murders are done without thought, a last minute panic attack. For both men death is a game, but while Clyde has a laugh out of it, Kit stares coldly. His disregard for human life goes beyond pychiatric care, he is a sociopath. 

Both films also play on themes of innocence. Though Bonnie and Clyde spend their lives robbing banks and shooting cops, we still feel sympathy for them because of their justifiable line "we rob banks". Both characters feel they are the victims of the Great Depression and need to rob in order to survive. We also feel some sympathy for Kit, only because we see the events unfolding through Holly's eyes. This is Malick's genius; when Holly sees her boyfriend as her savior in a cruel heartless world, we do too. When Holly becomes suspicious of his actions and sees him as the cold being that he is, we follow along. The film's overall mood changes as time progresses; at first we feel a sense of freedom, romance and adventure, but after a while we feel trapped and helpless. Much like Bonnie and Clyde, the character's worlds shrink the more "free" they think they are.

Malick's film can be seen as a warning against society's ideals regarding sex and gender. Women are told to be calm, passive, peaceful and to listen to their man. Holly embodies this, but enters a world of hurt because of it. Kit is the stereotypical dominant man who lacks emotion and thrives off competition, however he is more monster than human. Many women stay in abusive relationships out of fear and passivity, Badlands is a loud gesture to GET OUT. Speak up against opression and don't fall for somebody just because they ooze charisma.

Why can our world be cruel? Malick doesn't seem to have an answer, but he does suggest that running away from society is not an intelligent idea. Our real world is full of people like Kit and Holly, those who thrive on destruction and those who dont know any better. While both characters spend the film searching for meaning, it seems that they never find any of it. At the end of the film does Kit know the reason why he is running from police anymore? As Malick progresses, we see a an optimistic young man transform into a rabid animal. His life becomes literally like the title of James Dean's most famous film Rebel Without a Cause.

Near the end of the film this "rebel" turns into action hero as he evades police capture, brandishing a gun and makeshift shield. Holly comes to realization and stops in her tracks, realizing that she is trapped in his madness and the only way out is to give herself up. Its quite a beautiful feminist moment because the whole film was building up to it, the liberation of Holly's soul from Kits hell. Malick's flawless film comes to a satisfactory ending.

Lord of the Flies Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Lord of the Flies
Year: 1963
Director: Peter Brook
Country: UK
Language: English

There are some books that are so good, they stay in your mind forever. George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World are just a few examples of these. Nobel prize winning author William Golding's Lord of the Flies is another novel that I just can't get enough of. A month ago I had heard that a film adaptation had existed, but I shrugged it off because I thought the adaptation couldn't possibly be as good as the original text. However I am here to tell you that the film is just as good, if not better.

The film consists of a group of young boys are stranded alone on an island. Left to fend for themselves, they must take on the responsibilities of adults, even if they are not ready to do so. Inevitably, two factions form: one group (lead by Ralph) want to build shelters and collect food, whereas Jack's group would rather have fun and hunt. Both groups are terrified of the monster that lives on the island.

What child does not want to be left alone, supervised for an extended period of time? If films like Home Alone are fantasy, then surely this is nightmare. Peter Brook's Lord of the Flies does an exquisite job of showing the lines between civility and savagery. Ralph (James Aubrey) wishes for order and peace, using a conch as a symbol for an orderly society, while Jack (Tom Chapin) could care less, his symbol is a boar's head which portrays lordly conquest. Throughout the 92 minute runtime we are taken on a whirlwind through hope and hopelessness, peace and suffering.

Author William Golding had a rather bleak view on Society; if law and technology is removed and we revert back to a primitive state of being, would we bring peace or war? Golding suggests the result would be utter chaos. Though "good" is ideal, "evil" and "greed" is always more seductive. Director Peter Brook amplifies Golding's thoughts and force us into a world of madness in which we can only pray ends.

Not believing professional child actors would deliver acting strong enough to portray such tragic characters, Brook decided to cast non-actors that lived close to the island of shooting. This was a wise choice as Brook received tremendous acting from all the cast, especially Hugh Edwards, the boy who played Piggy. The film's cinematography is brilliant, it greatly enhances the mood of the film by adding melancholy visuals of an island erupting into madness. Lord of the Flies is a horror film with none of the gimmicks, it is true fear.

In conclusion, Peter Brook's Lord of the Flies is not only as good as the original source material, but it may be better. It certainly is far superior when compared to the horrid adaptation made in the 90's. Each shot and line of dialogue in this film is important, which is one of the reasons it is so great. If you want a film that chills you to the bone, don't watch Silence of the Lambs, watch this. Praise it! 5/5

Simon of the Desert Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Simon of the Desert
Year: 1965
Director: Luis Bunuel
Country: Mexico
Language: Spanish 

A while ago I gave great praise to Luis Bunuel's Belle De Jour, a marvelous film about a depressed housewife who inexplicably decides to become a prostitute. Bunuel not only struck gold with that film, starring French icon Catherine Deneuve, but has also made several other gems including The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, Virdinia and the creepy experimental silent Un Chien Andalou. The film currently being reviewed is the religious Simon of The Desert.

In the film, the ascetic Simón believes he is a sinner and decides to self-inflict a sacrifice, living like a hermit on the top of a pedestal in the middle of the desert to be closer to God and resist the temptations of the world. His followers are peasants and travelers that believe that Simón is a saint capable of performing miracles and they crowd to hear his speeches. However, Satan tries to tempt him with the pleasures of the world.

During the 1930's director Luis Bunuel was forced to self-exile from his home country of Spain, due to the ongoing Spanish Civil War. He set his sights on the country of Mexico; due to the poor state of the country's struggling film industry Bunuel was given all the artistic freedom he could handle. Eventually he would make the greatest films Mexico had ever seen, meet his future wife Silvia Pinal and his future producer Gustavo Alariste. Together they made a trilogy of extremely controversial films that would challenge the political and religious landscape. Viridiana, The Exterminating Angel and this movie, Simon of the Desert form this trilogy.

Loosely based on the real life story of Saint Simeon Stylites, a monk who like Simón, decided to spent his days at the top of a pillar, Simon of the Desert is a strange and surreal that almost parodies the real story. This film feels like a smarter version of Monty Python's Life of Brian. Like the Python gang, Bunuel doesn't criticize the religion, but he does criticize the followers of it. The followers are seemingly too passive, and the leaders are dehumanized because they lack humility. Simon isn't a likeable character, he has quite a big ego and thinks he is wiser than everybody else because he assumes that he knows the "right" way to please God.

Simon's holiness is as corrupt as the devil's wickedness. The devil is being played by the gorgeous Silvia Panal, who does a remarkable job. Though the film is only 45 minutes long, it never overstays its welcome. The plot isn't dragged out and the message remains poignant. Perhaps it could have been a bit longer to make the ending have more sense, however Bunuel's films are an inch from insanity, we should not expect total comprehension.

In conclusion, Simon of the Desert is a masterful parody of religious hypocrisy. It remains funny without insulting anybody's intelligence and without insulting the religious values themselves. Monty Python's Life of Brian obviously has a different way of using satire, and both work well, but I enjoyed this just a bit more, especially with the insane ending.  Praise it! 5/5

Truffaut's Femme Fatale

Title: Truffaut's Femme Fatale
Year: 2013

Writer(s): Ehren C. Clarke & Michael Carlisle
Editor: Ehren C. Clarke 

One of the most compelling and ambiguous cinematic figures in all of the history of cinema, a woman of the utmost complexity and curiosity that cannot be glazed over as a femme fatale in the same way Scarlet O’Hara is of such a complexity and deserves great consideration, is the charismatic and oblique character played in “Jim et Jules” of Catherine by Jeanne Moreau.  The dichotomy presented in this character is compelling as she, like Leigh’s character, presents the viewer, with an anomalous personality that is frankly difficult to grasp holistically. 

It must not be said that this character has a schizophrenic tendency, on the contrary.  It is to Moreau’s great credit that this character is entirely cohesive, it is just a more challenging role than most to try to get to grips on a role that will perhaps never be fully understood, but here we might attempt to understand some of her motivation and thus a degree of her purpose as a believable and relatable being whom one might empathize with as indeed the ultimate argument is if she is a tragic character, is she meant to be pitied, is she manipulative, does she have real amorous qualities mingled with traits of magnanimity, or is she simply cruel, or a combination of several of these in myriad ways.  The latter is perhaps closer to the truth.

We meet Catherine in her living quarters and indeed she is anomalous as we learn nothing about her other than she is assertive, proud, brazen, unabashedly flirtatious, and knowing of her charms while in complete control.  At first she seems to have a coldness to her, but this dissipates as a warmth washes over her as she allows herself to be disguised as a man, dons a cap, and she, Jules and Jim, in the iconic scene of the film, madly and exuberantly, in a moment that seems the closest to happiness that the three will ever know together, run across a bridge. 

Another incident must be considered.  The three are walking at night.  They are engaged in a philosophical discussion that may have stirred Catherine’s pride.  Of a sudden, dressed in full evening clothes for the chilly evening, she takes a hop to the left and right into the frigid waters of the Seine.  Without a thought of the outcome of the situation, having been stirred to act, pride seems to be more important, a demonstration of fearlessness and lack of seriousness for what had been the topic of discussion, chancing her very life on the surety that it be known that she was in total disregard for either Jules or Jim, or for herself for that matter, and that nothing in fact did matter, so why not, what did she have better to do than to, in an act completely rhetorical, plop herself in the Seine.

But, this is a first sign of Catherine’s weakness and the fact that she cares very deeply and craves attention and wants desperately for intimacy and nothing, in the moment of insecurity as they are walking, nothing could be greater to her than to brave the frigid waters of the Seine than to be rescued by the caring and adoring arms of someone who truly cared and adored her back.  Catherine is alone in the world.  Looking back to the first meeting with her upon reflection, she is entirely alone.  Thinking of the moment of total abandon where she recklessly allows herself to be dressed as a man and with all of the glorious sense of freedom accompanied by two attractive adorers who she amuses, is giddy in the commotion she is causing, just as she is giddy by jumping into the Seine.

How strange for one to be giddy by casually, as if it were as simple an activity as painting on a moustache and donning a male cap, plopping into a frigid river.  But she had learned by now that these men adored her and she know that there was no length she could go to for these adoring men not to rescue her.  She was starting to play a very dangerous game staking her empty loneliness and betting on the adoration of two men, two best friends, whom she was confident both adored her, and the game of danger that she played was the game of love, no less dangerous than Russian Roulette to its victim and no greater than Olympic gold to the victor, or so she thought.

The game was played out in a provincial cottage, a hideaway, a reality of its own where Jules and Jim, far from civilization, could wage the stakes on Catherine unbeknownst that she was in the game too, more so, she was the mastermind.  She and Jules married for a time but that did not mean she did not have her way with Jim, she would not allow his affection and adoration to fade, it was too critical to her, it was too empowering, it gave her too much security, while playing the strings of Jules, the dedicated husband. 

Jim went away for a time and Catherine was left with Jules but this was not enough for her.  There was a young and attractive neighbor nearby and having had the strong desire and affection of Jules and Jim for so long, how empowering and how rejuvenating would it be to kindle the affections of a new romance.  This she did knowingly by Jules but it would turn into nothing serious and Catherine was, as is predictable, bored.  But soon Jim came back, such was the lure of Catherine and the midnight escapades continued, with neither Jules, nor Jim, nor Catherine, happy at all.

A summer picnic by a lake provided an ideal opportunity for Catherine and Jim to take a drive.  She was in the drivers seat.  She was in complete control.  She had Jim to her side and she had Jules not far off but just as much under her control.  As the car rattled off it took a turn onto a bridge.  Up ahead it became noticeable that there had been damage to the bridge and the bridge ended right at the middle with no space to the other side.  Just as casually as she had donned the men’s guise, even more casually than she plopped into the river, with far greater ease than she had been playing puppeteer to those lives around her for a good number of years, Catherine turned her head to Jim, gave a smile as casual as if to say, “How lovely it is to have you by my side,” and the car plummeted over the edge and sunk into the river.

With consideration to the chain of events it becomes easier to see Catherine’s motives.  Control becomes intoxicating to one who is alone in the world, to one who is in fact fragile but desperately wants to be strong and is very good at playing the game.  Most usually, that game of strength is played by vying one player against the other, and this is no real strength, this is smarts, this is calculated manipulation, thought up moment to moment, turn by turn.

For one such as Catherine, who has played the game through, who really has not triumphed or lost but knows there is no happiness to be found for the victor of this game, the answer the primal question is that she is to be pitied.  As much as one wants to like Catherine, that final smile at Jim is in fact resignation; “I have lost, I have played my game till its end, I have even met my goals but still, one looses in this accomplishment.  There is nothing further to be played in this game and you cannot love me, you cannot adore me anymore than you are capable and that has long grown stale, I have overstayed my welcome and now I bid you a fond goodbye as there is nothing to be said and nothing to be done.  I am sorry that I am so selfish and crave control so much that I have to bring you with me, but I am the victor of this game and you have lost.  This is the price that must be paid, nothing can be done for what must be.  Regardless, you are unhappy too.

Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean
Year: 1982
Director: Robert Altman
Country: US
Language: English 

There are some film titles so strange that your curiosity peaks and you can't help but want to watch it. I first heard of this title in a dream; I left a restaurant called "the five and dime" and gave the waiter a generous tip, he graciously yelled out "come back to the five and dime!" and I woke up. I wondered what a "five and dime" was so I looked it up on the internet and came across the IMDB section for Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean. Considering Cher was cast in the film I didn't expect much, but it surprised me.

In the film, the Disciples of James Dean meet up on the anniversary of his death and mull over their lives in the present and in flashback, revealing the truth behind their complicated lives. Altman attempts to answer many questions such as identifying the real story behind Mona's son, James Dean Junior.

After Robert Altman directed one of his many masterpieces known as Nashville, he found himself temporarily out of work and therefore took a two year break from the world of cinema. When he returned Altman proved that he was a force to be reckoned with; his next three films, Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean (1982), Streamers (1983), and Secret Honor (1984),  being incredibly  powerful. These three films had a minimalistic approach, using only one set piece in which the drama would burst. Based on a theatrical play, Come Back would be set over a diner. Though there is a lot of talking, none of it is useless banter. All of the dialogue is important as it greatly contributes to character and/or plot. As typical for Altman, his script is near perfection.

Being the First American film distributed by American independent film distributor Cinecom, Altman wasn't allowed and didn't need a big budget for this picture. His talent, and the talent of his actresses, could achieve a lot regardless of financial contribution. Cher, Karen Black and Sandy Dennis are marvelous actors who do anything but bore us the 109 minutes they are onscreen. The most remarkable aspect of Come Back is Altman's technical way of presenting the flashback scenes. He isn't using sophisticated optical effects, but rather looking through a two way mirror.

In conclusion, it's unfortunate that though Robert Altman is a well known Director and many of his films are readily available on home video, Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean is almost forgotten by cinephiles and critics. To be fair, compared to Altman's masterpieces like Nashville, 3 Women and McCabe and Mrs.Miller, this picture doesn't seem that great. However it is still better that his film adaptation of Mash. 3.5/5

Monsters, Inc Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Monsters, Inc
Year: 2001
Director: Peter Docter
Country: US 
Language: English

As a child, my generation grew up on the classic hand-drawn style of animation seen in films like Disney's Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast and Dreamwork's Prince of Egypt. In 1995 Disney would slowly change the game with the uniquely computer animated Toy Story, Though computer animation didn't catch on too quickly, it soon became the standard during the 21st Century. Nowadays there rarely is a mainstream film using traditional style. However this does not mean the quality of "children's films" suffered, infact in some ways it has improved.

The film is set in a city of monsters with no humans called Monstropolis, which is centered around the city's power company, Monsters, Inc. The lovable, confident, tough, furry blue behemoth-like giant monster named James P. Sullivan  (John Goodman), better known as Sulley, and his wisecracking best friend, short, green cyclops monster Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal), discover what happens when the real world interacts with theirs in the form of a 2-year-old baby girl dubbed "Boo," (Mary Gibbs) who accidentally sneaks into the monster world with Sulley one night.

All this happens because Monstropolis is in a crisis: Kids are getting too hard to scare and there's a scream shortage. Strangely this feels like a realistic scenario; with movies like Saw combined with irresponsible parents allowing them to watch Saw, children in our reality are becoming numb to horror.  Though with cuddly monsters like Sulley and Mike, its no wonder why children don't find them terrifying. However, those two characters are quite memorable and throughout the story you feel increasingly connected to them. Even though the business revolves around traumatizing children, you can't help but care that they might lose their jobs if their business goes under.

Monsters Inc can be both hilarious and heartwarming. It's very funny that the monsters, like mice, are much more scared of us than we are of them. Even the one eyed Mike, played by the brilliant Billy Crystal, can get a laugh from even the sternest of adults. My favourite character is the abominable snowman, who is the complete opposite of what his name suggests. I do critique the villain Randall, while he is a complete dink, his "evil" does not compare in anyway to the creepier Disney villains like Hades and Ursela. It's unfortunate that Dreamworks Shrek won the "Best Animated Feature" at the 2001 Oscars, considering Monsters Inc is much more than sloppy pop culture references, but overtime I hope this character driven film will recieve much higher praise.

In conclusion, while I couldn't say Monster's Inc is an important masterpiece, I will state that it's one of the most entertaining animated films of the 21st Century. It's of technical perfection and manages to entertain all the way through without being boring. It is an essential piece of the pixar theory, but it doesn't contain any strong themes or messages. Still, in the 2020's I hope to show this to my kid(s). 3.5/5

The Hobbit Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Hobbit
Year: 2012
Director: Peter Jackson
Country: US
Language: English 

Approximately eleven years after Peter Jackson's first installment of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy screened worldwide, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey hit theaters and has done, unsurprisingly, well. It appears that the seemingly great novels by J.R.R. Tolkein will not die out, but flourish for generations to come. Even The Hobbit is not the last we will hear of him because Jackson has decided to make the one book into another epic trilogy of his. Bring on the orcs I say!

In this film, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is swept into a quest to reclaim the lost Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor from the fearsome dragon Smaug. Approached out of the blue by the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), Bilbo finds himself joining a company of thirteen dwarves led by the legendary warrior, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) . Their journey will take them into the Wild; through treacherous lands swarming with Goblins and Orcs, deadly Wargs and Giant Spiders, Shapeshifters and Sorcerers.

Peter Jackson should have renamed this The Hobbit: A Homo-erotic Journey, because there certainly is a lot of homosexual subtext within his film. Jackson is no stranger to putting LGBT themes within his pictures, the original Lord of the Rings Trilogy closely examined the "friendship" of lovelorn couple Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gamgee. I feel this undertone adds to a picture that is otherwise bloated with action scenes that, even in a fantasy, throw you in complete disbelief. The film has a pretty long running time, 169 minutes, but it feels much longer. The time isn't filled wisely and has many "filler" scenes that don't add to the character development or to the plot. Perhaps if the film was trimmed to 90 minutes it would have been less of a drag.

The cinematography in The Hobbit was great, but it doesn't feel authentic. The CGI was obviously on overload here, to create the perfect swooping shots, but that gives the film a less human feel. Do we compliment Jackson's direction or his special effects crew for this film? However, like his previous LOTR Trilogy, Hobbit has a great and familiar score that gives the film an epic feel despite having a script barely suitable for a videogame. I did love seeing Gollum again, but could care less about every other character. Most of them were one dimensional caricatures suitable for comedic fodder, Jackson took no care in getting us emotionally involved with the dwarves.

In conclusion, while Lord of the Rings lovers may hate my verdict, I feel that Tolkein's book is far better than Peter Jackson's modern bastardization. The Hobbit does have some very fun and unique moments but overall, unless you're a huge fan of the series, its pretty much a drag. Though I'm fascinated by the dragon Smaug, I think I'll just re-read the novel rather than sit through 3 hours of filler. To its credit The Hobbit is the first film shot in 48fps, however I'm hoping that it's the last as well. Piss on it! 1,5/5

Hard Candy Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Hard Candy
Year: 2005
Director: David Slade
Country: US
Language: English

 Ellen Page has made a career out of being an awkward teenage girl, despite being in her mid twenties. While she has been in incredibly popular blockbusters such as X Men: 3 and Christopher Nolan's mind altering Inception, she is most known for her comedy about teen pregnancy Juno. This faux indie film was considered to be so good it made Page an Academy Award Nominated actress. However, before Juno, Page would make the darkest picture of her career: Hard Candy.

After three weeks of chatting with the thirty-two year old photographer Jeff Kohlver over the Internet, fourteen year old Hayley Stark meets him in the Nighthawks coffee shop. Hayley flirts with him in spite of the age difference and proposes to go to his house. Once there Hayley accuses him of pedophilia, then begins to slowly torture him.

Hard Candy is not for the faint of heart; it is visually disturbing and very troubling to the mind. The film's castration scene will leave you sick to your stomach, you will likely not be able to get through the entire film. Despite having seen films like Pier Paolo Pasolini's Salo: Or the 120 Days of Sodom, I still had difficulty getting to the end of this film. However when I arrived at the end I thought to myself; is Ellen Page's character supposed to be a hero or villain? Is she an innocent teenager trying to portray her brand of justice on the unsuspecting pedophile? Or is she a sociopath who preys on pedophiles and uses their criminal past as an excuse for torture.

I ask this because the film's qualities change depending on the moral nature of Page's character. If Page is supposed to be portrayed as sweet and innocent then Hard Candy is awful. The torture is so intense that one feels empathy for the pedophile and begins to loathe Page. If otherwise, Slade's film can be seen as a warning about those we meet on the internet; even a young woman can turn out to be a crazed lunatic. However Slade's film can also be boring and tedious. The writing cannot keep up with the visuals, thus the audience is forced to watch poorly paced torture porn long after the film made its somewhat philosophical point. Overall it's a preachy film that tries too hard to be edgy and controversial.

In conclusion, while Hard Candy tries to show some depth by making Page's morals ambiguous, it is incredibly shallow. Perhaps a victim of sexual assault would feel otherwise, maybe torture is the best revenge in their minds, but a person detached from that kind of trauma can't help but feel empathetic for Jeff. The poorly written monologues about morality are torture enough as it is. Hard Candy is torture porn masquerading as art. Piss on it! 1/5

Chains Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Chains 
 Year: 1949
Director: Raffaello Matarazzo 
Country: Italy
Language: Italian

Melodramas are not for the faint of heart. With themes of love, betrayal, sacrifice and suffering they can be undeniably heartbreaking; leaving you in a pool of your own tears. Various national cinemas have contributed to this genre, notably American Director Douglas Sirk. His All That Heaven Allows has been a remarkable success worldwide. Italian Director Raffaello Matarazzo is not as well known as Sirk, but he certainly packs a punch straight to the gut.

In this film, Yvonne Sanson is Rosa Carrisi, a devoted wife of a mechanic (Gugleilmo Aniello) who finds herself in a trap laid out by ex-lover Emilio (Aldo Nicodemi). She must have an affair with him, or else the ex-lover will tell her husband that they are having an affair anyways and split their family apart forever.

Director Matarazzo creates a somewhat conventional, yet thoroughly entertaining melodrama which stirs our hearts and captures our minds. He takes us to satisfying highs and dizzying lows, on a journey that brings us through every human emotion that can be felt. Over the course of 90 minutes, Matarazzo makes you care about Rosa's Italian family and makes you long for them to reconcile. When the story gets bleak, you beg for a happy resolve to their miserable conflict.

Ultimately the film is very satisfying and gives you a greater outlook on Mankind. With this Matarazzo claims that there is great hope in the world. At the heart of Chains lies a feminist political message about the inequalities of women compared to men. Though it is assumed Rosa was cheating, and she should be punished for that, why is it worse than a man killing her "lover" out of rage? Why is a jealous man excused from any wrong doings? 

In conclusion, Chains is a very well made film that contains incredibly thought provoking self reflective themes. It is a criticism of mankind, yet it also eventually becomes a profound statement of mankind's righteousness. It is very well acted; even the children can tug at your heartstrings. The score is perhaps the greatest aspect of all,  creating the tense atmosphere of the film. Chains is truly a hidden Italian gem
. Praise it! 5/5

The Eternal Jew Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Eternal Jew
Year: 1940
Director: Fritz Hippler
Country: Germany
Language: German

Piss on It's main writer Michael Carlisle is no stranger to controversial and/or propaganda film. Reviews have been written about Nazi documentary film-maker Leni Riefenstahl and her works Olympia and Triumph of the Will.  While they were horrific pieces expressing Nazi love, they ultimately had very good technical qualities and were historically important. Can the same be said of The Eternal Jew? A film so vile that it helped in the destruction of 6 million European Jews.  Lets find out.

In the film, the Jews of Poland, invaded by Germany in 1939. are depicted as filthy, evil, corrupt, and intent on world domination. Street scenes are shown prejudicial, along with clips from Jewish cinema of the day and photos of Jewish celebrities, while the narrator "explains" the Jewish problem. The climax and resolution of the film is Hitler's 1939 announcement that the Jewish race will meet its "annihilation"

The Eternal Jew is a film that made me shudder out of fear. In 2013 it feels more like a horror film considering that everything about Hippler's presentation was dead serious. Its incredibly upsetting that most of the German people could by into this film and it's shocking that this is how people felt about the Jewish community during this time period. The ending of Hippler's documentary is perhaps the most powerful ending in the history of cinema; a claim that Jews will be annihilated. Hitler was true to his word, he would try to kill them off during the Shoah, but thankfully he ultimately failed.

The picture is built upon lie after lie; it's conniving and brutal. However, it must be a well executed piece of propaganda, a terribly made picture wouldn't receive as many believers as this did. Unfortunately it's easy to make-up lies about another's culture if few non-Jewish people actually know about Jewish traditions. In the modern era The Eternal Jew is not watchable in any entertaining sense. It is now a warning about about the evils of propaganda and reliance on government controlled media in regards to information. It is a reminder that we should get to know other cultures, rather seeing them as outsiders.

In conclusion, The Eternal Jew is ultimately a heartbreaking film that contributed to mass genocide. Though I wonder if the historical importance and its new purpose as a warning against genocide can make fully make up for that? Luckily overtime the power of this Nazi picture has faded and now can be seen as fiction based on real attitudes. I don't recommend watching this film for pleasure, infact if you are at all entertained by Hippler's views then I suggest you check yourself into a mental ward. Piss on it! 2/5

West Side Story Review: By Michael Carlisle

Title: West Side Story
Year: 1962
Director(s): Jerome Roberts & Robert Wise 
Country: US
Language: English

"Got a rocket, in your pocket...play it cool" and "when you're a jet, you're a jet all the way. From your first cigarette, to your last dyin' day" are just a few snazzy lines from one of the nine musicals to win Best Picture at the Academy Awards. The other eight films are The Broadway Melody (1929), Going My Way (1944), An American in Paris (1951), Gigi (1958) , My Fair Lady (1964), The Sound of Music (1965), Oliver! (1968) and Chicago (2002). Many more have been nominated, but few compare to the nine that actually won. Though I'd argue that the more recent Chicago is the best of them, an argument could certainly be made for The Sound of Music, and most definitely West Side Story.

The white Jets led by Riff (Russ Tamblyn) and the Puerto Rican Sharks, led by Bernardo (George Chakiri), are two warring New York City gangs. Their hatred escalates to a point where neither can coexist with any form of understanding. But when Riff's best friend, and former Jet, Tony (Richard Beymer) and Bernardo's younger sister Maria (Natalie Wood) meet at a dance, no one can do anything to stop their love. Maria and Tony begin meeting in secret, planning to run away. Then the Sharks and Jets plan a rumble under the highway - whoever wins gains control of the streets.

West Side Story is a high energy modern musical adaptation of  William Shakespeare's beloved play Romeo and Juliet. It should be held up as one of the greatest musicals ever made because of the vast amount of effort put into it. Astonishing dance sequences, especially the high school scene, fill the screen. Unlike recent musicals, like Les Miserable, the directors do not rely on closeups of the actor's faces to fill the onscreen emotion, rather the dance and the music substitute for facial expression and make it seem as though the sharks and Jets are about to explode into chaos in the streets.

However, this film does have a few flaws. West Side Story is almost an hour too long; the last portion of it drags and instead of enjoying it, you find yourself completely bored when waiting for it to end. A few songs and scenes should have been cut completely as they added very little to the plot or character, and perhaps Natalie Wood shouldn't have been cast as Maria. Though I do love Rita Moreno as the supporting character Anita, her presence and skills contributed greatly to this film's overall success. An interesting aspect of the film is its analysis of  inequality between races in America. The song America expresses this quite well and its not hard to believe that the distress felt by Bernardo of The Sharks is the stress felt by most Puerto Ricans coming to America.

In conclusion, West Side Story is a magical film that is quite entertaining and technically masterful. Though it just scratches the surface of race inequality, at least it makes an attempt to bring it up. I suggest skipping most of the scenes after one of the lead characters is killed, because it drops from there. Still the picture is beautiful and will have you singing "I feel pretty" for many years after. 3.5/5

Zazie Dans Le Metro Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Zazie Dans Le Metro
Year: 1960
Director: Louis Malle
Country: France
Language: French

After Jean Luc Godard (Breathless), Agnes Varda (Le Bonheur), Claude Chabrol (La Ceremonie) and Francois Truffaut (Jules and Jim), French Director Louis Malle is greatly associated with the French New Wave which began in the 1960's when it was coined by critics. He has made a career full of unique films, including My Dinner With Andre (1981), a film shot entirely using one setting; a conversation at a dinner table. While Zazie Dans Le Metro isn't as bizarre, it certainly is quite unique.

Malle's odd film depicts a satirical view of the French society: Twelve years old Zazie has to stay two days with her relatives in Paris, so that her mother can spend some time with her lover. However Zazie escapes her uncle's custody and sets out to explore Paris on her own.

Zazie Dans Le Metro is clearly an homage to the silent films that dominated the early twentieth Century. It is full of slapstick comedy and intelligently crafted sight gags that are reminiscent of Chaplin and the Keystone Film Company. It contain the rebellious spirit of Chaplin films as well; the main character Zazie goes against the grain of contemporary French society and throws order out the window, disrupting the shrewd adults into chaos. Despite being disorderly, twelve year old Zazie remains innocent, which give the movie its remarkable charm.

Louis Malle creates the film to seem as though we are viewing the world through a child's perspective. With its exceptionally quick pace and unusual editing style, it seem impossible to think that this version of Paris is an adult's reality. Lacking a coherent plot, Malle's film is much different than the common picture you have seen throughout the ages. Zazie Dans Le Metro is witty and yet confusing at the same time. Regardless at the end of the film your mouth will be wide open; either from laughing so hard or asking yourself "what did I just watch?"

In conclusion, though my experience of the film was more the latter ("what did I just watch?) one cannot deny that it is well made and certainly contains an important message about youth. Though it left me somewhat confused, I would definitely watch it again to grasp a better understanding. Zazie Dans Le Metro is worth your time. 3.5/5

Le Soupirant (The Suitor) Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Le Soupirant (The Suitor)
Year: 1962
Director: Pierre Etaix
Country: France
Language: Frence 

Born in 1928, Pierre Etaix may be one of the greatest French directors still living. Making a series of critically acclaimed feature length and short films throughout the 60's and working with the likes of Jacques Tati, Nagasi Oshima and Robert Bresson, it is a shame that his cinematic genius is not well known outside his home country of France. His films would be essentially forgotten about in North America if it weren't for the Janus film company and The Criterion Collection. Thanks to them I was able to view The Suitor in pristine quality.

The film's main character Pierre is a shy man whose sole focus in life is studying astrology in solitude, which is often difficult since he still lives at and studies in his parent's house. His parent's would rather he date and get married. He takes on this task with verve. Not knowing how to approach women in a romantic way, he watches how other men operate and tries to emulate them, most often without success.

The Suitor is a remarkable homage to silent American comedic cinema. Much of Keaton, Chaplin, Lloyd and Langdon's character personas can be seen in Etaix's Pierre. The man is innocent, sweet, intelligent and finds himself in more hilarious situations that he bargained for. Etaix drives Pierre into a world of sight gags and missed communications, perhaps more intelligently than the four major silent era comedians. The Director uses The Suitor to, of all things, celebrate the complexity of French grammar. Much of the plot revolves around a woman who can't speak French very well; when she means to say "The book is not on the table", she accidently says "le livre est sur la table" meaning "The book is on the table"

Unfortunately, even though the woman's words are not subtitled, the ending of the film may become quite obvious. Despite "knowing" the ending I found myself entranced in the comedic world Pierre Etaix has created. It is incredibly charming and optimistic; there is great magic in this film which was made by a former clown. Unlike many American films that feel to falsely optimistic or patronizing, this is heartwarming yet never ceases to be unbelievable or cheesy.

In conclusion, not only is The Suitor entertaining, but it is remarkably inventive as well. Pierre Etaix has the power to lift your imagination and your spirit. Can you have a bad day after watching one of his films? No. It is warm, nostalgic, and most importantly side splittingly funny. Etaix may even be using the film as a vehicle for a deeper criticism of relationships in society. Praise it! 4.5/5

Is It a Wonderful Life? The Myth of George Bailey and the American Sacrifice

 Is It a Wonderful Life? The Myth of George Bailey and the American Sacrifice
Year: 2013
Writers: Michael Carlisle & Ehren C Clarke
Editor: Ehren C Clarke

It is certainly true that various film genres crossed the borders of east and west. There is no denying the greatness of Kurosawa’s noir to the history, the quality and character of the western that made the subject for many great samurai classics, or it might be argued that western European movements of Realism, neo-Realism and New-Wave could be felt in the work of Mizoguchi, Ozu, Teshigahara and Suzuki. Although these forms could be diffuse, the deep seeded traditions of the Japanese were entirely foreign to the Western market and Western commoditization was a heresy that mocked their ancient and still living culture. One cultural difference between the two divides is the idea of self-sacrifice. we penetrate into the character of Bailey and question his motives. It seems that throughout the film, all of his actions and decisions were based on self motivated ambitions for certain material realities he desires above much that offers intrinsic satisfaction such as family devotion or dedication to an occupation, not the occupation for the sake of something else, and certainly, the family is the ultimate accomplishment when it takes Bailey just a little too long and too many lessons to realize this. He is a grown up.

The principle is self-sacrifice was not among the list of George Bailey’s virtues. As much as he wanted to accomplish, as big as were his dreams, they were always his accomplishments and dreams alone regardless of a second party. Was his being the saving grace of Bedford Falls? It may have inadvertently been but this was no expressed or explicit desire.

The Japanese have a different approach to self-sacrifice and it is hard to question a Japanese character in a Japanese film who suffers and does not do this with the attitude of total and true self-sacrifice. This principle was a part of Japanese Buddhist culture; to bear ones sufferings and this means to the point of the total sacrifice of the self, to a Zen transcendence of worldly reality to enlightenment and nirvana. No thought was to be given to the self, only to the freeing of the self from selfish desires and a release from a binding worldly condition, the human condition.

The Human Condition is the film in Japanese history that through its 10 grueling hours, is perhaps the best manifestation of authentic self-sacrifice to be endured by any character in any film ever. The film takes the academic away from his true love, puts him at odds with kindness, turns him into a soldier, then a beggar, has him foraging through a forest with a group of degenerates, finding himself beaten throughout the 10 hours culminating in the thrashing he finds in a Chinese village this being just at the end of World War Two. He trudges through the snow utterly starving wearing a grain sack cloth with card slippers and with every step he hears the echo throughout the valley of “her” voice, every thing has been for her, all of his endurance, all that he suffered to see her again, but as he neared civilization… he reaches his own Zen reality as he becomes one in spirit with her and after and epic of self sacrifice close to his goal, falls down dead. This might be a lesson in self-sacrifice Bailey would get a much deserved reality check from. To truly self-sacrifice, one must not only rid one’s desires, interests, assets and well-being for the sake of a cause; one must also rid the ego. In this section will compare “It’s A Wonderful Life’s” protagonist George Bailey with “Schindler’s List’s” hero Oskar Schindler. In Spielberg’s picture Schindler is a wealthy man who gives up everything he has had for the sake of others. He loses his possessions, his profitable business, his leisurely lifestyle, to save a two thousand Jews. He even rids himself of his more base emotional desires for the benefit of others; even though he loves many women, he eventually matures and decides that his wife’s feelings are more important.

At the end of Schindler’s List, Oscar has nothing, he doesn’t even have hope as he is being hunted by both Nazi and the Allies for being a war criminal. Still, with only a car to drive him away from his liberated factory he cries out “I could’ve done more!” and collapses from his overwhelming grief. He, of course, literally couldn’t have done more; he tried all he could to save as many Jewish people as he could, while making sure the Germans would have lost the war. Though it seems like our great hero Oskar Schindler has an ego, certainly his cry would imply that his ego actually died quite some time ago. Schindler doesn’t think of himself as some messiah for the Jewish people nor does he think that he is the only one making sure Nazi Germany comes to an end.

He gives all his thanks to his Jewish secretary who gave him the idea of the list and made his efforts possible. He knows that even though his sacrifice helped, it was still a small number in the bigger picture. Even though he is a great man, he doesn’t think so; it takes Itzhak Stern to remind him that he is at least somewhat significant to the survival of the Jews.

On the other hand, George Bailey’s self-sacrifice is not authentic because it is entirely egocentric and self- perseverance. Bailey will only self-sacrifice if it benefits himself and his community; if there is even one shred of doubt or hopelessness, Bailey goes into a manic depression that only ends once he finds his ego from his anxiety. To Bailey, Bedford Falls only exists because he exists. He IS the reason for absolutely everything positive, he IS the reason his wife is not a shrew librarian. The film even goes as far as saying that Bailey made a great contribution to the war because he saved his brother from drowning. What would happen to Bailey’s ego if at the end of “It’s a Wonderful Life,” the town can’t come up with the money and Bedford Falls becomes Pottersville? It could be just as likely in fact more probable. Bailey is driven by material gain, so driven that he won’t even consider the needs of his wife and children. When deciding to cancel their honeymoon and use the money to help the bank, does Bailey even consider what his wife thinks of the decision? When deciding to commit suicide does Bailey stop to think “How will this affect my family?” When Clarence lists reasons for why George is alive, does he mention “oh yes, and your two kids will never be born”? For Bailey, self and business and his European dream come first and family is dead last. He is the opposite of the true self-sacrificing Oskar Schindler.

Many have authentic men of authentic self-sacrificial qualities when in extreme conditions. However, this can be no loop for Bailey, whose anxiety was the worst of all, to see his life without his even being there. How terrifying. And instead of worrying about the fate that has apparently befallen everyone and everything… every word to come from his mouth is “Don’t you know it’s me?” “Can’t you see I am alive?” “I’m real!” No you aren’t George Bailey, you are in denial of your selfish attitude to life and the insignificance with which you treat others.

Room 237 Review- By Michael Carlisle

 Title: Room 237
Year: 2012
Director: Rodney Ascher
Country: US
Language: English

Throughout motion picture history, there have been many fascinating documentaries about film. Some, like Les Blank's Burden of Dreams, serve as companion pieces to the original movie (Werner Herzog's Fitzcarraldo) and greatly enhance the director's feature. Others, like Saul J. Turell's The Love Goddesses, journey into film history and make you heave a greater appreciation for the art as a whole. Room 237 strives to be a companion piece for Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, as well as answer many questions about film theory.

The film is a subjective documentary that explores the numerous theories about the hidden meanings within Stanley Kubrick's film The Shining (1980). The film may be over 30 years old, but like Victor Fleming's Wizard of OZ, it continues to inspire debate, speculation, and mystery.

I have seen Stanley Kubrick's The Shining many times by now, each viewing evokes a different reaction and a different train of thought. Though I am wary of Kubrick's genius, I have said many time that A Clockwork Orange is one of the worst films ever made, there is no doubt that The Shining is a work of genius. Room 237 celebrates that genius by exploring every detail and coming up with thematic conclusions that surprise and shock. One narrator claims that Kubrick's film is about the Holocaust, another about Indian genoicde and the list of theories go on. One great aspect of Room 237 is that it is a subjective documentary, meaning, unlike a Michael Moore film, it doesn't show bias towards one theory or another. People state their theories and show the many reasons why they think that particular way, each is given a fair amount of time.

Room 237 is a celebration of critical theory. Instead of being ridiculed by their beliefs, because some do seem to be very "out there", the narrators are seen in a positive light. It doesn't matter what your theory consists of, as long as you are "thinking" about the film. In some ways it analyzes the nature of the conspiracy theorist; poking and prodding at small details, until they come up with their own conclusion (aka the "real" story). Did Kubrick intentionally do A and B or was it a continuity error on his part? Then again Room 237 suggests that critical theory can look past the artist's intentions and interpret art for ourselves. Of course there are a few faults I find the film has. For one, it does not show every aspect of critical theory; we do not get the Marxist, feminist or queer interpretations of Kubrick's The Shining. Another fault is that many of the narrative voices are not different enough from each other; at times we do not understand who is talking and which theory they are discussing. The director could have done a better job and making each narrator and their theory more transparent. Ascher also could have discussed a few more scenes and characters from the film, such as the scary old naked lady, what the heck was that about?

In conclusion, for future film-goers it will be hard to see The Shining without its companion piece Room 237. I recommend watching Kubrick's movie first, coming up with your own interpretation, and then watching Room 237 to see the many other thoughts that exist. Ascher's documentary is very entertaining and thought provoking, it inspires and encourages the greatest levels of creativity. Praise it! 4/5