Breathless

  

A Bout De Souffle or Breathless was Jean Luc Godard’s directorial debut. I have heard this title often mentioned in film circles and referred to as being the seminal French New Wave film. Jean Luc Godard wrote for the famous Cahiers du cinéma film magazine, along with other directors (Truffaut, Rohmer, Rivette, etc.) who would also become associated with the French New Wave movement in the sixties. So, there is this romantic backstory to it in that sense and prestige, since it started as a passion project by a man who loved movies, who opined them, and it became this revered, pivotal work that every film student is made to watch and write about. So, it is very much a template, a historic one at that too. And often, those types of movies are not so engaging outside of the historical context, because as times change, people’s tastes change. And I admit the first half of this movie was not completely engaging.

 We are first introduced to the protagonist Michel Poiccard played by Jean-Paul Belmondo, a car thief, who shoots and kills a police officer who was in pursuit of him. Michel reconnects with an American Expat named Patricia, played by Jean Seberg, and asks her to go to Italy with him. He is enamored with her and it’s not hard to believe, since Jean Seberg is the epitome of French chicness which is funny considering she wasn’t French. She works for the New York Herald Tribune and likes Michel but also engages in trysts with her boss. Overall, her emotions seem to skew capricious but (at least, this was my interpretation) seemingly because she wanted to be sure of Michel’s true affection for her. He comes across as extremely chauvinistic and in fact, throughout most of the movie, he is just begging her for sex. Apparently, this movie started the jump cut technique and I do see them being used often and with great effect. 

But there’s also this one scene where Michel breaks into Patricia’s flat. She is nonplussed and is just being her charming self while he keeps begging. They have this whole Pepe le Pew chasing a coquettish Penelope pussycat dynamic. And the scene consists of that and nothing else of import or significance to the larger plot (Well, Patricia does reveal she is pregnant by him in this scene but that is not really addressed subsequently.). 

They’re petits riens, little nothings that serve as a short interim to the main action and conflict, which is really just a standard cop and robbers' narrative that becomes tangential and less of a focus in the end. Because this is the focus. This relationship. These people. They’re little things that seem sweet and ineffectual but become grand everythings. I can tell that so many auteurs have been inspired by the simplicity and beauty of this scene. Sometimes, the best answer to the question of what makes good cinema is the simplest: two people sitting in a room talking, listening to music, grooming themselves, and being intimate. It doesn't have to be complex or difficult. 

We’re shown that the police seem to suspect Michel of being the man who murdered their fellow officer, and they continue to search for him with much difficulty. Michel is doing everything in his power to evade. He even adopts a pseudonym Laszlo Kovacs which was actually a reference to a character Belmondo played in a previous film. The movie has many metatextual moments like that. Another is when a woman asks Michel to buy her magazine to support young artists. Which magazine was she selling? Cahiers du cinéma.

After their lovemaking, Michel and Patricia leave the apartment so she can attend a press conference (but not before making a fabulous costume change, in a cute striped dress). Michel drops her off and goes to confront someone about some money he is owed. That actually backfires as his criminal identity becomes more and more known. Michel tells Patricia the worst flaw is cowardice. Despite his arrests probably being imminent, he doesn’t appear to be very much concerned with getting out of dodge. Michel lives for the moment and the moment is Patricia. 

Another favorite part in this movie for me is the press conference Patricia attends for this famous French novelist. These reporters treat this man like he’s an oracle. They ask him the most existential questions and he gives such chauvinistic responses; it verges on satire. He’s like the male gaze personified. When Patricia asks her question “Do women have a role to play in modern society?” He answers with just as much quickness and humor (this time intentional) as the other responses: “If they’re charming and wear striped dresses and glasses.” She smiles in response to the obvious flirting. She also asks him “What is your greatest ambition?” He responds: “To become immortal and then die.” Patricia removes her glasses and ponders that response and stares directly into the viewers' eyes. The score is more raucous now. Vibrating with it’s something to negate the little nothings. This is what I feel is the turning point of the film.

Patricia is questioned by the police the following day about her knowledge of the whereabouts of Michel, but she doesn’t give him up. Instead, she sneaks off to rendezvous with him at the cinema. They steal a new escape car and hide out at Antonio’s, a friend of Michel's. But Patricia unexpectedly decides to betray Michel and reveal his location to the police. She admits this to him, saying in essence, that she did it because she no longer wishes to be in love with him and believes this can sever her attachment. He is incredulous at first but then resigns to his fate, and immediately after tries to make a run for it. When he is shot by the police, Patricia saunters into the frame, emotionless. “You disgust me”. He tells her. But she doesn’t know the meaning of the word. She traces her lips with her thumb the way Michel always does, which was apparently a tic of Humphrey Bogart, and stares into the camera again. It reminded me of a quote her character spoke in an earlier scene: “We look into each other's eyes, but what for?”  

What was the final glance for? And the emulation of her fallen lover, what was the point? The questions raised by A Bout de Souffle might leave one perplexed and annoyed, but I love that its profundity is so ambiguous. It definitely poses questions about the nature of men and women. And the desire to pursue your desires and dreams even if it results in perilous consequences. Maybe I’m projecting, but I can imagine the production of this film mirrored in a lot of ways Michel’s tireless pursuit of Patricia. Except for the former, it paid off! A Bout de Souffle has cemented itself in film history, it has become immortal and evaded death. I really enjoyed my viewing experience of it, overall.

Under the Silver Lake: A Neo-Noir for the Millennial Voyeur

Under the Silver Lake was written and directed by David Robert Mitchell and stars Andrew Garfield and Riley Keogh. It was distributed by A24, a production company known for taking on films that larger studios might pass on. These films tend to be more cult-like or even experimental. Something that might only appeal to a niche audience so it’s curious that films bearing that A24 logo have now garnered a  massive following from even casual moviegoers. For many, it appears to be a marker of quality. But this does not precisely apply to critical response for Under the Silver Lake.

The story is a blend of genres: part noir, part stoner comedy, part horror. Director David Robert Mitchell wrote the script quickly on a caffeinated high, with according to lead Andrew Garfield, enough detail and length to rival an Aaron Sorkin script. There is also a satirical element as the protagonist Sam (Garfield) rambles through various parties and hotspots in L.A., each more outlandish and vapider than the last. And Sam himself is no exception. He functions as a sort of millennial Travis Bickle, as loathsome as he is pitiful. But whether he committed the most horrible transgressions is left ambiguous. What is evident is that Sam is an unemployed man-child with a crush on his neighbor Sarah (played by Riley Keogh) that soon turns into an obsession after her very sudden disappearance. 

 

So, the rest of the movie just involves his sort of conspiracy theory-driven odyssey even as he is on the verge of being evicted, and there is some crazed dog killer on the loose that may or may not be him. Inexplicably surreal events occur and it’s not altogether clear whether Sam’s nostalgia is clouding his perception of events. This film gets a lot of flak for its depiction of women, which is only understandable when you consider the vast number of films that also lean overtly into the male gaze, even those that espouse a toxic masculine criticism like Under the Silver Lake. 

 

This writer however agrees with Mitchell that it’s not done in poor taste, since all central and side characters, Sam included, have an unfavorable depiction. And it’s from Sam’s perspective, a misogynist. Leads run dry, people die, Sam gets sprayed by a skunk since apparently Silver Lake is full of them, and he continues his quest, stinking of naive desperation. He believes Sarah and two of her friends have been kidnapped by a famous older celebrity, and that there must be a vast organization run by the elite who are faking their death and disappearing with young escorts. 

 

The plot appears simple and pays homage to other similar narratives and films of a quixotical nature with a modernized spin and many details and clues that keep the audience engaged just as Sam himself searches for Sarah in various ciphers and clues. Several fans of the film have taken to decoding these ciphers and sharing their findings online. This seems a strange takeaway considering the theme of the film does not frame Sam’s obsession with finding hidden meaning in pop culture as healthy.

 

He searches for clues in movies, music, and other media because his life is in shambles. And the movie contains so many clues for the viewer to also decipher.  This I believe is intentional, likening zealous viewers to Sam. This is so interesting because Sam is a repugnant, depraved, objectifying, murderer. Sam is basically all the overly clever movie fanatics who have ever obsessed over a piece of media to the detriment of their own existence. Sam neglects to pay his rent and his car note for this quest. Only when confronted with his misdeeds does he confide in someone about the hurt underpinning his actions. Like everybody on the planet, Sam wants love but instead of doing what he needs to do, he takes the easy way out and chases castles in the air. Except now he knows that’s it all meaningless. There is no answer.

Nevertheless, I too spend too much time overanalyzing this film. There is a draw to Under the Silver Lake that has eluded several of its critics that I don’t think they’ll get even if they play the film backward for proper effect. 

 

The casting is fantastic, first off. When Dakota Johnson could not commit to the role of Sarah, Riley Keogh replaced her and dyed her hair blonde to emphasize the Hitchcock allusion. The film lost out on Tippi Hedren’s granddaughter, but I think any Old Hollywood Nepotism baby would do and Keogh does a decent job for her limited part. In one scene she mimics the last remaining footage of Hollywood’s most revered and most tragic blonde in Something’s Got to Give. This is one of the more surreal moments of the film that is confirmed to be a dream sequence, that Sam only picks up on once Sarah/Marilyn starts barking (This is not the first scene in which women are given canine attributes)

 

The casting of Andrew Garfield seemed especially inspired to me as well, but not for the reason most people have picked up on. There is one scene in which Sam accidentally gets an issue of the Amazing Spiderman stuck on his hand (An accident, Mitchell claims) that a lot of people have read too much into. Closer to the end of the movie it is revealed that Sam’s ex had achieved a bit of success in the industry and is engaged, meanwhile, he is…decidedly not successful. Admittedly, it is a hyperbolic comparison to make to Garfield and his career post-breakup with Oscar winner Emma Stone. I like to think he related in some small way to the character. I’d also like to think that’s why director David Robert Mitchell sent him the script, but he’s been cryptic on that along with most theories associated with the film, keeping in line with its messaging, I suppose.

 

Garfield does well in his role. To evoke ambivalence on whether he is the notorious Dog Killer, he plays it in different ways: overtly villainous, clueless, and too dumb to even be considered. It reminds one of Willem Dafoe’s character in American Psycho. The dog killings are incidental to the plot but somehow knowing Sam was responsible for them in addition to all his other deficits would make him a little too hard to stomach. Of course, the script lends a lot of credence to that theory. But you also gather that Sam is just a product of the time and the image-obsessed industry which it is alluded to that Sam works in (or used to, as he is unemployed). In one scene he chillingly assaults some kids for vandalizing his expensive car and in the next, he is dancing like a lovable doofus in an underground club. His menacingly guileless approach to the character works in this neo-noir film where the trauma is not from war but from lack of war, a lack of anything but pop culture and its romanticized depictions of the world.

 

Sam’s quest is scored by composer Disasterpeace, who worked with Mitchell on his previous movie, It Follows. He chose Disasterpeace for that film for his ability to capture 80s nostalgia, especially video game sound, a medium Disasterpeace was known chiefly for before his collaboration with Mitchell. Similarly in this film, the score has a synth, videogame quality to it which matches the tone. Sam goes to so many places, he does heinous things and meets fantastic people but each of these events doesn’t seem to impact the other. It’s like a Choose Your Own Adventure game in the style of David Lynch. The score also at points seems very reminiscent of Bernard Herman, which also adds to the Old Hollywood homages that are scattered throughout the film. Sam clearly wants fame. He confesses to someone that he believes the rich and famous know things that ordinary people do not, which mystifies her, and she responds “Yeah, maybe good takeout.” Most of the people around him do not share his complete reverence for the elite even as they work and posture for a taste of stardom. Sam’s friend played by Topher Grace, another great meta casting, says it best: “We crave mystery cause there’s none left.” The sound also is accentuated well in scenes like the Balloon Girl’s dance or when Sam violently cracks an egg in a young vandal's face and most notably in the scenes where the sounds of women have been replaced by raucous dog barks.

 

The production designer Michael Perry along with Director Mitchell and cinematographer Michael Gioulakis worked together to craft a vision inspired by Cinemascope musicals from the 50s. An interesting choice for a neo-noir but also understandable since music seems to permeate the film, and Sam specifically searches for clues in the lyrics of a popular band. The colorful sets are also juxtaposed against the darkness of some of the scenes and make for a transcendent visual experience. Just the choices of certain shots add to the mystery of the film, the way the camera lingers on something truly absurd, that you just know the director put in there so that he can laugh at the fact that viewers are questioning the significance of panning to a literal pile of excrement. Then there are the overt references to Hollywood films, like the pool scene, and numerous Hitchcock references. There’s a very surreal allusion to Vertigo when a squirrel falls to its death in front of Sam. Sam’s mother calls him often and tells him how much she loves the silent film actress Janet Gaynor and wants him to watch Seventh Heaven starring her. Janet Gaynor also starred in A Star is Born, a film about a rising star and her washed-up boyfriend who loved her but also couldn’t deal with the fact that he was washed-up. Sounds familiar?

 

The costuming and makeup also match the neo-noir tone of this film. Sam usually dresses casually in tees and jeans, and messy hair. Sarah is always in white like a good Hitchcock Blonde girl is wont to do. His friend played by Topher Grace, known only as Bar Buddy wears a fedora and Hipster specs, and his other friend Allen played by Jimmi Simpson, an eccentric industry type wears a woman’s blouse to a Hollywood party. The various girls he meets are usually in some colorful one-piece with makeup in the vein of Euphoria. In fact, one of the trio girls he meets known as Shooting Stars is played by Euphoria actress Sydney Sweeney. Sam meets these girls in a cemetery that is screening a movie they starred in. A scene is shown from the film which bears similarities to a scene from Mitchell’s critically acclaimed first feature The Myth of the American Sleepover. There’s also a fantastic makeup job done with the Songwriter character played by Jeremy Bobb in prosthetics down to his hands to give the appearance of an old, weathered man. The Homeless King looks…as a Homeless King should, complete with a cardboard crown and soot on his face. 

 

The editing is so stylistic, especially in scenes like the Balloon Girl’s dance at the rooftop party. A quick succession of clips like a snapshot shows every inch of her body (which is, of course, covered in balloons) being popped. Some believe the film goes on too long. The runtime after all is a little over two hours, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Mitchell cut out a lot more. But I believe every moment of runtime offers insight or at least entertainment.

 

His writing and direction overall are so engaging. I honestly could write page after page about the references that could be gleaned from the film and the meaning that is suggested.  I’ve barely emphasized its humor. It fuels the mind of the Illuminati-obsessed moviegoing crowd who relate to Sam along with the crowd who relate to laughing at people like Sam or the other archetypes featured like the Brides, Jefferson Sevence, and Sarah. Mitchell also creates his own archetypes in mythical representations like the Homeless King and the Owls Kiss, a balletic nude woman with a CGI owl’s head for a face who murders those who come close to cracking the ‘conspiracy’. 

 

One wishes David Robert Mitchell was more vocal about his intentions, but that would also defeat the purpose of the film. I think this is why many critics panned it for its seeming ‘lack of meaning’.  It criticizes those who demand and search for meaning in media, but it also celebrates them. It celebrates and satirizes Hollywood and Hollywood folk.  Despite its critical and box office failures, I’m certain it will go on to achieve cult status and have a fine life on through DVD and streaming. I’m curious to see what David Robert Mitchell churns out next.

 

Review: Ace of Spades

Ace of Spades by Faridah Àbíké-Íyímídé
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

Where do I even start?


None of this story makes sense

They accept black students basically just to get them to drop out? Why would they accept them into the school in the first place? I am flummoxed by its popularity beside representation because it does such a poor job. It is just an inconceivable conga line of trauma that really makes me weep for black ya writers if this is the kind of novel that gains praise. The racism is so overt and cartoonishly evil, it really makes it hard for me a black American to accept the existence of such a school and such a group of idiotic characters.

Even the small details like why did Chiamaka have her mother’s surname instead of her dad’s seems weird. I don’t know why, but that just surprised me that it was never explained or that the name wasn’t even hyphenated?(I know it’s nitpicky but it seemed indicative of the author who presumably has African heritage and wanted a part African part European character projection of herself and forgot that she was also part Italian somehow… ?) This was just so bad. Almost offensive.

I am also confused by what plot twist people kept referring to in reviews? There was no plot twist. The thing that you expected to happen, happened. When you compare a book to Get Out, I’m just gonna believe all the white people are racist and plotting and my expectations were confirmed to be true in a way that somehow less feasible than the twist in Get Out.

My worst complaint is that it’s not an accurate representation of racism and instead of allowing readers to empathize with black characters in a new and novel way it does it in a way that it always has. It uses our pain as entertainment. Racism is way more insidious and covert than how it’s portrayed in this book.




View all my reviews

Review: Dark Places

Dark Places by Gillian Flynn
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Lyle calls this case a “Whodunnit” which was my exact thought as I was listening. This one differed greatly from Sharp Objects in that the mystery is not as solvable. There were too many suspects in Dark Places. But it still carried that same ‘everybody is fucked up’ trait of Gillian Flynn’s. Her characters inhabit a world where cynicism and lewdness reign supreme which is really the perfect setup for a murder mystery because it seems as if anyone has a dark side to them capable of murder. In some ways, I admire this more than Sharp Objects because the mystery was not so obvious(well…partially true. Her go-to inclusion of a female psychopath reared its head into this story as well). But it was sort of dumb. A big Deus ex debt assassin murdered the mom and then murdered the other sister for reasons…? But even prior to that, it felt awfully gimmicky with its commentary on toxic true crime communities and the McMartin case. But Gillian Flynn’s writing and her commitment to shocking readers and exploring the darkness of her characters is something I cannot help but praise in spite of those aforementioned shortcomings. I will forgive the gimmicks because I can admit I crave a good gimmick. It’s just that mine don’t include an oopsy daisy murder epilogue. Just a lot of internal monologues about misanthropy. Yes, I am a delightful person.


View all my reviews

My Dark Vanessa

I am going through a bit of a renaissance in listening to Fiona Apple’s early music…First Taste, Limp, Sullen Girl… and so this book came to me at a perfect time. As all others have said, this book was difficult to parse through. It was both intimately and strategically written. I woke up one morning and just pondered it. My heart was heavy for Vanessa. It was one of those moments where you think to yourself ‘this isn’t real…these aren’t really people…’ But it is real. Kate Elizabeth Russell set the stage for someone like Vanessa to be preyed on. Not because she was weak but because she was lonely. She was wounded. We are not really shown a lot of information about who she was before being groomed. Just some petty school drama. Her parents seem normal if a bit clueless. I think this is done on purpose to show how much of an effect this man has had on Vanessa’s life. 

The main character traits she is presented with is an obsessiveness that can sometimes border on despair when her needs aren’t being met and a messiness. This one I thought about a lot. So many characters besides her abuser comment on her messiness (and I get the symbolism. But I think I do feel called out in a way honestly lol).

I found this book incredibly relatable. Again the way the author presents these events… she wants you to feel like Vanessa feels, honestly lured in by the ‘love’ story. We may not have all been abused but I think many of us have this rose-tinted recollection of romantic encounters that weren’t actually good for us. And indeed I’ve been in a situation of cognitive dissonance. When you know that they are kind of full of shit and calculating but you remain still tethered. When all that remains is a dream or a soft memory surrounded by mess and you’re just tethered. And again I just adore Fiona Apple. 

Before I began reading this book I watched a really Nostrodomian video essay about the vilification of famous women which referenced Britney Spears and Miley and other pop culture celebrities who are given this Nymphette treatment. Girls really are seeing all this and imbibing it the same as everyone else and they’re getting vilified and discarded for it. Even though it permeates our culture. For Vanessa, it seems to seep into every area of life, music, and media. And again I must praise Russell's skill as a writer. I see the commentary on the ubiquity of rape culture but also just the way people you love seem to seep into every area of your life and color it and once they no longer are really a part of your life it starts to become a curse. 

The relatability and sympathy I had for Vanessa sometimes turns to alienation. Understandable alienation, but still. She could be so wrong, specifically adult Vanessa but I still felt that the people who surrounded her were more wrong. (Exceptions being Taylor, Natalie, Ruby, and Charlie. They were all real ones) I do but I don’t understand her mother. You know I kind of had to play One Republic in my head when she actually admits her error as a parent to an adult traumatized Vanessa. It’s too late to apologize bitch. Vanessa was stunted after what he did to her. She doesn’t mature in my opinion past the moment of her initial ‘dalliances’ with that man, she just kind of floats in life. And she always seems to be on the cusp of a eureka moment. A realization that this was something bad that happened to her. Strane is the mess, not her. Henry is the mess. Men like them are the problem. But she can’t allow the thought to take root. It takes me a while to realize that she will not have that moment by the end. The book ends at the beginning of Vanessa’s journey to accepting the cruel truth and I think that makes it so much more true and impactful.

Just a fantastic book, all in all. Disturbing but very poignant and evocative. This is one of the best books I’ve read in years.

What's On the Agenda

 

What’s on my watch list:

• Under the Banner of Heaven 

• Shining Girls

• Why Didn’t They Ask Evans?(Hugh Laurie’s show he wrote, produced, and acted in based on the Agatha Christie novel)

• Anything on HBOMax tcm channel but I’m especially looking into the French New Wave directors

• Might get Mubi. There are a few movies from there that have piqued my interest

• Could Severance be my Black Mirror withdrawal cure?

• I want to finally see Last Night in Soho. It pains me that I missed watching it in theaters

• Everything Everywhere All At Once is a must see in theaters

• New season of Undone!(Just about the most underrated tv series. It's like an animated Fleabag)

What’s on my read list:

• I might read the Shining Girls before I watch it

• Finish Nine Stories

• Caroline Kepnes’ Providence

• A great YouTuber I follow has spoken the praises of Notes From the Underground so I might delve into that but you know I want something light, something funny and I mean belly laugh because your girl is going through it so something amusing but still semi profound would do. Bojack in book form essentially. Just a little divertissements to calm the flames. 

The Last Duel

Named thusly because two of the leads quarreling throughout the movie, mostly with Matt Damon’s De Carrouges instigating and Adam Driver’s Le Gris retaliating. So, the culmination is of course this big fight to the death in an unnecessary show of their masculinity. Even Jodie Comer’s character Marguerite, wife of De Carrouges points this out: it didn’t need to be done this way, but Jean’s pride and I believe his desire to blot out Le Gris, his nemesis, meant more to him than his wife. Margueritte never wants to blot out Le gris. She merely wants justice. 

 

I think each man represented the spectrum of toxic manhood that can exist in this setting. Each man sees himself as a hero in his retelling while Marguerite sees them as brutish in his own unique way. A medieval Chad and Nice Guy squire if you will. We get their three perspectives. I never saw Rashomon before. My introduction to this storytelling device was through The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby. So yes, I have endurance. I can sit through 3 full-fledged movies told from different perspectives (although the inclusion of Chastain, McAvoy, and Hader helped) and I got what the movie was trying to convey. It is an interesting portrayal of a woman's plight to maintain humanity in an inhumane society. Everything about it betrays your expectations. There isn’t much dueling to be had. And I mean sure we all expected a rape, but the presentation was unique both times. It’s presented as a story about two men’s bitter feud, but it really focuses on the woman who is just a pawn thrust in the middle of it. 

 

It’s like the inverse of the Godless Netflix series controversy. A show presented as a female western utopia that really focuses on the feud between two male outlaws who were nearby. But I digress. I just felt very meh about this movie despite all the great themes I’ve deciphered. I can’t really articulate why. It’s not the accents. (Marie Antoinette is one of my favorite films) I found myself wondering if this would work better as a stage play or perhaps if they didn’t play it straight. Though the performances were fine, especially Jodie Comer who got to show off her polyglot skills, I found myself wishing that I was watching whatever movie Alex Lawther was in instead (He played an eccentric and underutilized King Charles VI). His mannerisms brought unexpected humor that I think could’ve done the film good if it just leaned into it.  

 

Hear me out. The subject matter is truly grim but the tone to me seems self-aggrandizing as well and too austere for its own good. I know men and women even those you love and are close to can be complicit in rape culture. Especially in medieval France. And I know its release during this reckoning moment is an indictment against the sort of subdued treatment against women that persists. Especially in Hollywood. But it still rings kind of hollow for me.  Or at least, not novel. And I think I love good satire that does these things more than a drama.  Something like Galavant but more politically conscious. Hell, Measure for Measure is considered a comedy despite Isabella being propositioned by Lord Angelo against her will…But you know, that’s just one millennials’ opinion.