January by the Numbers

Let's take a look back at some data on the first month of Almost365Films

Obviously, several films fit into multiple categories (and one, Holy Motors, was difficult to categorize into any genre at all—I chose Cult as I can envision the movie achieving a dedicated following in years to come). Documentary was the clear winner with 10 films, followed by Romance, Suspense and Comedy, all with 5. The two genres least represented, Crime and Western, corresponded to two of my favorite movies from this month.

Categorizing the 24 films for January by the era in which they were made was also interesting. The most prevalent "era" was actually last year, 2012, since all of the films I've been able to see this month in the cinema (the best way to see them) have been recent releases.

I would like to see if the number of films I'm able to see in the cinema can increase from this depressingly low number of 5. (In fact, one supporter of the Almost365Films mission was a proponent of committing to try and see 100 films in the theater!!! Not likely, but we'll see once festival time comes around.)

This final pie chart shows how I have rated the 24 films thus far. If I can manage to keep up this record-keeping, I'll be interested to see if the trend continues in which almost 90% of the films receive 3 stars or better. I guess it shows that I'm enjoying most of the movies I get to see!

My top five for the month of January

5. Grey Gardens

4. Rashomon

3. Citizen King

2. Hannah Arendt

1. Django Unchained

#24 The Spanish Civil War–Episode 6: Victory and Defeat (1983)

The termination of the war. The collapse of the Popular Front follows a sad but inevitable trajectory. Once the Nationalists were able to reach the east coast and split the Republican army in two, there remained few positive results left for the revolutionaries. As with all wars in the twentieth century, the final months of the war were filled with their fair share of atrocities committed by the victors while refugees attempted to escape and continue surviving in the midst of devastating poverty and the loss of their homes and homeland. The ones who were able to cross the Pyrenees and make it into France had only refugee camps awaiting them—little different from the concentration camps that were the destination of those deemed "enemies of the state" who were rounded up in Spain. A main difference, I guess, was in the camps in Spain there were still thousands of political executions waiting to happen throughout the next several years. Referred to as the "White Terror," these actions by Franco's Nationalists when added to the extrajudicial killings during the war would result in an estimated 200,000 of their fellow countrymen murdered for their beliefs. 

Such a sad chapter in history that is not so far removed from modern times. This series of documentaries does an incredible job of preserving the accounts of real-life witnesses who experienced the stories being recounted for posterity.

#23 The Spanish Civil War–Episode 5: Inside the Revolution (1983)

This episode, in contrast, explains the much more complex nature of the Republican side of the war. The different political parties that fought for their own beliefs and how conflicts arose between the neighboring factions and what that led to. There were such marked differences in political and social thought. The Popular Front was made up of anarchists, progressives, communists, syndicalists, agrarian-revolutionaries, socialists and members of the International Brigades. Unfortunately, the organization of such an agglomeration of entities was exceedingly difficult and resulted in inherent differences even up to the point of armed violence between the separate factions all belonging to the same Popular Front aligned against the fascist Nationalists. These stories comprise a sad but truly fascinating chapter in the history of Western Europe in the twentieth century. Fundamental to this unfolding experiment in social upheaval are terms such as: Revolution, Organization, Syndicalism, Collectivization, Cooperation, Libertarian Socialism, Anarchy, Fraternization with the enemy, Traitor, and unfortunately: Stalin and Trotskyist. It's unbelievably enticing to start asking "what if...?" Had the Soviet Revolution and the resulting Stalinist dictatorship not occurred, could the Popular Front have defeated Franco? Would the concepts of Socialist Revolution that were so fundamental in motivating the people have been understood or believed in without the Soviet example? Could Socialism without authoritarian dictatorship actually have succeeded in western civilization? The truth of the matter is that Stalin was more concerned with not coming into direct conflict with Hitler yet (another participant in the "politics of appeasement"), that his decisions in 37 and 38 regarding the Spanish Civil war basically decided the fate of the entire Spanish Popular Front and the Second Spanish Republic.

In Spain during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties (republicans, left and right Catalan separatists, socialists, Communists, Basque and Valencian regionalists, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganized and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They coordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity....

This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other.

#22 The Spanish Civil War–Episode 4: Franco and the Nationalists (1983)

This episode focused on the nationalist side of the war. Who they were, what their beliefs were, and who their leader Francisco Franco was. 

After finishing my review of Episode 5, I realized that I had written so little for this review. The main idea that I contemplated during this episode that I would like to put down on paper is that the Nationalist side of the conflict was primarily based on three concepts: Traditionalism (societal stratification by classes, capitalism, domination of culture by the Catholic church, etc.), Patria (motherland), and Order. This final fundament of the fascist Nationalist cause was the primary difference between them and their opponents that allowed them to fight and win a military conflict. To form a functioning military, hierarchy, authority, obedience and subservience are fundamental. The anarchist revolutionaries on the opposing side with the support of individuality, free thinking, and state-opposition were the biggest deterrents to fighting a well organized military campaign. It is also why the dictator-authoritarian communist faction of the Popular Front were able to garner much of the power from their side, as they were much more suited for taking orders, carrying them out, and achieving military objectives. This together with the aide given by Stalin in the form of planes and munitions supplied with the objective of supporting the Soviet (Stalinist) version of Revolution. 

The story of the Nationalists and Franco is interesting but not nearly as fascinating as the Revolutionaries. Another interesting "what if...": if they had been able to defeat Franco and his form of fascism, how many years of upheaval would there have been in attempting to establish order following military victory? Would the libertarian-socialist principles of the Popular Front have been able to be converted into a successful peacetime government, and how would the hardships of coming out of a civil war have affected that? Would repression against Franquistas by the victors have been similar to what indeed was actually perpetrated by the fascists especially considering the policies of Stalin in the late 1930s. And most interestingly: what role would Spain have played in WWII?

#21 Mujeres al borde de un ataque de nervios (Women on the verge of a nervous breakdown) (1988)

Written and directed by Pedro Almodóvar.

#20 Rashomon (1950)

Akira Kurosawa.

This is truly a classic in the history of film. This was the first time I have seen it, as I hadn't ever really gotten into Kurosawa despite knowing a little about his work (primarily Seven Samurai) and hearing his name mentioned as one of the top directors of all time. 

Rashomon offers a great philosophical dilema. The movie begins with three men seeking shelter from the rain in a dilapidated building. The priest and woodcutter have just been witness to the trial of the notorious bandit Tajomaru and are retelling the tale. The story is quite simple. A samurai and his wife were traveling through the woods when confronted by Tajomaru. The woman is violated and her husband ends up dead. The dilema comes from the retelling of the story, as three different witnesses, the bandit, the wife and the dead husband (through a medium), all relay conflicting accounts of what occurred. Whose story is to be believed? How was the samurai killed? Why are there such drastic differences in the three versions of the same event? The final straw comes when the woodcutter reveals that he actually was present in the woods throughout the entire affair. When his account of the events offers a fourth version, we are struck with the complexity of what should be a simple straight-forward crime story. The earnestness of the woodcutter, along with the fact that the whole story of the trial is coming from him (with the priest as a corroborator), makes it difficult to question the validity of his account. However, when it is revealed that he hasn't been entirely truthful about every detail, a whole array of larger questions arise about perception, subjectivity, partiality, point-of-view and memory. I can clearly understand why this movie is considered a classic. And, I also wonder why today's movie-making industry doesn't generate many films that invoke mental contemplation from its viewers. Is film losing its place as an artform and becoming solely a commodity? 

#19 The Spanish Civil War–Episode 3: Battleground For Idealists (1983)

#18 The Sessions (2012)

Not a bad movie. John Hawkes is definitely the best reason to see this movie. I went into it not knowing a thing about it and am glad that I didn't because if I had read anything about the story, I probably wouldn't have been interested. So, I'm not going to reveal much more.

Helen Hunt is OK, too. I think she got nominated for the Academy Awards. And as we thought back over her performance, she cries, she's got a pretty decent "looking like I'm gonna cry but not gonna cry" thing, and she gets naked, which as M correctly pointed out are 3 pretty good acting moves that are all highly regarded by the Academy. (In contrast to the fave of this years golden globes, Ben Affleck, who "is the worst actor ever! He's only got like two acting moves!")

#17 The Spanish Civil War–Episode 2: Revolution, Counter-revolution & Terror (1983)

A six-part television documentary on the Spanish Civil War. Made in the early eighties, it still provides the opportunity to hear testimony from eyewitnesses. A fair and even account intended to convey the facts without choosing sides or culprits per se. This episode did a fairly thorough job of describing and explaining how extra-judicial killings and massacres of civilians were so rampant during the conflict and perpetrated by both sides. Another important topic that I believe is rarely well understood is the nature of the anti-nationalist side as it was made up of (among many other political groups) republicans loyal to the newly chosen system (democracy) and anarchists composed mainly of trade union members. In fact, anarchist ideas were adopted by a very large portion of the Spanish working class. The concept that for anarchists, regardless of how much they believed that fighting the fascists was necessary and thus shared a common objective with the republicans, the very nature of their system of beliefs didn't allow them to form a functioning army because that would require authority, organized discipline, hierarchy, commanders, and submission to orders, which all go entirely against the most important tenets of anarchism. Therefore, how could the left ever have been able to create a unified front against Franco's forces?

A good historical documentary. At the summary of this episode, a dour foreshadowing is offered as it mentions again the huge number of executions committed by both sides that were more explicitly described during the episode and says, "...and still the war was only four months old. It was to rage for another two and a half years..."

#16 Citizen King (2004)

Written and directed by Orlando Bagwell and Nolan Walker.

But it really doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live - a long life; longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. So I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

– Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. one day before being assissinated.  

Now that he is safely dead let us praise him, build monuments to his glory, sing hosannas to his name.

Dead men make such convenient heroes.

They cannot rise to challenge the images we would fashion from their lives.

And besides,

it is easier to build a monument than it is a movement.

– Carl Wendell Hines, "Now That He Is Safely Dead" (quoted by Joseph Lowery)

#15 Away We Go (2009)

Directed by Sam Mendes.

We were recommended (and in fact loaned) this movie by some close friends. I have to admit that I laughed more during this movie than during any of the rest so far. It is a funny and touching movie. It is the story of Burt and Verona a couple very much in love as they go through the life-changing experience of realizing they are about to have a baby. Verona's pregnancy naturally causes each of them to reconsider themselves and most importantly reconsider who they are as a family. When they come to the decision to remake themselves in a new location, they embark on a journey to find that destination. It takes them to different cities and different friends and relatives and in particular to different mentalities about parenting and the nature of family. The supporting cast provide a great amount of laughs in their roles as several different stereotypes. My favorite is LN (pronounced Ellen) played by Maggie Gyllenhaal whose method of parenting (aside from involving as much breastfeeding as possible, including for her six-year-old Wolfie and a colleague's baby she was asked to babysit for) is based on the concept of prohibiting the three "S"es: no separation, no sugar and no strollers. Burt, played by John Krasinski of The Office fame, also provides a good number of laughs with his goofiness. He is nicely balanced by Maya Rudolph who plays Verona, a surprisingly real-seeming person with her natural fears and emotions as a woman in her mid-thirties coming to terms with herself while still overcoming the early loss of both her parents.

I really enjoyed this movie at times. It is cheesy as hell at times as well, filled with the long "so-in-love-but-what-are-we-gonna-do" stares between Burt and Verona or their stares into the distant fields as they ask themselves those same questions and it's beautiful countryside, on-the-road scenery, sunrise shots with it's Jack Johnsonesque soft-voiced guitar ballads soundtrack that are just enough to get right up to the tipping point of making you want to puke, but what can you expect? This is definitely in the genre of a "date movie", and you've got to put up with some of that at times. Luckily this movie also makes up for it with some good laughs.

#14 Django Unchained (2012)

Quentin Tarantino.

Definitely the best Tarantino movie I've seen in just about 18 years. Yes, I rank this one above Inglorious Basterds. Jaime Foxx plays Django Freeman the best bad-ass since Jules Winnfield. The return of Samuel Jackson to a Tarantino movie was another great highlight. DiCaprio is very good. Christoph Waltz is excellent. The story is well-written and the soundtrack is awesome. At numerous points in the movie, Tarantino's control over the tension between slave-owner and former slave, overseer and free man, slave and black slaver highlighted with the right music at just the right time made me feel shivers down my back. A feeling I hadn't had in a movie for a long time. There are too many good things about this movie to write about. 5 stars. 

#13 Winter's Bone (2010)

By Debra Granik.

I decided to watch this one after we had made plans to see Silver Linings, since I hadn't ever seen Jennifer Lawrence in anything, and since she appears to be the current talk-of-the-town (or "the most talented young actress in America" according to Rolling Stone), I wanted to do a bit more investigation.

This movie is much better than Silver Linings, and the actress is much better in this one, even though according to some, Silver Linings is a "career-defining performance." This movie (Winter's Bone) kind of does give her all the prerequisites to get a best actress nomination. She plays the teenage poverty-stricken girl with the crazy mom, meth-cooking dad, taking care of her younger brother and sister by hunting squirrels, bringing them up right or at least as best she can, being too proud to beg, but is forced to track her missing dad in the underworld of hillbilly meth-cookers so she can save their house since he put it up for bond. You know what that takes? That takes courage. And she's got it. Oh, and then she unfairly gets her ass kicked so she gets the opportunity to be all bloody and then still look like a bad-ass with a swollen up face while still being beautiful in her grittiness. Honestly, I don't know how she didn't get the oscar. (I guess Portman was just more rawer.) Anyway, I could go on and on, but the movie is good. My ranting is more to complain about the Academy Awards than about this movie. I liked this movie a lot. I give it 4 stars. And Jennifer Lawrence was good. You should watch it.

#12 Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

Directed by David O. Russell.

When some friends suggested we make an effort to see all the oscar-nominated films for this year's oscars, I thought it was an interesting idea and kind of opportune since I'm doing this almost365films thing (although I just realized it means I have to see Life of Pi). Since my parents were in town and we all wanted to go to a movie, we chose one that would be appealing to all the members of the family and went to the theater to see Silver Linings Playbook.

I didn't hate it.

I kind of enjoyed it at times. So I guess its gimmick is that it's not your typical rom-com because it also deals with deeper issues like mental health, recovery, etc. What it's gimmick really seemed to be was everyone yelling at each other a lot. My wife (who is not American) was fairly confused by this movie. The recurring adjective she kept using for it was "bizarre." I guess that we Americans understand and even enjoy people yelling at each other all the time. Especially if it's about football, bets or some competition of some sort. Or as a way of flirting. I guess America is addicted to dance competitions also, so that got worked into it. Charming. When we spoke about it with the friends with whom we are going to do this "see all the oscar-nominated films" project, we brought up that since it was nominated for best picture we were thinking it might have been something other than a typical romantic American, happy-ending, the team wins, our savings didn't get lost in the bet by a tenth of a point, the guy chases after the girl to tell her he loves her climactic-type movie. But as Bob put it, "Man, what the hell were you expecting when you have Robert De Niro acting like an idiot and the guy from the Hangover part 3?"

#11 Holy Motors (2012)

By Leos Carax.

This is a difficult movie to write about. It really needs to be seen. I tried to choose several different photos to try and convey the variety of bizarre sequences in this movie, but the few I've selected only represent a small fraction of the total. It is a french movie that essentially deals with acting. The main character, Monsieur Oscar, played by the versatile Denis Lavant (I think "versatile" is an understatement), is an actor who is ferried around in his limousine/dressing room to the various "jobs" he has to do during a typical work day. From a street-begging old maid to a trained assassin, to a sewer-dwelling elf, to an elderly man on his death bed, to an action-movie star in which his job entails performing fight scenes and love-making scenes all in a motion-capture suit. The movie definitely could be interpreted to delve into the question "what is acting?" or "what does creating cinema really mean?" However, these arguments only barely entered into my perception of this movie, as there doesn't appear to be an opinion or point of view that is being forced on the viewer. The viewing experience, for me, involved a lot more appreciation for the varying scenes and images, the strange interactions between the characters, and the great amount of creativity that went into the making of this movie. The result is a great feeling of "I wonder what is going to happen next!!!" I guess whether or not that makes it enjoyable or "entertaining" is up to each individual viewer.

4 stars.

#10 Grey Gardens (1975)

Four credited directors. The ones who filmed the footage were Albert and David Maysles.

I really want to write something about this movie because it had a big effect on me. I'm not sure what it was. The movie is a documentary about a middle-aged/elederly mother-daughter couple (Edith, and Little Edie) who live in poverty in a mansion called Grey Gardens in East Hampton. The subject matter came to the attention of the film-makers when they heard of a mother and daughter who were being threatened with eviction from their home of 50 years because they were unable to maintain it, and it had become unhealthy to live there. (You can read more about the story here.) 

Filmed in the early 70s, it really has an incredible way of bringing us closer to these strange individuals. The characters are not the lovely, wonderfully resourceful, free-spirits that I've seen written about them in other reviews. In fact, they are the kind of people that you are not so sure you would want to know in real life. There was always this strange equilibrium in my emotions between feeling sorry for them and being repulsed. The repulsion stemmed from the myriad squalor, cat shit, untidiness, disorganization and confusion at their inability to change their situation. Whether what keeps them together in that awful place as it disintegrates around them from lack of care is because of poor health, fear, mental problems or just desperation at having been the same for so many years that there is no inertia to change. The feelings of pity also stem from many of these same roots, but also come about because of a closeness that is generated as they gradually reveal themselves in front of the camera. They sing, dance, eat, fight, and continually proselytize their ideas about the world, men, social class, the problems with each other, "what could have been", etc., all in front of the cameramen. It was a very touching story. When the movie ends, after having spent 2 hours with these strange women, you can't help but feel depressed that your life goes on, while they..... well, they were still stuck where they were. And you knew that that life they led was not going to last much longer. 

 Too often documentaries try to make a point, or have an agenda. It is so nice to just see real people and get to know them through the screen. A very good movie worth seeing.

#9 Ginger & Rosa (2012)

By Sally Potter.

Well, there was bound to be a bad one in this expedition of mine. This was clearly the first bad one, and boy, was it bad. Man, I don't know how movie reviewers do it and find something interesting to write about movies that suck. I'm glad that I don't have the problem of anybody reading what I write. But this movie was a real (I don't know what to call it–something really bad).

Takes place in England in the early sixties. A bunch of American actors playing Brits. The main character, Ginger, played by child star Elle Fanning, is a precocious teenage poet/anti-nuclear bomb activist with a dreamy dad who cries when he listens to Shubert. I won't go any further. The story of Rosa is just as bad, trust me.

Probably meant to invoke strong emotion in the viewer, however the only emotion that it stirred in me was, "Man, what a bummer for having wasted the past hour and a half".

#8 - Dangerous Moonlight (Suicide Squadron) (1941)

Directed by Brian Desmond Hurst. Starring Anton Walbrook and Sally Gray.

There are several things that occurred to me while watching this movie.

First, it isn't quite as good as the Hitchcock films I've seen this month in terms of writing. The storyline and many of the initial dialogues don't seem as witty. And the development of a romantic spark between the characters is too quick for the viewer to feel much empathy. This film did in the end win me over with it's wonderful argument presented in the second half of the film. Should the world-renown pianist possibly sacrifice himself and give up his ability to provide the world with his wonderful music in order to contribute to a greater cause by being only a contributing member of the war effort as an airman fighting against the evils ravaging Europe? It in some way offers a nice counter view to the movie from last night, Hannah Arendt, in that the cause of the greatest evil ever known is from the loss of the individual and thus the formation of totalitarianism (see blog post for more in depth comments). Whereas here, the question is raised, in order to defeat this evil is the abandonment of the individual also necessary? 

Second, I wasn't happy with how it ended. But, without trying to give too much away (at least no more than what is already revealed in the first scene of the movie), I have to believe that the ending comes from the fact that this movie was made in 1941, and the American public even without wanting to admit it knew that their fate was to join the war effort as well. With that in mind, I can't imagine any wartime movie made with a different ending and receive any public appreciation at the time. (This idea has also made me decide at some point to watch The Pianist by Polanski–a movie that I am yet to see, but which must have a great deal in common with this one, I think.) 

Third, the motivation for watching this movie came from the fact that we have been listening to the Warsaw Concerto by Richard Addinsell on our record player, and M has said how it is her favorite track. Upon looking it up, I came to realize it was written especially for this movie. So, we decided to get ahold of the movie and see if we liked it. The song is ubiquitous throughout, to the point where M was already annoyed with the music despite only sticking around (awake) for the first couple scenes. But, all-in-all, the song really is quite marvelous (embedded video below).

#7 - Hannah Arendt (2012)

By Margarethe von Trotta. Tour de force performance by lead actress Barbara Sukowa.

Incredible work!

A must.

We chose to see this one because it will be the opening night film in SIFF's Women in Cinema mini-festival. And indeed, Hannah Arendt is an incredible woman. 

Labeled a "self-hating Jew" by her contemporary "intellectuals", Ms. Arendt apparently initiated the necessary and wonderfully difficult debate over the Holocaust and the roots of the evil that caused it. The meat of the movie starts when Hannah, a well-respected German-Jewish emigrant philosopher, concentration-camp survivor, and author of "The Origins of Totalitarianism", is asked to report for the New Yorker on the trial of recently arrested Nazi chief Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Her highly controversial report correctly identifies the crime as too huge for any individual to be held responsible and Eichmann as simply too miniscule a cog in the totalitarian machine–a participant in the "final solution" without individuality in the least–even to the point of not being able to think. He, in fact, only acted according to the oath he had taken to always obey the fuhrer, and never acted of his own volition or even to think his own individual thoughts. He never killed anyone. All he did was load the victims onto the trains. What happened to them after that wasn't his responsibility, and therefore none of his concern. He was just a correctly functioning lever in a well-oiled machine.

The main contention her Israeli and American colleagues and friends had with her report stemmed from her delving deeper in her attempt at understanding the complexity of the phenomenon and her failing to admit the complete inculpability of the Jewish leaders. They too had fallen into a system in which their individuality had been taken from them. The victims, as the perpetrators, were unable to veer out of the confines of the machine of the totalitarian system. There was no freedom of choice, freedom to act, or freedom of thought. They only did what they were told. This system wasn't only in Germany. It pervaded all of Europe. Her detractors never forgave her for this betrayal. However, to her, these issues had to be brought up and examined. We all know what people who fail to understand history are destined for. Very much the intellectual, she adequately defended herself by explaining her position on Eichmann, "trying to understand him is not the same as forgiving him." If only more historians were like her...

Truly gut-wrenching, both sides of this argument are so terribly painful. As her close friend and strongest admirer admonishes her at the end with tears in his eyes, "you act like one of the superior Germans lecturing us inferior Jews! You forget that if you hadn't escaped the camp, they would have killed you too!"