Archive for June, 2010

ONE WEEK (Buster Keaton & Edward F. Cline, 1920)

Physical humor and tomfoolery abound in this romp through the first week of married bliss and pitfalls, but there’s also something really sweet about the love between Keaton and his new bride here (they share a kiss every two minutes, or at least it feels that frequent). The stunts are pretty awesome, especially an opening act involving the straddling of two cars, and watching Keaton attempt to *put together* his home—way to go, Uncle Mike: now that’s a generous wedding gift!—is a hoot, especially as a rejected beau mischievously switches labels, causing the house to look like a reflection in a carnival mirror once it’s assembled. There’s also some fun experimenting with cinema as a medium—a hand blocks the camera as the naked wife emerges from the bathtub; a panicked Keaton spirals through the spinning house during a storm in a long tracking shot. And the final scene, which finds the lovebirds in search of a new home but just as smitten with one another, is terrific. Add on the obligatory Keaton dramatic scene moment, and you have my current favorite of his films (though I owe The General a revisit), a fine combination of humor and heart.

73/100

EASY STREET (Charles Chaplin, 1917)

Early short that showcases Chaplin on a power trip as a tramp-turned-cop who takes down the slums’ (Easy Street) biggest bully (a beast of a man who’s impervious to batons and boasts devil-like eyebrows). The slapstick is plentiful, similar to 1921′s The Kid—though it’s nowhere near as funny as that one—and of course, there’s the obligatory damsel in distress. It’s really about image, and how a strong one, even if obtained by luck, can breed self-confidence and, subsequently, social clout. There’s also some religious allegory at work: Easy Street opens in a church, where Chaplin humorously plays with a baby but, more seriously, finds his way after leaving and noticing a “help wanted” sign on the local police station’s door. Though Easy Street is more charming than laugh-out-loud funny, seeing policeman Chaplin doff his cap to the twice-vanquished bully on a cleaned-up Easy Street at the end is worth the price of admission, and it’s a great warm-up act for his truly great work of the next two decades, particularly The Circus (1928) and City Lights (1931), but also The Gold Rush (1925) and Modern Times (1936), as well as the aforementioned & underrated The Kid.

63/100

poker update

Went to Borgata last weekend, and had a very successful 2.5 days of LHE (2.5 because one was a very short session; I tried my hand at the $215 turbo tournament, and went out despite some strong play and reads), winning ~4K at 20-40 and 40-80. It’s a reminder that 1) this is one of my greatest talents, and 2) I don’t play nearly enough. With my first child (a boy, Julian) on the way, that’s got to change: I have his financial future to think about, and I need to maximize my time spent. Sleep has to be sacrificed! This also means I really need to get to work on my online game, which has always drastically lagged behind my live performance. Before depositing money into PokerStars, though, I’m going to really gameplan, ranging from game selection to ambience, so I can be as ready to rock & roll as possible.

THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA (Tommy Lee Jones, 2005)

An offbeat, tonal take on the Western, Tommy Lee Jones’ The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada is best described as soulful and creative, if occasionally scattered and overambitious. Set in rural Texas on the Mexico border, Burials takes on particular moral weight when viewed today (June 2010) in light of the controversial immigration law that Arizona passed a few months back. Jones’ film focuses on Pete Perkins (Jones), a weathered old rancher who forms a peculiar bond with Melquiades Estrada, a Mexican cowboy seeking work. When Estrada is accidentally shot and killed by trigger-happy border patrolman Mike Norton (Barry Pepper), an enraged Perkins seeks out the murderer and forces him to accompany him on a journey into Mexico to return Estrada’s body to his family, fulfilling a promise he’d made to his friend some time back. Burials serves as a warning towards those thinking that Arizona’s new policy can be implemented seamlessly and without innocent casualties:  give an uneducated grunt a sniper rifle, and this is what you get. On a wider scope, Jones does an excellent job of portraying each character as severely flawed and without meaning, a perfect embodiment of the terrain they inhabit. There’s Norton’s wife Lou Ann (January Jones), a perky pigtailed blond who quickly grows bored with her husband scouring the fields all day, and without any entertainment beyond the mall, quickly realizes the severe limitations of the man she chose and life she’s leading. There’s waitress Rachel (Melissa Leo), who fucks half the town—she’s in her mid-late 40′s, by the way—despite (because of?) being married: her evident distaste for her boxed-in life conjures up Bogdanovich’s The Last Picture Show, among others. And in addition to the shooting of Estrada, Mike Norton flashes his anger at the world and self-disgust by beating up a few petrified, unarmed immigrants who entered the country, including punching a young lady in the face (a healer, she would later have her revenge, though she first displays a compassion not present in the Texas community). Even a blind hermit who Norton and Perkins meet on their trek fits the bill, begging for them to take his life and put him out of his misery.

Jones deserves some serious props for casting Pepper as Norton: after seeing him brilliantly chomp the scenery as slimy investment banker Frank Slaughtery in Spike Lee’s masterpiece 25th Hour, I could never have pictured him as a trailer-trash Westerner, but he disappears into the role. The cinematography and mood are excellent. Where Burials falters a bit is in its editing: the ambitious flashback-and-forth techniques take away from the film’s cohesion, and it could probably have been tauter if 15 minutes had been shaved. And the ending, while interesting intellectually, lost me emotionally—I was definitely into the Estrada-as-a-martyr direction, and a surprising twist works on some levels, but really took me out of the movie’s rhythm. Still, parts of Burials are quite touching, and the work as a whole is definitely sophisticated: Jones imbues his characters with depth, and they work together on a harmonious level, even when they don’t share the screen. As an actor, Jones doesn’t really stray from his comfort zone, but he gets the job done nicely, and the rest of the supporting cast is stellar. Ultimately, The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada is a nice little film, overlooked by many but blessed with plenty of good traits and a few warts. The strengths are strong enough to easily warrant finding time to check it out.

67/100

TWO IN THE WAVE (Emmanuel Laurent, 2010)

Though thoroughly average as a movie, Emmanuel Laurent’s Two in the Wave is absolutely must-see cinema for film buffs and cultural historians. A workmanlike-yet-somewhat-fawning documentary about the careers of New Wave pioneers Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut, Two in the Wave is chock-full of interesting tidbits about their careers, ranging from their writing for Cahiers du Cinema, to their infighting over the precocious Jean-Pierre Leaud (the star of Truffaut’s masterpiece The 400 Blows), to their eventual deep falling out over political differences (Godard found Truffaut’s aversion to using the power of cinema to express disgust with the right wing to be reprehensible; Truffaut, meanwhile, considered Godard’s leftist politics over-the-top, and felt more comfortable using the camera as an escape from reality anyway). The entire documentary is a serious jolt of nostalgia and wistfulness—how can any cinephile watch Two in the Wave and not wish to be smoking cigarettes and drinking red wine at a café in Paris, having just seen the sexy Breathless or the tantalizing Jules and Jim, chatting with a beautiful young girl who may or may not bear an eerie resemblance to Anna Karina? That’s what I left the film yearning for, anyway! It’s also cool seeing Godard speak to Fritz Lang around the time of Contempt: for such a self-confident director who frequently bordered on complete arrogance and obnoxiousness, Godard clearly idolized Lang (for good reason, of course). All that keeps Two in the Wave from being great is that it has little dramatic flair of its own, despite the easy pickings the topic matter should provide. A random woman who periodically pops up turning pages seems to be meant to represent the present, looking back at the past with the same lust that we do, but she just seems superfluous and pointless. It’s easy to think that any director could take the stories of Godard, Truffaut, and the French New Wave and churn out an enjoyable finished product, so it’s tough to give Laurent much credit for his lackluster contributions, but the strength of subject ultimately won’t be defeated here: Godard, Truffaut, Leaud, and 60′s Paris supply enough pizazz to beat back the flaws and make Two in the Wave well worth seeing.

65/100