Directed By: Bruce Robinson

Starring:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Paul McGann
Richard E. Grant
Richard Griffiths
Ralph Brown

With the suspicion of rodents in the sink, Withnail surrenders to the magical powers of booze to warm himself in his disturbingly chaotic apartment. If proper care was to be taken of Withnail and his friend, simply called I, they would be best placed in quarantine out of safety for other Londoners; for their sloppiness has lead to unbearable, depressing conditions which demands that they leave London and venture to the countryside for a short holiday.

Withnail & I treads along by displaying Withnail’s gay, eccentric Uncle Monty and the trouble that the two have to encounter to get his country cottage-though much of the trouble has yet to hit them. With much turbulence, such as bad weather, they reach their destination safely, thinking their vacation is bound to take a turn for the best. However, as they become familiar with their whereabouts, they find that they have chosen the wrong location to alleviate all their inner-city turmoil. From hunger and fear of death, the men encounter variant other issues that make this as unpleasant a vacation as it possibly could have become. Only a visit from a familiar face could have turned this vacation to the travesty it should have been. Not only is this granted, but includes hilarious episodes of mischief that makes I’s planned vacation as distressing as life was in his crummy apartment.

Withnail & I is off-beat even for an English comedy, rarely offering jokes and rather reaping the benefits of its comedy from the two diverse characters, and the talented actors portraying them. The characters are similar in their interests and their profession, but much different in their temperament. I is a mild-mannered, shy actor while Withnail is an out-of-control, capricious, emotional, drunk persona who unlike I has completely been unsuccessful in his acting career as of late. With such characters, Bruce Robinson can easily profit from their back and forth dialogue and not be forced to resort to cheap gags to produce a few laughs. As funny as the dynamic between Withnail and I may be, it is limited when compared to the physical comedy of Uncle Monty in regards to I which is among one of the most amazingly, laughter-inducing conversations between straight and gay men in films in recent memory. There also a few gags that still seem both creative and funny, such as the one involved in the cooking of a rooster which is horrifyingly cruel and audaciously realistic.

Writer/Director Bruce Robinson has said that I is based on himself while Withnail is based on Vivian MackKerrell whom he shared a house with. In the supplemental booklets, included in the Criterion Edition, Robinson states that even though as an actor or writer the real Withnail ( MackKerrell) did not have the passion or interest to be successful, “Vivian was brilliant at being Vivian. That was his genius, and everyone who ever met him was overwhelmed by it…his company was worth the price.” And in these few sentences lies the entire folly of the film. Vivian MackKerrell’s charm can be understood or granted, but Withnail’s cannot. It is wise of Robinson to admit that “there isn’t a line of Viv’s in the Withnail & I, but his horrible wine-stained tongue may as well have spoken every word. Without Viv, this story could never have been written.” The issue with Bruce Robinson film is that he has Vivian’s drunken and infatuation with alcohol deeply rooted in Withnail, but has been unable to translate Vivian’s charm on screen. It is unseemly why anyone would want to even remotely tolerate Withnail’s drunken tantrums and tirades, his pessimism, disregard for the emotions and wishes of others, and basically buffoonery in all the serious aspects of adulthood. Of course, there are people who have such characteristics, but with a certain appeal that makes them intriguing to be around. Unfortunately, Withnail lacks that quality and it seems odd that I has tolerated him for so long-and still continues to do so-even after the events during and after the holiday. Many alcoholics are interesting people to be around because besides drinking they seem to have other interests and insights, but Withnail is in the purest sense of the word an alcoholic without any redeeming qualities.

This entertaining film treads along nicely, never tiring or boring its audience, but after some time it becomes a realization that this is no coming-of-age film nor is it attempting to blossom gracefully or offer any additional insight about relationships, alcoholism, and English culture of the late 60. No, the film is simply Robinson’s template for testing his writing chops and paying a tribute to one of his dear friends. Withnail & I has often been cited as one of the best British films of the last twenty five years which, if true, would seem proof of England’s demising film Industry in the face of usually more apt American films. An overrated classic as it may be, Richard E Grant’s breakout performance as Withnail, and Robinson’s problematic but effective screenplay make Withnail & I a heartfelt effort.

The Criterion Collection edition of the film also includes a thirty minute documentary with Bruce Robinson and the principal cast on the making of the film.

Directed By: Jean Renoir

Starring:

Grand Illusion contains a scene were the German commander sticks out his hand to welcome his respected fellow French commander who is a prisoner of war. The frenchman, Captain de Boëldieu, welcomes this nice gesture and shakes Captain von Rauffenstein hand. With such beautiful sentimentality, Jean Renoir-a WWI veteran-creates a colorful world where the place of the captive and his guard seems awfully perplexing. Where are they they? Or, who are they? Who is the Nazi? Who is the victim?

Grand Illusion presents a group of Frenchmen, most notably Lieutenant Maréchal, Lieutenant Rosenthal, & Captain de Boëldieu, who are prisoners of the war-during World War I-on the German front. They soon cooperate with their fellow prisoners in an attempt to escape prison and flee Germany. Their plan goes as smoothly as most escapes due until they are moved from their camp, and all their tasks seem futile. However, they are given a second chance to escape in their new camp; unfortunately, this requires a third person to distract the guards while the other men escape with utmost ease.

The first thing the audience may be surprised by is the sheer politeness, courteous manners of the German toward their prisoners. The etiquette of the Germans seems to cross decorum and comes across-initially-as a superficial, conservative, fearful portrayal of the prison guards. When Marechal is placed in solitary confinement, being mentally tortured in the process, the German guard lends him a Harmonica and a couple of cigars. For a large portion of the film, Renoir’s intent by displaying these guards overly humane treatment seems misguided considering the many tragedies of WWI, such as the Armenian genocide. As the film progresses, the sheer audacity of this aspect of the film becomes quite clear. Renoir intents to create an anti-war film where the German, French, etc. are all innocent as their country and the times of war has required them to be in such regards toward each other. As they cite their reasons for escaping becomes clear, it is clear that these are no vicious, blood thirsty French soldiers who cannot wait to return to their soil and give the German side a piece of their mind. They fight neither because they enjoy nor because they deem it a necessarily righteous war. The majority of the soldiers have joined the army because they genuinely believe it is they must serve their country in a productive manner, and unfortunately this war is the major way in which they can serve their countries needs at this time. In one scene, Maréchal reveals that if his escape is successful, he would not relegate himself to a private citizen; but he would regain his post, and as a pilot resume his duty.  The question between the Germans, Russians, and French is not of It the war is appropriate or not, but if the war is thriving it is our duty to serve our country and put a stop to it as soon as possible. In a sense, most of the soldiers in the film-disregarding nationality-would rather serve their country in any other way, than the one proposed; however, it seems no alternatives have been proposed by their country.

Renoir employs clever tactics in fogging the nationalities of the characters, and even the prison guards. Besides the Hakenkreuz-the infamous Nazi symbol-and familiarity with the characters, there really are no other features that distinguish the prisoners from the German guards. As Captain von Rauffenstein reveals to de Boëldieu, their conditions are equally distasteful.  De Boëldieu is surprised as how the Captain can be compared to him, a prisoner, but when the German Captain speaks of the permanent “gifts” the battlefield has bestowed upon, we believe him to also be a prisoner of war. People like de Boëldieu are prisoners because they cannot flee their captors grasp, but others are prisoners because they are perished day after day, even though they are highly regarded men. Rauffenstein may be free to roam the land as he wishes, but he is the prisoner of the prison, as he is unable to function as he wishes, as he is confined to this prison’s mansion-like structure. An important scene concerns Boëldieu’s questioning of his German counterparts disregard for his fellow soldiers. It is a well known fact that Rauffenstein respects Boëldieu for their mutual acquitance, but also because he respects him as an officer. Boëldieu informs him that his fellow friends are also very good soldiers and that they also deserve his respect and trust.  Von Rauffenstein chuffs as this statement, responding: “…A Rosenthal and Maréchal?” If these German’s are to be guilty of anything, it is their superiority complex. Unlike the WWII Nazi’s who attempted to conquer this superiority by lambasting the “inferiors.” These German’s only mildly harbor such feelings, feelings that have yet to be instilled with hate.

A pivotal character of Grand Illusion is the Jewish Lieutenant Rosenthal. Coming from a wealthy, banking family he shares his parcels that he receives from home with all his fellow prisoners. Rosenthal is the vision of humanity, and his nice deeds are continuously praised by his fellow prison mates as a righteous person, and in one occasion Maréchal discount all prejudices toward the Jews, and says: “You’ve been a good pal.” Though released before the onset of WWII, Grand Illusion wants to firmly announce the equality of all races, and courageously-especially for its time-does not lambast the Germans nor pities them. It presents soldiers as humans, and implies that the blame is not upon the soldier but the ruler, dictator, President, or/and government of each respectable country. These are soldiers who fight to hopefully end the war sooner, and criticizing them for the travesties is to avoid the masterminds behind the global genocide that was WWI.

Jean Renoir has often been cited as among the greatest directors in the history of film, and Grand Illusion and other works like the masterful Rules of the Game, make this honor seem valid. Renoir’s sensitivity is unusual for an antiwar film as he doesn’t force any morality down the viewer’s throat, but asks questions. Grand Illusion is a film with a series of questions that are remained unanswered, not because Renoir is unable to answer them, rather due to the fact that humanity-the part of humanity responsible for the wars-has yet to realize the cruelty and insignificance of the benefits of war in consideration to its pains and anguish.  Released two years before the onset of WWI, Renoir could not have possibly believed that the torments of his first global war would be rekindled, and this time the costs of this war were much worse than the First World War It is notable that even without its condemnation of either side, Grand Illusion was labeled as “Cinematic Public enemy number one” by the Nazi’s not much after its release.

DreamHost promo codes

Rating:*****

Directed By: Gregory La Cava

Starring:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      When a forgotten man assists a wealthy young woman, named Irene,  in winning a scavenger hunt, he could not possibly know what nuisance he is about to force upon himself. The man, Godfrey, is as polite as they come, and his compassion can melt a jealous man’s deceitful heart. As Irene claims, he may be “cute,” but this aside, he is a saint in disguise who has been through enough troubles to find the good in people, because they remind him of his early years.  

My Man Godfrey is the tale of multiple loves over one man for his honesty, cleverness, and beauty. Besides in Irene’s occasion, it is love and respect that is gained through the continuous practice of care for the will, wants, and needs of others as immature and negligent as they may be. After Irene befriends Godfrey, she asks him to become their family’s butler, an opportunity that he relishes. He is warned by Molly, played by Jean Dixon, that he will not last long as the Butler of this house as most cannot tolerate the truly off-beat nature of the family. From the wife of the house, Angelica, who sees pixies to the older daughter, Cornelia, who tries her best to end Godfrey’s service for the family through her many plots. Godfrey asserts that his attempt is not to be a butler, but a good butler. In accordance with his nature, he continually expresses his gratitude to Miss Irene for her help in gaining the job.

The romantic backbone of the story is a major theme, but the film is wildly hilarious as few films seem to achieve nowadays. The film’s comedy is as clever and point-on as any Marx Brother’s work, with no flat or distasteful joke. The comedy of the film is excessive, but that is precisely why it works so brilliantly. Every character is excessively quirky or odd, and this form of comedy could only be performed properly, devoid of awkwardness, in such a condition; for this humor would seem misplaced in reserved or conventional family structures. Effort is continuously focused upon the family member’s rich, spoiled nature that funds their materialistic lifestyle and dispassionate care for each other’s deeply rooted emotions. For example, when Irene feels depressed over her love, she is sent to Europe rather than in a proper method solve her problem.

My Man Godfrey is a very moral picture that presents a case for living a righteous life, and not giving up hope in face of hardships, and aiding those in trouble and becoming acquainted with them to understand their simplicity and grateful nature. The film is not patronizing, nor does it attempt to display these forgotten man as needy men, but people who just fell out of luck-many of whom came from rich backgrounds. The morality may be a little to juvenile, but its innocently uplifting enough to be an acceptable element among all the riotous comedy of the family.  When Godfrey meets Irene at the scavenger hunt, he does display his disgust at the ways men utilize their money; this is not a bitter but confused response of a man who cannot fathom how many people can be so unfortunate while a number of upper-class citizens can enjoy such unnecessary and indulgent practices. The final plan seems overtly extravagant, an unseemly effect of his employment.

In addition to the rushed ending that seems unlikely, after Godfrey’s prior fortitude, and other mentioned implausibility’s, the film still shines brightly among other treasures of the late thirties. As all romantic comedies, My Man Godfrey does pander to the audience, but takes us on an unforgettable comedic journey that makes its predictability and improbable nature seems to be the effect of its unchangeable conformity to its genre’s expectations-and that is not a negative aspect of the film in any way. This film was the first to be nominated in all four acting categories at the Academy Awards, a feat that is deserving of all its notable characters and actors. Though Carole Lombard and William Powell shine through, the most affecting supporting role comes from Gail Patrick in the role of Cornelia. She carefully constructs Cornelia’s deceptive, jealous nature while remaining quietly reserved. The character is much different than the other members of the family, as she is not as eccentric or emotional, and this in itself could be enough reason that Gail Patrick was not nominated for an Oscar. Another theory could be that due to the 1936 Oscars being the first introduction of the supporting categories, it may have been avoided to nominate two actors from the same film in the same category-as Alice Brady was also nominated for her portrayal of Angelica.

Directed By: Michael Cimino

Starring:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Robert De Niro
John Cazale 
John Savage
Christopher Walken                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Meryl Streep                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     George Dzundza

The Deer Hunter is as much a traditional war film as Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is a comedy. Each category fits the respectable film, but their true intentions spread beyond these categories. As much as Dr. Strangelove was a political film, The Deer Hunter is a psychological study of the torments of war.

The Deer hunter is concerned with a couple of friends living in Pennsylvania, and their daily exploits. Young men as they are, there is constantly a clash of emotions between them. The film wants to vividly display these emotions by showing one of the friend’s wedding, Stephen and his bride-Angela. The scene which possibly lasts for more than half an hour attempts to do nothing but highlight their personality and sheer innocence. Three of these men, Niki, Stephen, and Michael, who are to venture to Vietnam for military duty, have a few precious days for reflection before their lives will be changed forever. After the first act, which introduces the characters and their lives, the second part focuses on the war, or rather the frustration of facing death in a “game” of Russian roulette “hosted” by the enemy. This game, in a nutshell, is the central element of the film that displays the agony of the war in a small setting. Every trigger could mean death or momentarily holding on to life. This symbol is brilliantly used, making the audience ask itself is the winner of Russian roulette, the winner, or is he the true victim of the psychological elements of the game; or, in a larger scale, the survivor of war may have won the battle, or conquered the hardships, but it seems that he lost the game of life, for he has lost his control, sanity, and livelihood. If these are the conditions for all veterans of war, is not death a better option?

After the second act, the third part focuses on the psychological study of the three friends that attended and survived the war. The film asks us to consider how war can change a person, and even if a person retains his personality after war? Everyone is so damaged, physically and mentally, that not only is their innocence shattered, but even their soul has been robbed by this war. Michael, played by Robert De Niro, who enjoyed deer hunting before the war, now doesn’t have the heart to shoot a deer. These men are prisoners of war, even though they are not in prison. War has encompassed their life, that their very actions, thoughts, emotions, have been modified by the war. The distance they keep from their loved ones, distaste from firearms, and altered memory of events and people is due to the very effects of war that has made Niki, Michael, and Stephen the anthises of their previous selves.

The film’s unexpected ending solidifies it as a tragic, and at times tearful, experience, rather than a mere display of military potential. At the beginning, we are at loss in the significance of the overlong wedding sequence, or the seemingly unnecessary conflict between Michael and Stanley, played by John Cazale. There seems to be a lot of fluff, but as the intent of the film sets in, it becomes clear that Michael Cimino wants to display the humanity of the characters before sending them to the most severely harmful place on the planet. In many war films, the audience becomes familiar with the characters on the battlefield; in a condition, that the human being is being tested emotionally, physically, and mentally. In such conditions, we do not really know the human being, but, rather know the distraught mess of a person. The portrait of men before war is pivotal to understanding the effects of war; in other words, the conditions of the man of war can be tested by his life before his engagement in war. Unfortunately, the film does not warn the audience of its psychological study, so for much of the film we are at a loss in how to approach the work. It does not hint that this is not a traditional war film, but rather an observation of the post-conditions of men of war. In this respect, the audience has to remodify its approach to the film to actually understand it from the specific angel it wishes to approach. If not, The Deer Hunter will seem nothing more than an overlong patch-like study of sections of a couple of men’s lives, without each part being detailed or entertaining as a whole.

The film is a solemn, unexciting, slow-moving, character building experience which aims not at humanizing its characters, because they don’t need the help. Its purest intentions are to display the cruelty of war on the human psyche, while cleverly lambasting the unnecessary Vietnam War. The film has long been criticized for its supposed liberal standpoint, but such a title would be best left for films such as Oliver Stone’s Platoon. The Deer Hunter far extends the Vietnam War and warns of the effects of all wars, short or long in length, on the warrior. At the beginning of the film, in the wedding ceremony, there is a poster wishing luck to the soldiers that will serve this land in the name of God. The final scene of the film also harbors the same patriotism by the cast’s singing  of ”God Bless America” which sounds, as unfortunate as it may be, mockingly funny, for it was the patriotism that got them in all the trouble that they find themselves in. Or, maybe it was a work of reverse psychology telling us that as wise as humanity is, war will always be an integral part of his life; maybe he just isn’t wise enough to realize the harmful cultural ideas that have made him proud of his war service. 

directed by                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Remy Belvaux
Andre Bonzel
Benoit Poelvoorde

Starring:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Benoit Poelvoorde                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Remy Belvaux

Intriguing and useful documentaries at times tackle ordinary topics, but in the process show the will, determination, hope, love, and basically the good and bad of the subjects it has chosen to utilize. On the opposite side are mockumenataries who satarize the hell out of the issues that documentaries attempt to discuss and debate seriously and intellectually; Mockumentaries such as Spinal Tap take pleasure in diligently mocking their subjects. Sometimes the effects can be as offbeat as Bruno or as idiosyncratic as Waiting for Guffman. Man Bites Dog, however, treads ground that no documentary has tread before; actually it covers ground that rarely even films attempt to discuss seriously.

Man Bites Dog is a fictional documentary following a serial killer, documenting his daily exploits. The serial killer, Benoit, is followed by a film crew whose sole responsibility-initially-is to document his interactions with his family members, victims, and his general ideology on society. As it may be assumed, these filmmakers do not have the most noble taste in choosing their subjects, but they also lack the funding to complete the project as they wish. Benoit promises them that he will help them found their project, and with his seemingly innocent promise, the participation of the film crew in the crimes begin; who is some instances actually aid him in dispatching the bodies or even participating actively in the crime.

Benoit is no ordinary serial killer. His philosophy is different from usual portrayals because his ideologies on suburban life and media as conspiracy-like as it may seem, rings true. In addition, he does not kill simply to fulfill some nagging carnal desire, but he kills because the source of his income were his victims possessions. Even his girlfriend shares in the delusion, that as unusual as his work maybe, everyone has got to live somehow-besides the victims, of course. His family, from his mother to his grandparents, are pleasant folks, and it is in their presence that the best of Benoit’s empathy and love is displayed. They are not knowledgeable of his work; however, they do indirectly condemn his work as it appears in the newspaper-not knowing that it is their son who is the culprit of many crimes occurring in the city.

The Crimes, themselves, are merciless, gory, uncensored, and most of all excessive. The audience witnesses dozens and dozens of corpses, murders, and even an account of  rape throughout the film. The killing itself is genuinely interesting, at times consisting of original ideas in the murder of the elderly, but the processes of disposing of the corpses is unrealistic and not believable. There are scenes where Benoit is hauling a body in the vicinity of a moving train, or using the most unprofessional methods, to a serial killer, of getting rid of his victims. If the police even were remotely active in such a city, they were bound to identify Benoit with every murder he commits. After a while, we wonder how is that after so many gunshots, suffocations, and basically instances of crime on a relatively stable community, the Police have no suspect and no lead. Benoit does explains that the reason, but his answer is not accepted sufficient enough to excuse his entire output. If it is accepted that the camera crew follow Benoit for less than half a year, considering his age, it can be speculated that Benoit has killed  the equivalent of entire villages of people without a lead pointing towards him.

Man Bites Dog intent is to satirize the sorry state of contemporary media’s scrutiny of controversial people and issues. It implies how the media simply sees the people it documents as subjects rather than individuals who may need or desire help and guidance. The Film crew follows Benoit without really comprehending  what horrific incidents they are filming, and even lending a hand in the crimes. In other words, in the process of documenting such certain events, the media can become as cruel as the perpetrator of an incident, or rather become him. In a truly bizarre case, Benoit murders a person who also has a film crew with him, demonstrating one of the funniest and most poignant moments of the film. A question, however, that must be asked is if Man Bites Dog is a critique of certain aspects of society, or if it is a vehicle for exploiting mutilated corpses, long rape scenes and other mentioned unpleasant aspects of Benoit’s “craft.” The answer is that it is a very wise critique in its own respect, but as the running time progresses the film slowly shifts towards exploitation. As this happens, the gravity of Benoit’s work becomes less tragic, as corpse after corpse is displayed to us. In the end, all the unpleasant sights are simply excessive, losing their shocking and tragic elements.

Man Bites Dog as great a satire as it may be, overstays its welcome by reducing Benoit from a killer with an agenda to a deranged serial killer. The film is among those works that should have retained a shorter length because the longer it gets, the more focus it loses, and the more its timely criticisms seem to strain on. The graphic nature of Man Bites Dog should not be taken lightly, as it demonstrates the murders with vivid detail, and incorporates cruel and disturbing methods in some instances. The film also caves in when one considers certain unanswered questions, such as: why are these fictional filmmakers, who lack financial stability, following such a subject around for their documentary? Documenting a serial killer’s exploits does not carry ideal commercial weight as to grant these filmmakers fame or riches. The fictional filmmakers seem pleasant people who truly wish to demonstrate something great with this work, but considering the subject matter and the detail which they film the issue in hand, it seems they are in delusion concerning what this film really and truly demonstrates. Even Benoit doesn’t dwell on why they would want to film him, even if there was a valid reason, wouldn’t the release of the film endanger his work? Man Bites Dog may be as violent as the society it satirizes, but to leave its desired effect it does need to attain such a level of violence; without it, our disgust and pity of our own society would not be as drastic as it should be.

Directed By: Joel  & Ethan Coen

Starring:

Every now and then there comes a film with such a unique and absurd plot that good or bad, it usually is conceivable why the project was green lighted. Even if it turns out to be a commercial failure, maybe due to the help of Critics it gains momentum, or with the help of fans it may turn in to a cult classic. Films from Being John Malkovich to David Lynch’s Eraserhead, there have been many films in recent times that are based on preposterous ideas and occur in preposterous settings. A big advantage of these films is that they advise that this no ordinary movie experience, and that the audience will be shocked, enlightened, disgusted, or simply mystified by this visual experience. However, get this: The Big Lebowski is centered on a guy whose rug was “molested” by two thugs.

The correct term should be urination rather than molestation, but this how protagonist reacts as if this is an act of molestation. The main character of the film is Jeff Lebowski, or as he likes to be called: The Dude. The Dude, furious at this intrusion sets to gain compensation from the rich man who was mistaken for him, also named Lebowski. The older Lebowski, referred to as the Big Lebowski,  does not seem to be as approachable as The Dude had thought, but he eventually succeeds in gaining a second rug from him by tricking his attendant. To the Dude his business with Lebowski is done, but now Lebowski needs The Dude’s help to get back his wife, a young girl named Bunny,  who has been kidnapped. Considering that the thugs first aim was to find Lebowski’s wife, rather than the Dude, he seems like the best candidate to hand in the ransom money, and discover if the kidnappers are also the thugs he encountered. With the help, or rather mischief, of his friend, Walter-brilliantly portrayed by John Goodman, the delivery of the money, the identity of the kidnappers, Bunny’s whereabouts, are not as painless a plan as it seems, nor is the devised plan as innocently devised as The Dude thought.
The Big Lebowski is typical of the Coen Brother’s comic style: Complex, superfluous, innumerous characters, and overfilled with profanity. Everything from the very beginning of the film of the film is very Coen Brother’s like and, as a result, absurd. The idea that a man should be aggravated, to the degree that the Dude is, seems a funny idea, but what comes after? The Dude must either get his rug, or not get his rug? What then? The story is so flatly devised that it really requires huge amount of effort to even help the film start moving. After the kidnapping and the realization of the role of The Dude in retrieving Bunny becomes clear, this seems set to be a mischievous account of the Dude’s failed and hilarious attempts to accomplish this mission.

Unfortunately, the Coen Brothers do the strange deed of completely avoiding the development of the plot, and actually creating a series of events that at first glance seem to be related to the story line, but are actually a dire attempt to increase the running time to two hours. The Dream sequences are exquisitely detailed and original, but what is the true effect of their presence? The Big Lebowski’s daughter, Maude, offers good advice to The Dude about his mission, but in a quite pointless incidence sleeps with the Dude to have his child; a child that is never shown in the film. There is another scene with a high school student who is supposedly responsible for the issues that come up with the ransom money; a scene that is overly long and includes another episode of Walter’s tiring tantrums. Another one of The Dude’s friend, Walter, offers no use rather than being Walter’s device for profanity: “Shut the F*** up, Walter.” Do not get me wrong, I am not offended by the profanity, but rather insulted that the Coen Brothers have devised two characters simply too spew profanity back and forth. The Coen Brothers countless characters are not overwhelming, but mostly offer no special insight and edge to the film.

The Big Lebowski seems like it was very fun and hilarious to write, direct, and star in, but in retrospect it is a very painful film to watch. The Coen Brothers in a sense may not get all the blame for creating such a catastrophe by creating a film based on a stolen rug; to be honest, even the most seasoned writers would have trouble doing much with such a silly premise. However, the Coen Brothers are to blame in their method of approach in developing the film. For they are not actually developing, but dancing around the plot with the arrogance of convincing us everything happening in the film is eventually relevant. Overstuffed with useless, one-note characters, The Big Lebowski treads along causing conflicts that are unnecessary and unengaging, with a one of a kind ending that seals the this film’s faith among the most bizarre, shameless vanity projects to be conceived in some time. In the beginning of the film, the narrator informs us that the Dude is one of those people that could fit in every time or place; hopefully history will be unkind to such a piece of work, and bury it deep within the sands of time. Then, again, maybe the Dude will eventually outsmart al of us, and turn out victorious. 

For fans of such absurdism and mischief in film, Martin Scorsese’s After Hours is a much better piece of work.

directed By: Hiroshi Inagaki

Starring:

Few philosophers are renowned for their guidance in military tactics or their competence as men of the battlefield. Considering that such men excel in the art of brutal killing, they seem an odd category of people to recommend to the masses the right methods of life. A large part of the population have for long wisdom of such men, Niccolò Machiavelli and Sun Tzu springing readily to mind, as they are seen as playing the devil’s advocate for the cruel rulers they guide. However demented or wise these men may be, they without doubt shaped the political and social structure of their government and their influence has carried on even to our era. Among such men, the case of the protagonist of Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto is an unusual one; a ronin-a samurai without a Lord or House to serve-as the political and military philosopher. His text on military strategy, The Book of Five Rings, is still being read and scrutinized in many areas, from philosophy to business.

A famed swordsman, Musashi Miyamoto, was an unbeatable warrior whose legacy carries on as one of the most rebellious and intriguing men of his time. Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto is the first segment of a trilogy of films depicting Musashi’s life; as it is the first segment it focuses on his early exploits to become a samurai. Following the loss of his side at the Battle of Sekigahara, he takes refugee with his fellow friend, Honiden Matahachi, at the house of a widow and her daughter. The daughter and widow fall in love with Musashi due to his swordsmanship that kills, injures, and scares of a large portion of the ronin that demands favors such as money, food, jewelry-especially Gold-to leave them unharmed. He rejects both women while Matahachi attaches himself to the women, even though he has promised to return to his faithful fiancé. Angered by this event, Musashi returns to his village to inform Matahachi’s mother and fiancé of his whereabouts.

As in many other classic Samurai films,  Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto contains great acting, by the likes of no other than Toshiro Mifune, an able director, and carefully chosen settings. Even with all the good performances and genuinely fine screenplay, based on a contemporary Japanese novel of Musashi’s life, the film is ultimately forgettable. Undeniably, the film simply aims at describing Musashi’s earliest years, but in turn creates a work that could only interest fans of Musashi Myamoto rather than the average filmgoer. What really drains the film is the lack of comprehension of Musashi’s true talent and vigor; on the surface he seems indistinguishable from countless samurai of other samurai flicks. Granted that he may be a shallow samurai, no insight or philosophy is assigned to character. It is quite unexplained why he hates the village and its inhabitants as much as he does. Without some insight about the true significance of Musashi, the audience of the film will be more confused at the significance of this character that seems to lack any significant characteristic worth caring for.

Strangely, the film succeeds in making Musashi look like a complete loon and fool, and not a believable one. In the hunt that ensues, he succeeds in overpowering nearly everyone, but surrenders himself to the Priest with no opposition; it is not the surrender that is strange, but the method of surrender which is so spiritless and uncharacteristic of the samurai character that Musashi so eagerly demands to achieve. If that wasn’t enough, Musashi is deceived a second time by the Priest who caused him so much suffering and humiliation. Unfortunately, the story line may be believable and acceptable in the novel that the film is based on, but many of the film’s developments seem to embarrassingly display the filmmaker’s inability of giving the work an acceptable ending.

Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto is insignificant not because Musashi’s himself is not interesting for the contemporary viewer, far from it, but because he is utterly identical to every other samurai you have seen. As it is shown, he is a great swordsman, but, then again, are not all samurai? As much as Toshiro Mifune attempts to show us the rebellious, and eventual moral character, of Musashi we are at a loss, because the script is so thinly developed that even the noblest efforts of the entire cast combined can not make the film the great picture that it truly deserves to be. Surprisingly, Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto was presented with Academy  Award for Best Foreign Language Film at the 28th (1955) Oscars; however, odd a selection this may be, it is not nearly as strange why the following two segment of the trilogy were devoid of such honors.

Directed by:  Masaki Kobayashi

Starring:

Seppuku, or Harakiri, is a form of ritual suicide by disembowelment, reserved for those who would rather die with honor than live with shame. Originally reserved for Samurai, it later crept through many other parts of Japanese culture-even though it may have fallen out of popularity(is “popular” the correct label for suicide?), due to the rise of easier methods for ending one’s own existence.

Due to the peaceful times of the film, samurai are left without Lords or Houses to honor and defend which has led to them being unemployed. In such unfortunate times samurai are forced to participate in menial tasks just to feed themselves. These conditions have obliged disgraced samurai to approach certain Houses for aid in committing seppuku-for every person committing this act requires a second to behead him after disembowelment. As daring as samurai may be the Houses are not enthusiastic to grant such a wish, and to avoid such commotion have on many instances offered aid to the distressed samurai in  return; however, many have taken advantage of this situation to garner money as an excuse for seppuku.

 The story of Harakiri is set upon an accomplished samurai, Hanshiro Tsugumo, who in dire straits want to commit seppuku within at the house of a Lord, Kageyu Saito. Kageyu admires Hanshiro’s composure, determination, and honesty and is more than welcome to grant his service to such a deserving samurai. However, before he grants him his wish, he tells a tale of a man from the same House as Hanshiro Tsugumo, named Motome Chijiiwa-whom Hanshiro denies remembering. Kageyu tells of this foolish young samurai’s attempt to commit seppuku with a bamboo sword, and the pain and anguish that the process carried for him and the onlookers. Hanshiro assures Kageyu that he will not back down from his decision, regardless of the pain and misery that will undeniably follow.

 As the clan readies itself to see such an honorable samurai commit suicide, Hanshiro asks the Kageyu if it is possible to choose his own second. He recites name after name, but unfortunately all his choices have taken leave of absence for one reason or another. Kageyu respectfully sends a messenger to see if it is possible that any of Hanshiro’s desired seconds attend the ceremony. In the meantime, to engage the samurai, Hanshiro chooses to tell the tale of his daunting life which turns to be a stimulating experience and shocks Kageyu who ends up with more than one dead samurai on his hands by the time Hanshiro’s suicide is complete.

 Harakiri is in its true form an anti-authoritarian film, which vivid symbolism such as a hideous complete set of samurai armor that displays the honor which is so dearly  held by all samurai; such a piece of honor freezes the entire army of samurai as they feel this set of armor is threatened. Harakiri, however, is not about honor, as much as it is opposed to honor, displaying the utter sham that it is, and the lives that such an unnecessary concept destroys.

 The beauty of Harakiri lies in the fact that it simply allows the audience to infer its philosophy rather than enforcing it upon the audience. Hollywood films such as Clint Eastwood’s The Unforgiven could be classified as having similar anti-authoritarian, anti-violence, peaceful messages as Harakiri, but with a more obvious and enforced personality. . The film gains its edge by always challenging us, and making the audience wonder what other trick could Hanshiro have up his sleeve? The films relationship with samurai is quite brutal, labeling their attitude and antics as excessive, unordinary, and simply barbaric.

 The blatant force of Harakiri lies in its surprise, condemnation, and provocation that it lends toward its subject. Director Kobayashi shows his resent and distaste for the samurai way, its acceptable violent nature, and its delusional code of honor that not only makes the life, and death of a samurai, a surreal experience, but it asserts possession over the samurai’s individual life in a way that he is not his own man even in death; even at the last moment of death, he is prisoner to his Lord and his House. Harakiri condemns the institution for degrading the samurai to such a condition that even in peaceful times he cannot be responsible for his eternal end; but further so, criticizes the samurai for allowing the institution of feeding him such empty concepts. Hanshiro’s suicide is not a mere disembowelment, but a noble mission that tears open the defected heart of the seemingly noble duties that men swear to protect, respect, and admire.

 In addition to its philosophical beauty, Harakiri is masterfully acted by a group of talented actors, among whom Tatsuya Nakadai’s portrayal of Hanshiro Tsugumo, known for his long relationship with Akira Kurosawa and Kobayashi himself, leaves the most impression; as he says himself, in the bonus interview segment-offered by the Criterion Collection-Hanshiro seems to be automatically fit a method actor such as Toshiro Mifune, but Nakadai pulls of his job with great compassion for the main character. Besides the flashbacks of the past, that dominate much of the film, the rest of the film is set in the open boundaries of the House, with Hanshiro placed in the center of the field while all the samurai, including the Lord are seated in a distance, almost forming a fence around him to insure that there is no chance of escaping the conditions set for him. Considered a front runner by many, including the cast members, for the Palme d’Or, Harakiri rightfully garnered the Special Jury Prize, as the top prize went to another masterful film, Luchino Visconti’s The Leopard.

Directed by:Robert Bresson

Starring:
Christian Patey
Vincent Risterucci
Caroline Lang
Sylvie Van den Elsen
Michel Briguet
Béatrice Tabourin
Didier Baussy

Pros:
• Intriguing spiral events based on a petty crime
Cons:
• Uncharacteristic cold atmosphere
• Unfocused and underdeveloped narrative

In his last film, Robert Bresson attempts a psychological study of man in the lowest and most depressed part of his life as the cards fate hands him go terribly wrong. A spiral of events start from a petty crime done by two teenagers whose forged money, exchanged in a store, lands an unsuspecting youth in dire straits.

Bresson paints a black and white universe where a single person is continually being tricked, harmed, and manipulated by a large mass of people whom see money as the sole source of motivation. This young man, named Yvon, is unable to rise from this elementary act of manipulation, and due to loss of his job, falls into crime, and eventually jail. Loss of members of his family and time in solitary confinement make this bumpy ride all the more psychologically abusing which contributes to the young man’s eventual downfall.

Bresson paints this film in a world of coldness, bitterness, apathy which does suit the character’s infatuation with money quite well; the problem lies in the desire of the film for the audience to feel sorry for the main character. I must respond, for what, and even if there was a sufficient answer to such a question, why? The true arbitrators of the immoral acts that land the main character in prison don’t crack a smile, shed a tear, or show any remote sign of emotion through the entire film; however, that could be excusable, being blamed on their sheer interest in money and unconcerned about the method of its gain. However, the sole character, himself, seems to lack the faculties of emotion, with no true recognizable emotion toward his wife-besides placing his hands on her shoulder or back. During her sole visit with her husband in prison, his wife reminds
him that they should not resolve to fighting in such a condition as they never have quarreled before. This is not such a difficult concept considering that these people don’t exist-not because they are in a film-but mainly due to the fact that most people expend energy and emotion rather than function as pre-programmed citizens in a world taken over by money and deceit. However, this is still excusable if the film did not demand us to feel sorry for these characters who could not express “sorry” if you asked them.

Another issue with the problem is the unfocused narrative of the film. There are scenes, such as the introduction of the protagonist, that seem fuzzy and unclear, and for some individuals a second watch may be required so that certain ambiguities become clear. A narration would not be necessary, but due to the apathy of the characters, it would help the film progress more smoothly and seem, at certain points, less tedious.

There is no doubt that Bresson intended this chilling atmosphere to resonate through the entire film, but unfortunately this style of his overpowers the film and the philosophy he intends us to infer from it. By the end of the film, we have not seen a film that displayed to us the root of all evil, or a critique of French society, but we have witnessed a film that is depressing; so depressing and banal that any message that lays within it seems void, empty, and uninteresting.

Directed By:Charlie Chaplin

Starring:
Charlie Chaplin
Paulette Goddard
Henry Bergman
Stanley Sandford
Chester Conklin

Pros:
• Insightful message of Industrialism and the unfortunate sacrifices that come
with it.
• The truth about capitalism, and especially the American Dream
• Beautiful musical score

Cons:
• None

In the last use of his “Little Tramp” character, Chaplin creates a portrait of mass production that is both harrowing and insightful. A talkie in its own right, the tramp is still a quiet figure continuing his mischief. As usual with Tramp, his companions being runaway/beggar females or children, at first this may not seem to cover ground that Chaplin’s proceeding work have not done. However, Chaplin succeeds in making a mockery, rightfully, of mass production, and the inhibited horrors that accompany it.

As a factory worker, he is so pressured that even a momentary annoyance by a pest can effect his work tremendously leading him getting caught in the (innerworkings) of the factory. The manager of the factory is displayed as a ruthless man worried only about increasing profit, as to order the tramp to get back to work on his break. An ingenious scene occurs with the testing of a device that would dramatically cut the length of lunch breaks by giving a machine the power to actually “feed” workers.

The whole tale displays the Tramp’s inability to hold to a steady job, getting fired or eventually giving up realizing his inability to function in certain environments. His multiple outings with the law, always humorous include the only instances that he is in peace with society. This is so vivid that at is explained life in his jail was comfortable.

. It is truly remarkable to view a man set out to voluntarily be placed in jail because he is dysfunctional in society; or rather, society is dysfunctional in regards to him. Even after he meets the girl, his luck does not increase, but his ambition and motivation to gain an income increases. For the first time, he exclaims that he will get them such a house, even if he has to work for it. After all their ambition and motivation is drenched, the couple does not give up, though admitting that happiness is very hard to reach. They can wish and fantasize for the American Dream as much as they want, but it is far from their grasp.

This is one of Chaplin’s most somber films, one that after all these years has held its poignant grip, continuing to ring true generations later.