“Bergman Island”

Paleo Retiree writes:

bergmanisland

This produced-for-Swedish-TV doc by Marie Nyreröd is basically an informal visit with a very aged Ingmar Bergman. The legendary film and theater director is living out his final years on the little island of Fårö. He’s 86 and alone — his fifth wife died 8 years previously.

Bergman drives Nyreröd around the flat, rural-to-wild, sparsely-populated island. He walks her through his ranch house, showing off trinkets and relics. Everything in the place — modernist but rustic, full of irregular textures and natural materials — is beautiful, modest, subdued and tasteful. He thumbs through snapshots and newspaper clippings; he shows Nyreröd some home-movie and backstage film footage, sharing recollections and ruminations along the way.

Nyreröd makes some efforts to include enough information about Bergman to supply an overview of his life — the childhood, the ambition, the women, the fame, the tax exile, the return. But she doesn’t spend much effort on introducing the man, or on selling you on his importance; she takes it for granted  that her intended audience has shown up with the proper reverential attitude, as well as with some familiarity with the outlines of the biography. The general attitude seems to be “We’re lucky to have any kind of audience with the great man, so we’re just going to go along with whatever he’s willing to give us.”

Despite the haphazard quality of the movie — it’s an edited-down segment from a three-part series that Nyreröd made about Bergman and his work — the Question Lady and I enjoyed sitting through it. What a visit to another era it is, to a time when artists took themselves really, really seriously and worshipful civilians eagerly ate the solemnity up. In today’s leveled-out, compulsively irreverent, web-ified world, is there anyone who can get away with this kind of self-serious carrying-on?

Bergman talks — slowly and reflectively, as though he’s Erland Josephson experiencing a particularly hard-to-process revelation —  about his fears, his weakness, his flaws. He clutches thick sweaters with gnarled, old-man fingers, and he helps himself to epic hesitations and ponderings. What’s being conveyed by his manner is that deep metaphysical and personal truths, painful to connect with and even more agonizing to divulge, are being attained. In fact, the content of his speeches is surprisingly banal, along the lines of having been a child who was afraid of the dark. But Bergman delivers these micro-monologues with enormous, if glacially-paced and feeble-voiced, relish. 90% of what he has to say concerns his shortcomings, his lies, his deceitfulness. He apparently didn’t have it in him to be much of a husband to his many wives, and was an even worse father to his nine kids. You can be certain that he doesn’t neglect to dwell on his present-day feelings of isolation. Hey, he’s Bergman. Would you want him not to overwhelm us with his suffering?

The facet of the film that struck me most was the juxtaposition of the young and middle-aged Bergman who we see in newsreel and home-movie footage with the old man we’re hanging out with in the present. This isn’t just because of the usual “Is this what it all comes to?” aspect, though that certainly has its unavoidable impact. It’s also because of a contrast and a continuity. The contrast: The Bergman we see from the ‘50s thru ‘70s — an era when the “foreign art movie” reigned supreme and when Bergman was universally regarded as one of the world’s great creators — is confident, funny, swaggering. He’s got vigor as well as a magic touch; he isn’t just going from one artistic triumph to another, he’s going from one world-class woman to another. (And what women they were. Among his lovers: Harriet Andersson, Bibi Andersson and Liv Ullmann.) He’s jaunty, sexy and full of himself. The Bergman we spend time with in the doc’s present tense is a querulous, lonely, ponderous old man, moving his bony hands anxiously, playing slyly on our sympathies, and pondering his failures in a voice that’s frequently whiney. The continuity: though his levels of vigor have certainly declined and though his personal style has certainly changed, Bergman was apparently always and everywhere a man of the theatre, taking his moments, leaping on his opportunities, and imposing his vision. Once a hambone, always a hambone, I guess.

All that said, Fårö — where Bergman made some of his more austere films and where he then had his house constructed — is ravishing in its bleak way; the house itself is a beauty; and it’s fun to be reminded of the man and his era. The doc made the Question Lady and me want to re-watch a few of his films and catch up with a few of the Bergmans we somehow missed first time around. The pretentions and ambitions of the era may look a little ludicrous in today’s light, but there’s no question that Bergman was a giant.

Related

  • We streamed the doc on Hulu+.
  • The Gotland website, where you can learn more about Fårö.
  • A New York Times visit to Fårö. Fun passage: “When Bergman died, the details of his funeral were  kept under wraps. ‘People kept the secret from the press until the grave was dug the night before,’ said Mr. Soderlund, who provided the wood that was used to make Bergman’s coffin. ‘These were his instructions. He directed his own funeral’.”
  • Civilians who visit Fårö seem to love the place.
  • Bergman died in 2007 but the annual celebration of him and his work rolls on.
  • A few titles to start with for those who haven’t done their Bergman yet: “Summer With Monika,” “Smile of a Summer Night,” “Wild Strawberries,” “The Seventh Seal,” “Persona,” “Scenes from a Marriage,” “The Magic Flute,” “Fanny and Alexander.”
Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , | 12 Comments

“Cropsey”

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

cropsey

This DIY documentary about a rash of child disappearances in ’80s Staten Island and the man widely believed to be responsible for it is an interesting blend of investigative reporting, urban exploration, and pop-inflected creep-out. Filmmakers Joshua Zeman and Barbara Brancaccio avoid linearity. Instead they draw big loops around their subject, in the process turning “Cropsey” into a crypto-history of Staten Island and its local mythology. Throughout it all Zeman and Brancaccio manage to maintain an atmosphere of foreboding that wouldn’t be out of place in an ’80s slasher film. That’s appropriate: one of the movie’s themes concerns the way in which the horrors of our fictions — of our told and retold stories — inform our collective sense of reality. As “Cropsey” shows, there are still people in Staten Island who believe that satanists stalk the woods, occasionally stealing infants and sacrificing them at the site of the Willowbrook mental institution, the house of real and imagined horrors that occupies the movie’s nexus. For the people at the center of this mystery as well as those on its outskirts, the true-life legacy of Willowbrook has become mythical; it’s been subsumed by their imaginations. There it exists comfortably beside once-heard campfire stories and adolescent memories of Freddy Krueger. “Cropsey” might disappoint some viewers precisely because it doesn’t — and can’t — bring movie-style resolution to its narrative elements. Others might consider that a virtue: the unresolvedness of the film leaves you with a hard-to-shake feeling of unease. It rehabilitates your inner boogiemen.

“Cropsey” is available on Netflix Instant.

Related:

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Only God Forgives” (2013)

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

ogf

While I enjoyed DRIVE, after watching this one, it was clear to me why others didn’t enjoy DRIVE. There’s no pixie-cute Carey Mulligan to redeem this one, instead, we’ve got an impotent, Oedipal-conflicted Ryan Gosling avenging the death of his rapist-murderer brother. Writer-director Nicholas Refn isn’t terribly interested in the story, though, as much as he wants to create space for a cool, deliberate exercise in style. The primary actors seem to be occupying a living tableaux, a sort of Pageant of the Masters meets Asian cinema where no one behaves in any recognizably human way. This is a world where children can watch a man’s chest sliced open or witness a masked killer being gunned down in front of them and they react with Buddhist calm. Although I wasn’t emotionally engaged in the least, I did admire the framing-within-frame of its visuals and the neon garishness of Larry Smith’s camerawork.

Related

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

A Tour of the Long Beach Civic Center

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

The architectural degradation of our government buildings during the 60s and 70s is both fascinating and depressing. What mass hysteria gripped the Establishment of the time? Did no one object? What can and should we do with the legacy we’ve been handed? Back here, I wrote about the Santa Ana Civic Center, and now I’d like to take a look at a similar travesty in Long Beach, California. Here’s a bird’s-eye view of what we’ll be exploring.

lbccgooglemaps

Continue reading

Posted in Architecture | Tagged , , , , , , | 43 Comments

“Death Race”

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

deathrace

“Death Race” is aimed at fans of the “Fast & Furious” franchise. It’s a multi-ethnic car movie that trades on the pumped-up sexiness of its stars, one of which, that scowling peacock Tyrese Gibson, is a “F & F” regular. The movie is broadly based on the 1975 “Death Race 2000,” a gleeful live-action take on the cartoon “Wacky Races.” This version takes itself more seriously. It stakes a claim to the tradition of the prison escape drama — it’s a bit like “Brute Force” tailored to the age of Xbox. Dutifully, writer-director Paul W. S. Anderson hits all the prison-movie beats, and he replaces the pop palette of the original with a steely combination of grays and blues; it’s a choice meant to communicate toughness and grit. As a satirist, however, Anderson is soft: though “Death Race” makes some stabs at spoofing corporate greed, it never misses an opportunity to flaunt its sponsors’ logos in fawning, Garbo-worthy close-up.

Anderson is a leading purveyor of the video game style of movie making. He designs movies in segments or levels, then has his characters scuttle through them like the ghosts and hungry cheese wheel from Pac-Man. This may explain why I’ve always found his work to be most satisfying at the micro level: he’s a talented stylist, one with the smarts to connect his visuals to larger themes and ideas, but his movies tend to fall apart when considered as narrative wholes. Though the screenplay for “Death Race” is a bit more persuasive than what Anderson usually comes up with, the picture sputters after the initial racing sequence. It starts to feel repetitive, and you might find your interest waning even as you’re impressed by the abundant technical wizardry.

That wizardry is most evident during the racing sequences. The editing, by Niven Howie, has a staccato lyricism, individual shots blipping into your consciousness and remaining there just long enough to inform your understanding of the following shot. Anderson is one of the few filmmakers capable of working the prevailing “shaky-cam” aesthetic into something cohesive and intelligible — to use it as more than a driver of you-are-there jitters (Olivier Megaton is another). The action in “Death Race” isn’t exactly spatially comprehensible — Anderson is more of a cutter than a camera mover — but it has a narrative and temporal connectedness that sustains rather than short circuits your involvement.

Star Jason Statham is the least conceited of action heroes; he always seems to be doing an internal double-take. Though he’s fine here — he’s playing a mystery driver who goes by the codename Frankenstein — the movie might have made better use of his gift for affable self-parody. His personality is diluted. It doesn’t help that his character is burdened with a solemn backstory revolving around the death of his wife. Like “Premium Rush,” which I wrote about back here, “Death Race” just doesn’t need that extra layer of motivation. It’s fat on the bone, and it slows everything down. As Statham’s forced partner and nemesis, the chilly prison warden Hennessey, Joan Allen makes a virtue out of dubious plastic surgery: her weirdly immobile face completes the portrait of corporate and bureaucratic soullessness. She’s a whole different sort of Frankenstein.

Posted in Movies, Performers | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

More Ads Everywhere

Paleo Retiree writes:

ca_sb_2013_07_ads_everywhere01

That’s a snapshot of a departure/arrival screen in a California airport. How do you feel about the fact that an ad is taking up the right-hand quarter of the screen?

A few days before flying to California I needed to go to the post office to tell them to forward my mail. Here’s what the single sheet of paper I needed to fill out looked like:

ne_nyc_2013_06_post_office_change_of_address01

Simple, eh? Now here’s the envelope, full of advertising material, that it came buried in:

ne_nyc_2013_06_post_office_change_of_address08

Do you love having to wade your way through mountains of ads to perform even minor chores? How do you feel about the fact that so many of our official bureaucracies — or at least their communications with us — are now ad-sponsored? Is a country that is nothing but a big marketplace really much of a country at all?

But on second thought maybe it’s all OK, because occasionally one of the commercial messages we’re drowning in is for an indisputably worthy cause:

ca_sb_2013_07_ads_everywhere02

Commerce — and diversity — uber alles, baby.

Related

Posted in Commercial art, Humor, Personal reflections | Tagged , , , | 9 Comments

I Was a Second Grade Racist

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

french post

I’m not sure how you feel about racial and ethnic stereotypes, but I’m going to take a deep breath and confess that I mostly don’t mind them. Sometimes I even get a kick out of ’em. In fact, I’m not sure how anyone makes sense of the world without resorting to stereotypes to a certain degree. After all, absent preconceived notions concerning peoples and cultures, who would ever choose to visit, say, Italy? It’d just be another place on the map, albeit an intriguingly boot-shaped one.

Racial and ethnic jokes don’t particular bother me either. When I was a kid we used to tell Polish jokes all the time. I knew some folks of Polish heritage and they weren’t stupid in the least, but that didn’t stop the jokes. I remember asking my father why people made fun of the Polish. He had no idea but he thought the jokes were funny just the same. I used to hear Italian jokes too. That struck me as kind of amusing because I’m part Italian, and though there are certainly a few dim bulbs in our familial chandelier they don’t comprise the majority — you can even find some pretty bright ones if you look hard enough.

The family of an Irish friend of mine was particularly merciless when it came to Italian jokes: when I’d visit his home they’d rib me constantly about being part Italian. Fortunately, I figured out that it’s somewhat easy to make jokes about the Irish, and from that point on we took part in an insult contest of a kind that if it were heard today would get a kid suspended from school if not imprisoned. The fact that I’m part Irish didn’t matter as much as the game of wits and braggadocio we were engaged in. It was very similar to arguing about sports teams. Picking a side was important. So was proving that you could take a shot and come right back with one.

Around this time I noticed that my grandparents were pretty blithe about using out-of-fashion ethnic terms. I’m sure they stereotyped too. When my grandmother needed something taken to the laundromat she’d tell my grandfather to “take it to the chinks.” I only realized that “The Chinks” wasn’t the name of the establishment when my grandfather took me on a laundry run and I noticed that the place was run by Asians (I think we still called them “Orientals” in those benighted times). Chinks or no chinks my grandfather was pretty friendly with the folks who worked there. After chatting with gramps the Asians went back to talking in what to my ears was an incomprehensible chatter. No doubt they were referring to my grandfather using whatever the Chinese word for “dago” is.

I suppose my rough, little-kid conclusion was that making fun of each other was just something people did. Maybe it was even a roundabout way folks had of negotiating their differences. Everyone was laughing at each other. And maybe they were laughing at themselves most of all. Coming to that conclusion seemed like part of . . . becoming a grown-up or something.

Anyway, a few weeks ago I was expecting a package from France, so I popped over to the French postal website in order to obtain the tracking information. I immediately noticed the above banner image, but it took me a second to determine why it struck me as incongruous. What, I came to wonder, is an Asian girl doing as the face of the French post office?

Don’t get me wrong — I love Asian girls. I love how gracile and feminine they are. I even love how their pubes are all downy and straight, like the fuzz on a kitten that’s walked into a field of static electricity. But when I visit a website associated with the French government I expect to see something that coincides with all my treasured stereotypes concerning the French. Where are the berets, the snooty people carrying around baguettes, and the women with charmingly hairy armpits? Or are we no longer supposed to think of France in that manner? If we’re not, is it wrong for me to feel a little sad about it?

Related:

  • According to Wikipedia, the French population is about 1.5% Asian.
  • Paleo Retiree on ATM propaganda.
  • Top 10 French stereotypes.
  • The NAACP recently called for the end of all profiling — which is another way of saying they want to make it illegal for people to think in terms of stereotypes. The implication is that the end of stereotypes will mean the end of murder and incarceration or at least hurt feelings. How do you think that’ll work?
  • This post endorsed by Tanner Boyle:
Posted in Demographics, Personal reflections, Politics and Economics | Tagged , , , , , , | 23 Comments

Linkage

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

  • Looks like Steve Sailer correctly predicted that there was a homophobic element to the Martin-Zimmerman kerfuffle.
  • What did I just watch?
  • Good grief. Apparently, prior to “Tootsie,” Hoffman never realized that women who look like Dustin Hoffman in drag tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to getting chatted up in bars. Amazing. And to think that all this time I thought “Tootsie” was a send-up of actors and traditional sex roles when it was actually an impassioned cry for justice.
  • I only recently realized that the IMDb discussion board for “Commando” is full of hilarious, half-joking comedy posts.
  • More.
  • “Commando: The Musical.”
  • With the widespread adoption of DVDs and widescreen televisions I’d really hoped  the days of media companies presenting movies in the wrong aspect ratio were over. No more pan-and-scan! But the problem hasn’t gone away, it’s just changed shape. Now, companies like Netflix routinely crop movies originally presented in the widest aspect ratios so that they fill the entirety of our 16:9 screens. The results are depressing.
  • A commenter at Sailer’s site makes an excellent point.
  • Lloyd Fonvielle has some thoughts on “Rio Bravo.”
  • Somehow, I’ve always known of the existence of the shit test. But I didn’t have a word for it prior to the advent of Game blogs.
  • What should be done about near-death former Nazi sympathizers currently living in the U.S.?
  • While some feds are doing their best to grant amnesty to undocumented workers, others are considering importing Asian bees in order to kill off everyone’s favorite class of undocumented insect, the Asian stink bug. But is it really a good idea to expect one invasive species to solve the problems caused by another? Let’s all hope the snake-eating gorillas are on standby.
  • Great Movie Scenes: Preston Sturges is rightly known as one of the greatest of comedy filmmakers. But I think he was also something of a humanist, albeit one who achieved his effects by plowing straight through exaggeration and slapstick. In this bit from “Unfaithfully Yours,” which is one of my favorite movie scenes of all time, Sturges uses stock situations and character types to gradually deflate the ego of the imperious conductor played by Rex Harrison. A caricature of the Great Artistic Genius, Harrison is subtly rebuked at every turn. First he mistakes the tailor for the object of his wrath. Then it turns out the guy he’s angry at is his biggest fan — one whose appreciation of music might surpass his own. Even the little buzz that accompanies Harrison’s entrance to the shop seems designed to give him the raspberry. For Sturges, the surprises contained within what we might call the little people — i.e., the  stock characters of the world — are greater than the mysteries revealed by the most brilliant of geniuses. And so what starts out as a scene focused on Harrison’s aristocratic rage ends as a moving lament for lost love delivered by a funny little bald man in a ramshackle office. The bit near the end, when Harrison walks out and we see the tailor in the background peacefully enjoying his lunch, is  satisfying in a way that’s hard to put your finger on.
Posted in Animals, Linkathons, Movies, Politics and Economics, Technology, Women men and fashion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“Urbanized” (2011)

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

BLD-URBANIZED-POSTER-BACK

The third volume in Gary Hustwit’s super SWPLy design series for the TED crowd — following his previous HELVETICA and OBJECTIFIED — I found this documentary only intermittently engaging. I enjoyed HELVETICA, which looked at 20th century typography via the lens of the titular example, but like OBJECTIFIED (which I feel asleep during), URBANIZED felt too unfocused to me.

The movie is a series of short segments that skips around the world as it examines a particular urban dilemma, for example, the slums of Mumbai, public transit in Bogota, historic preservation in New York City (via the example of The High Line), suburban sprawl in Phoenix, economic depression in Detroit, and too-rapid urbanization in Beijing. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with this hodgepodge approach, but more often than not it was like reading a superficial textbook to a urban studies 101 class with a bland title like Problems in 21st Century Urbanism: A Global Survey.

I know I should review the movie presented and not the one I want, but I was hoping for more about the elements of successful city design. What makes for a good (i.e. popular, beloved) park or street? Why do certain areas repel people, while others seem perennially crowded? The best parts for me were the head of the NYC planning department explaining the importance of moveable seating in parks, another designer pointing out why the great European town squares are less than 100m x 100m (it has to do with the human eye’s field of vision), and a Danish official on how Cophenhagen reengineered its streets to be more bike-friendly.

There are a few jabs at top-down, Modernist design, too, if only in passing. After some beauty shots of Brasília that would thrill MCM geeks, one talking head notes that the pedestrian-level experience of the city is a “disaster.” A couple of starchitects don’t come off so well either. Sir Norman Foster yammers some flat rhetoric about the importance of technology and Rem Koolhaus is good for some po-mo babble. Regarding his CCTV building, Koolhaus admires that it’s a “building that doesn’t have a single identity” but instead an “unlimited amount of identities.” Someone should let Koolhaus know that the citizens of Beijing have bestowed a single identity on it.

Related

  • An interview with Hustwit.
  • David Sucher’s excellent City Comforts: How to Build an Urban Village is available on Kindle for less than $5. Paleo Retiree wrote about it here.
  • I wrote about the godawful Santa Ana Civic Center here. Long Beach also has a shitty civic center, which I’ll be writing about soon in another post.
  • I just read Tom Wolfe’s From Bauhaus to Our House. More on that later, too.

Posted in Architecture, Art, Movies | Tagged , , , , | 12 Comments

“The Last Circus”

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

circus

“The Last Circus” starts out as an allegory of Franco’s Spain, focusing on a sad, timid clown who’s having trouble making his way in the local circus. Fat and cursed with Roger Ebert glasses, he’s forever being physically and sexually humiliated by his superior, a sadistic “funny” clown who spends his off hours boinking — and beating — the outfit’s sexy trapeze artist. This segment is also a send up of circus movies past, both the creepy-masochistic ones of Lon Chaney and the sticky, lovelorn ones of Chaplin and Fellini. But director Alex de la Iglesia quickly bores of this tack, and he allows the movie to skip the rails entirely, turning it into a bonkers struggle between vengeful freaks — a manic recapitulation of Tim Burton’s Batman films. Iglesia may be lousy with narrative (does he even care about telling a coherent story?), but he’s a whiz with oddball rhythms, character details, and social observations. I particularly admired a scene in a restaurant, peripheral to the movie as a whole, which is like a miniature of domestic futility: a balding, henpecked man chooses meals for his kids, and they repeatedly change their orders just as he delivers them to the cashier. This, you think, is how our clowns would end up if they ever succeeded in winning the girl — dickering over Fantas at a fast food counter.

“The Last Circus” is available on Netflix Instant.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment