Last Temptation of Christ Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Last Temptation of Christ
Year: 1988
Director: Martin Scorsese
Country: U.S
Language: English
 

Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ is an interesting view on the life and character of the average Christian man’s messiah,  Jesus Christ.  In this film , Jesus Christ is portrayed as both God and Man as is taught in Christianity. Therefore in this film Jesus contains all the vulnerabilities of a man,  he is full of emotion and self doubt,  any man would be if they had learnt they would have to die on the cross.  He is not only vulnerable to self  doubt but also to temptation and the allure of Satan, who attempts to stray Jesus from his ultimate mission on Earth. This film is not only about how he experienced great fear and temptation, but also how he stayed strong despite Satan’s attempts.

Before the film starts there is a disclaimer, “This film is not based upon the gospels but upon the fictional  exploration of eternal spiritual conflict.” This disclaimer was Scorsese’s attempt to rid any controversy this film could possibly ignite, however as we know from History it is nearly impossible to make a film about Christ and not spark controversy.  The Last Temptation of Christ is in all accounts, a very serious film and takes its subject seriously, yet devout Christian fundamentalists, who feel they know exactly who Jesus was, are offended by the film. In 1988 they were so offended that a few Christian fundamentalists threw Molotov cocktails at Cinemas that were playing the film, this not only burnt down the buildings but killed a few people in the process.

Although Life of Brian is more blasphemous

Though this film is a thoughtful journey through the life of Christ, and directed by a man who has a proven track record of serious films about sin and redemption, one could technically view the film as blasphemous because it does not follow scripture word for word. It does not follow the majority of film and pop culture portrayals of Jesus Christ.  The character of Christ is presented in a completely unique way, he is a worried and self doubting individual who doubts his ability to be the messiah God wants. In the beginning of the film he says “I know that God loves me, but I want him to hate me”.  He builds crosses for the Romans to show his reluctance to accept the quest God has given him.

Willem Dafoe (Antichrist) brilliantly plays the main role of Jesus Christ, a man who eventually is willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good whether or not he fully believes that he is the saviour of the world. Courageous? You bet. I could not imagine myself being able to do anything close to what Christ did. While Last Temptation is much different from most religious films, Scorsese gets brownie points for taking Christ’s message seriously while not intentionally trying to pander to Hollywood or religious crowds. Christ is struggling, questioning his faith like many men do,  and eventually accepting his fate.  He is peaceful yet warrior-like. A personality mix of Gandhi and Che Guevara.  In one scene he tells his disciples to love one another, in another he tells them to get ready for a war.

The role of Judas (Harvey Keitel) is radically changed in this film, he is Jesus’ closest friend and strategist. He is a strong hearted man who is filled with great knowledge. He betrays Jesus but not out of greed, out of necessity. There is some foreshadowing throughout the film when Judas says “if you stray from the path, even just a little bit, I will kill you.” We see that when the time comes Judas is not that strong hearted,  he cannot betray his best friend, but he must.  If not, who would? Judas is a necessary piece in the puzzle.

Satan plays a big role as the antagonist in this film, his goal is to stray Jesus from the path desired by God.  He tempts Christ in the desert by attempting to lay seeds of serious self doubt in Jesus’ conscience.  While Christ is on the cross Satan sends visions of a better life, a life with Mary Magdeline. A life of a man that is free from the great burden God has placed upon his son. Though as the vision or “last temptation” progresses we see that Jesus’ sacrifice is a very necessary thing. I feel these scenes have the power to unite Atheists and Christians alike. In one vision a man is preaching the death and resurrection of Christ, Jesus sees this man and calls him a liar, the man responds by saying “I created the story out of necessity, it gives people hope. If I need to crucify you, I’ll crucify you.” Scorsese presents an important question with this film. Does it matter if Jesus Christ was a real person? The story of Christ brings hope to people, it makes them believe that they can be redeemed and forgiven. Even fundamentalist Atheists have to acknowledge this.

In conclusion, The Last Temptation of Christ is a technically masterful film in every sense of the word. It is also the most emotional, truthful and spiritual film about Jesus Christ that I have ever seen. The character of Jesus  has more than one dimension in character and is not portrayed in a cheesy or demeaning way. One problem I had with Mel Gibson’s Passion of Christ is that Christ was shown to be the inventor of tables and chairs. It also showed Christ in physical pain but it did not effectively show Christ’s emotional struggle. The Last Temptation of Christ displayed more truth about humanity than Gibson’s film could dream of. I am not a religious man but this film certainly has challenged me in ways I did not think it could. Yes it has been the subject of great controversy, but  then again, so was Jesus. Praise it! 5/5

A Clockwork Orange Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: A Clockwork Orange

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Year: 1971
Country: UK
Language: English

For many years I have loved Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, I have quoted the hero/villain Alex (Malcolm McDowell) many times, debated the film’s ideology constantly and started singing “singin in the rain” heartily in many odd situation. Throughout these many years there has always been one scene on my mind, the scene where Alex and his droogs beat the hell out of a man and rape his wife while he is watching, all the while singing “singing in the rain” in a joyous tune. This use of the song used in the infamous rape scene famously pissed off Gene Kelly, the lead of the 50’s musical classic Singin in the Rain. This one scene has caused a great moral dilemma in me. Is Kubrick glorifying rape?

In the first half hour Alex is the typical asshole, he’s the kind of guy who would go to a bar, get drunk, come home and beat his wife half to death because he felt like it. He’s an inhumane rapist that, if given the opportunity, would screw over everyone in his life. He is a selfish, egotistical, brute and isn’t really a “hero” in any sense because Kubrick makes no effort to explore Alex’s motives or the society in which Alex lives in. The only “intelligent” and human aspect we get from Alex is that he loves Beethoven’s music. Why? Who knows. However, this love for Beethoven’s 9^th does create an incredible soundtrack for the film. Kubrick knows how to use music to make his films better.

The soundtrack and the camera are used to glorify the film’s “protagonist”. The only “intelligent” and human aspect we get from Alex is that he loves Beethoven’s music. Why? Who knows. Perhaps Kubrick wants us subconsciously thinking “no criminal could like classical music!”. Whenever we see the film through Alex’s eyes it seems like Alex’s world  in a madhouse, with crazy people out to get him. The camera angles and shots also suggest that only Alex is normal in his world and he is much more noble than his society.

Featured: Typical Clockwork Orange fan

This film seems to be about the “individual vs society” in which Alex is an asshole who does rape a lot of people but what the government does to him, forcing him to watch hours of  horrible violence which makes him get incredibly sick whenever he thinks of doing a violent or “wrong behavior” , is much a worse than Alex’s crimes. Well, is the inhumane punishment by the government worse that Alex’s crimes? If Alex was a changed man by the end of this film I would say yes. However, when Alex is “cured” of the government imposed “disease” he still remains an asshole. He will still rape and murder people just because he feels like it.  Kubrick, what is the point? Alex is not on the border of good and evil, he is not doing a just action, he is not harming the corrupt government, he is harming innocent people for no reason!

Back to my main question, is Kubrick glorifying rape in A Clockwork Orange? I would most definitely say yes. On the surface the addition of “singin’ in the rain” makes for some great dark humor in an otherwise terrifying scene...but should there be humor in rape? Should we find this scene entertaining? Alex just barged into an old couple’s home, destroyed their stuff, beat the hell out of an old man and raped an old woman- for no reason- and we are supposed to cheer this guy on? Perhaps, though I realize this is a stretch, Kubrick is suggesting that Alex’s society isn’t sick and perverted, our society is.

Many people will suggest that this review is "wrong" or "too harsh", that Kubrick actually had great intentions with this film. Kubrick used this film to make a "statement". I understand how difficult my review is to grasp because Kubrick is a film God, why would a film God create a film so bad? Because of this we grasp for straws, there must be some "statement" Kubrick is trying to make. Although nobody reading this has talked to Kubrick directly about this film, so therefore nobody reading really knows what Kubrick's intentions were. I can easily justify Jersey Shore, claiming it's genius because it exposes our society's need to glorify douchebags and bimbos, but that doesn't make it true.

In conclusion, it’s a shame that the great Stanley Kubrick; the director of the incredible 2001: A Space Odyssey, stooped to such a low level with A Clockwork Orange. I’m not sure what was going through his mind, I wouldn’t like to know what was in his mind when he made this film that seems to glorify evil.  Kubrick is a master of his craft, indeed he did fool us with masterful cinematography into sympathizing with the deranged Alex, however this is easily one of his worst films.  Like my first review Fight Club, this film uses great visuals and shady philosophy to fool many viewers. Piss on it! 1/5

Boogie Nights Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: Boogie Nights

Year: 1997

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Country: U.S
Language: English

Fame, greed, ego, talent, money and sex. Paul Thomas Anderson’s enthralling  1997 film Boogie Nights  has all this and more. Released during the madness of  James Cameron's Titanic, this much more praiseworthy film is about the nature of ego, business and drugs. It is about the dangers of swimming against the current. It’s about the rise and fall of the Adult film industry from the 1970’s to the early 1980’s.

It’s the late 70’s, porn has transcended into a medium that would seem unheard of by today’s standards of what “porn” is: Art. Porn directors of this period would make a porn FILM, this included script making, acting, set design, porn of the 70’s was more than just sex. Unfortunately this trend came to a close when the rise of video began and porn could be no longer seen as “artistic”. Much like the shift  from silent film to sound in the late 1920’s, there were a lot of people against it, however  eventually these “artistic” directors had to adjust to the change or fall in their ignorance.

Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) is one of these “artistic” directors who is a witness of this gradual shift. He is almost a Hugh Hefner character; very suave, very creative and very handsome.  He is the one responsible for finding this film’s star Dirk Diggler in a Hollywood Nightclub. Dirk Diggler aka Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) is a young adult when he meets Jack , he’s not the brightest bulb in the room and he has a very hostile relationship with his mother (“you’ll always be a bum!” his mother screams) but he has one special talent which will soon make him one of the greatest porn stars in the business. When Dirk meets the Colonel, the financer of Horner’s films, he shows this “special talent” to him. Colonel’s face shows a small smile and immediately we understand what  Dirk’s “special talent” is, his incredibly  large member.

Perhaps Boogie Nights was karma for Fargo?

Amazingly Boogie Nights is not very pornographic itself,  it doesn’t glorify porn or suggest that porn is the product of the devil, rather it discusses the rise and fall of the porn industry on a very intelligent level.  The nudity is limited, we don't even see Diggler's "special talent" until near the end of the film, and the overall mood seems very balanced, it can go from deeply tragic to absurdly humorous without missing a beat, very much like another 90's classic: Fargo. Infact William H. Macy is in this film as well and delivers one of the funniest lines in Boogie Nights. “My wife has an ass in her cock!” he says, flustered at the fact that his wife is cheating on him.

The soundtrack and score add to the mood of the film. It creates a sense of wonder and amazement when the film stays in the 70’s when everything is great with porn. It creates humour and dread in the 80’s, one scene where the soundtrack creates absurd humour Dirk and his buddies are robbing a coke dealer’s place and “Jessie’s Girl” is being played, earlier when Dirk has to prostitute himself the score creates a moment of tension, distress and anxiety, you feel something will be going very wrong very soon.

In conclusion,  Paul Thomas Anderson is a master of film, he cannot go wrong with anything he does. Punch Drunk Love? Great. There Will Be Blood? Genius. Boogie Nights shows that Anderson was as much a great director in the 90’s as he is now. Not a scene is wasteful, not a single shot is unimportant.  He abandons the typical Hollywood usage of sex in film even though he can easily do so. This film is not about sex but about the human qualities about character and how greed and ambition can poison the soul.  Anderson makes this film, about the porn industry, so well he amazingly it avoids an NC-17 Rating. Now that is talent. Praise it! 5/5

The Wrestler Review- By Michael Carlisle

Title: The Wrestler

Year: 2008
Director: Darron Aronofsky
Country: U.S
Language: English

Darron Aronofsky’s The Wrestler is a gripping story about a man who has only one talent and stays with this talent because it’s the only thing that makes him joyful, it’s the only thing that makes him feel loved.  This talent is professional wrestling. Wrestling? You say, isn’t that fake?  Well as legendary wrestling announcer  Jim Ross  would exclaim  “How do you learn to fall off a twenty foot ladder??”  Perhaps there is some script acting, the “heel” isn’t necessarily a “heel” in real life , but I’m sure if you asked Mick Foley or perhaps Owen Hart (oh wait you can’t, he died in the ring)  they would tell you that a lot of “fake” wrestling  is actually pretty real.

Or fake being speared through a table of fire with tacks in your back?

Interestingly enough Aranofsky chooses  to place some great importance on backstage details about wrestling.  Working out in gyms, patching themselves up, getting dressed. We learn how they set up the outcomes of these matches, how they prepare for a hardcore match, where they buy the weapons they hit against each other. Still this planning doesn’t classify their profession as “fake” as they still van get very hurt, how can you fake falling on a bunch of tacks?

Mickey Rourke stages his onscreen and off-screen comeback as  the battered, bruised and down on his luck, Randy “the Ram” Robinson.  Randy is a face wrestler, much like Hulk Hogan, who has burned almost every bridge in his life besides wrestling, much like Hulk Hogan. He is socially awkward which makes for a sour relationship with his estranged daughter Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood), whom he thinks is a lesbian, and no chance of anything serious romantic-wise with his stripper friend Candace (Marisa Tomei).

Rourke seems perfect for this role as, like Randy,  his person life and professional career has been on many ups and downs. Rourke used to be quite the handsome man, until  became a professional boxer and got the handsome punched out of him. Rourke is a great fan of boxing and wrestling, so he put a lot of effort in this role, he definitely looks the part.  The actions Rourke does in the film, such as getting staples in his chest, look legitimate. If there are any special effects in this film, they are greatly hidden. I applaud Aranofsky and Rourke for not needing to use special effects.

One criticism I have of this film is the flimsy writing in terms of Randy "the Ram" Robinson's heart condition. In one scene he refuses to have a lapdance because it might hurt his heart, in another he can do cocaine while having sex and nothing happens to him. As a person with a heart condition who has talked to many people with hear conditions I can confidently say that he would have died from having sex while high on cocaine. It's also odd that his heart is strong enough to withstand sex on cocaine yet too weak for a short wrestling match. Randy's heart condition seems to come and go whenever it suits the story.

 In conclusion,  if you want to understand more about  the profession of wrestling both onstage and off then this is the film for you. The Wrestler is not a unique story though, there are a lot of “washed up” redemption films out there. One could argue that 2009’s Crazy Heart works the similar story better. However, Rourke is the heart of The Wrestler, his passion and energy, and dedication  to Randy “the Ram” Robinson makes the film much better than it would be without him. 3.5/5

Featured: More falling from dangerous heights

Tiny Furniture Review- by Michael Carlisle

Title: Tiny Furniture
Year: 2010
Director: Lena Dunham
Country: U.S
Language: English

 Newcomer Lena Dunham’s Tiny Furniture is a unique film about the difficulty of transitioning from childhood to adulthood, the adolescent life crisis. The period in which you know what you want but aren’t sure how to get it. The period in which you are expected  to act like an adult and take on the responsibilities of an adult but aren’t recognized or respected as an adult. You cannot go back, you aren’t sure how to proceed. You feel stuck. Aura feels stuck and she is incredibly frustrated about this.

Aura (Lena Dunham) is a frustrated young adult who has just graduated a college in Ohio. She has no boyfriend and no job. She has nothing to show for her education other than a humiliating YouTube video. She is discontent about living at home but has no money to move elsewhere so she lives with her mother, an artist who makes a living by photographing tiny furniture, and her younger sister who is a thinner and taller version of her sister.

“The film seems deliberately motionless” says famed  film critic Roger Ebert. Indeed this is true. Aura wants to have a good job, however she finds herself taking reservations at a restaurant. Aura wants to have a good boyfriend, but the pickings are slim and nobody seems like a good choice. Aura wants to have a good relationship with her mother, but the generation gap distances them as well as her mother’s distracted artistic nature. There is no plot because that’s the point of the film, it’s plotless because Aura’s life is plotless. It is unfortunately either going nowhere or in a pointless loop,

A criticism of this film is that Aura is too whiny and passive aggressive, her character is not very likeable. This is also another point the film is trying to make. Aura  wishes to become a responsible adult but she still has very childlike attitudes and behaviors that she needs to rid. She also doesn’t know how to become a responsible adult, therefore all her attempts at being “responsible” (like attempting to end her sister’s very mellow party because of underage drinking” come off as goofy and idiotic. Her childlike attitudes are combined with her frustration of transitioning, of course she is not going to have a likeable attitude! I choose to sympathize with her, because I know how it feels to know what I want but not know how to get it. She is desperately trying to get on with her life but does not know how to and perhaps her society plays a role in her inability to move forward

Gore Vidal once said “I never miss a chance to have sex or appear on television.” Well I think Vidal would’ve considered missing out on the sex scene in Tiny Furniture. It’s not an incredibly hot nor is it a disgusting sex scene, it’s just a very symbolic desperate sex scene that takes place in a construction site. The sex scene is symbolic because it shows Aura’s and society’s childlike attitude, we want instant gratification. We do not wish to  wait for sex or for the right person to come along, we want it when we have the desire. This is also an insight to adolescent frustration, we want the world but we want it on our own terms. We dislike waiting for the perfect job opportunity, we dislike being in limbo. We want control and Aura feels that if she can’t control where she goes in life, she can at least control when she has sex.

In conclusion, Lena Dunham’s low budgeted, semi -autobiographical film Tiny Furniture is a well constructed film about the nature of today’s adolescent life crisis and our want for instant gratification. It may not be as entertaining as similar films like The Graduate but I believe it holds more truths about life and is much more relevant in understanding the North American society of  the 21^st Century. There is much to learn and much to be understood from this film and therefore I would claim this to be one of the greatest film of this decade. I look forward to anything else Luna Dunham will make in the future. Praise it! 5/5

Titanic Review- by Michael Carlisle

 Title: Titanic
Year: 1997
Director: James Cameron
Country: U.S
Language: English
Runtime:  192 Minutes

James Cameron’s 3+ hour epic is one of the most expensive films ever made, with a budget of $200 million one would think this money might be used carelessly, however this is not so. Unlike Cameron’s other big budgeted film Avatar, Titanic’s special effects are used seamlessly and intelligently. They are used to heighten the emotion and evoke the dread of this tragic story. There are not too much special effects nor are there too little

Titanic is based on the infamous tragedy of 1912 in which the largest ship in the world at the time, the Titanic, sunk via iceberg. About 1514 passengers went down with this “unsinkable ship”. The human story in this film is a Romeo and Juliet-like romance between a poor boy, Jack (Dicaprio), and a rich girl, Rose (Winslet). Rose so hates he life and her future husband Cal (Billy Zane) that she attempts to kill herself via jumping off the ship, which in hindsight would’ve been smart considering the disaster that was about to unfold,  however the poor boy saves Rose and they fall deeply in love. Also: Boobies!

Featured: Boobies

Cameron seems to be a master of dramatic irony in this film. We know that certain events must take place, certain characters must show their flaws and many people must die. We understand and we are told the ultimate outcome of this voyage, in the beginning of the film we see the Titanic deep underneath the sea and shown a computer simulation of what exactly has happened. By the time the Titanic, a ship “which god himself cannot sink”, sinks were fully aware of why and how this tragedy occurred. We are aware of why so many people died, why so many men died. Even though we already know the ending, we cannot help but watch as it unfolds. It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

The love story left me, shall we say, cold?

Indeed the second half of James Cameron’s Titanic beyond brilliance,  he had made something that seemed impossible to do at the time. In terms of destruction, doom and special effects Cameron has proved himself great. In terms of script? Not so much. The first half of Titanic relies too much on an overdone story. Rich girl falls for a poor boy, it’s been done before, we get it. Rich people are snooty and full of themselves, poor people are misunderstood, honest people. I will admit that the journeys Jack and Rose took to get away from the snooty rich people do provide us with more details about the ship as well as the ship’s crew members. This creates a more impending sense of doom. Though the segregation of the rich and poor in Titanic is historically accurate it isn’t used well or in a unique and interesting way in the first half of the film.  In the second half this rich/poor segregation is especially important when realizing who will live or die, because there are not enough lifeboats for every passenger on the ship.

The subplots within the second half of the film are incredibly interesting. It took over two hours for the the Titanic to sink, this gave everybody onboard plenty of time to think about their actions. Would they live? Would they die? How would they die? Would they sacrifice themselves to help another? It was quite heartbreaking to see the captain decide to go down with the ship and the poor parents trying to get their children to sleep so they would die a peaceful death of either drowning or hypothermia.

With a budget of $200,000,000+ it’s understandable to want to stick to a familiar plot that works, the rich/poor  segregation romance has worked many times throughout film history and it obviously worked again. Until Avatar, Titanic was the highest grossing film of all time (if inflation is not adjusted) but please Cameron, grow some cajones. Using special effects to make up for your recycled script isn’t going to work for much longer. Do something... different. Then again, the general public seems to dislike “different” because you keep getting richer and richer.

In conclusion, I think James Cameron’s Titanic is a wonderful disaster epic but it has no guts in regards to the human, romantic aspect. Cameron proved to be a master of special effects with this film, for anybody else a film of this magnitude may be quite challenging, but he accomplished it. Though, there are better films related to the Titanic. 1958’s A Night To Remember is the story of the Titanic, without the unnecessary romantic subplot.  While the second half of  Titanic is incredible, it does not completely make up for the teen-ish first half. 3/5

Shame Review- by Michael Carlisle

Though this site is still under construction, here is my fifth review: 2011's Shame

Title: Shame
Year: 2011
Director: Steve McQueen
Country: UK
Language: English
Running Time: 101 Minutes
Rating: NC-17

 Pain, grief, anger, self abuse, shame. Michael Fassbender is a man suffering, from the very thing that gives many people pleasure, Sex. Although his “sex” is much different from what can normally understood. Sex for Fassbender’s character Brandon is an odd form of self abuse and self loathing. What he does, who he does it with and where he does it does not matter to Brandon. In one scene he goes to a gay bar, why?  Not because he’s gay, but this bar is where he knows he can be used. He has no attraction for anyone, no love or want for any human being, He is driven to sex.

Sex addiction has been long joked about, like depression it has only been taken seriously in the last little while, many people foolishly think that sex addiction would be a blessing to have. They think it would be a life of pleasure, but Brandon obviously does not receive pleasure from sex. The World Health Organization describes “sexual addiction” as "Excessive sexual drive", but is this description enough? Would any description be enough? Though this makes me think; does Brandon just have sexual addiction or something much deeper?

Brandon is a fairly good looking man, in his late twenties-early thirties who lives alone in a small isolative condo in New York, Manhattan. His job? It doesn’t matter.  Occasionally he goes out to bars with his boss David. David is rather nervous and quick when attempting to pick up women, usually striking out. Brandon is emotionless and passive, not because he wishes to appear suave or mysterious, but because he really doesn’t care about the women he sleeps with. Because of this he gets “lucky”, though in Brandon’s eyes this isn’t “luck” it is merely another woman, one of many to come. One of many who can use him.

Brandon’s life is shrouded in privacy, he is cold to everyone he meets regardless of their social status. Perhaps he thinks he is incapable of human contact, perhaps he is too ashamed of his life to feel worthy of human contact. One day his sister Sissy (Casey Mulligan) comes home, asking to stay with him as she has nowhere to go. Brandon, always needing privacy, becomes enraged at the fact that he soon may have no privacy at all and tells her to leave.  Their lives started out similar with unfortunate childhood experiences that damaged them, but Sissy and Brandon have very different personalities. Sissy is free and passionate whereas Brandon is emotionless and driven by self abuse. Both still have a lot of pain and grief, both desperately need each other.

Steve McQueen shows this pain and grief very well, with intense close ups. In one scene, where Brandon is having a threesome, we see only his upper body. His bodily movements and his face show great frustration, anger and displeasure. Sissy works as a cabaret singer and in one scene she performs a song in close-up, this close-up shows all her pain and discomfort, but unlike her brother she has no anger.

Fassbender was robbed at the Oscars. While Jean Dujardin definitely deserved to win, I think Fassbender should’ve at least received an Oscar nomination. To show your large penis onscreen for millions to see takes a whole hell of a lot of courage, then to pull off a great melancholy performance as a sex addict is extraordinary. Few actors can make having sex seem like a very bad thing. Michael Fassbender is truly one of the greatest living actors.

In conclusion, Shame is a very ambitious second project by the great Steve McQueen, likely soon to be known as one of the greatest living directors. It’s an emotionally draining film about a man who feels unworthy to be loved, a man who feels great “shame” in regards to his lifestyle. Can Brandon be helped? Yes. Will he choose to get helped? Likely not. Shame is one of those few films that will bring you to tears, it is astonishing. I applaud McQueen for going where few filmmakers dare to, and for pissing off a ton of people. Oscars? Where McQueen is going he doesn’t need Oscars! Praise it!  5/5

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