the 400 blows (1959)

i took in a repeat viewing of truffaut's masterpiece this afternoon in aid of the poll being conducted over at empireonline, in which a group of fifty must choose the ten films that they deem to be the greatest of all time, before the results are colated and put into a hopefully definitive "best ever" type list. as a rule, im making an effort to rewatch each of the 20 or so films that have made my shortlist, before deciding upon my final ten.

"the 400 blows" was one of the films that shaped the way in which i look at and appreciate the "art" of cinema. while topically it wasnt literally relevant to the 16 year old boy that was watching it, visually it felt incredibly fresh, especially compared to the hollywood and mainstream cinema that i had only been exposed to at the point in which i saw "the 400 blows" for the first time. alongside jean-luc godard's "a bout de souffle" my interest in film was formed. i was sold on the notion that film as art was a viable concept.

having spent time in paris since last seeing the film i can suddenly appreciate just why the film and the city are so closely associated. obviously the very fact that the film is set in the city dictates that a close association comes fitted as standard, there is a deeper connection. the opening credits, still an all time favourite, captures the love/hate relationship that the city has with the concept of the tourist, or the outsider. while attractions like the eiffel tower may not have been intended as the "attraction" that i have just deemed it, that is exactly what it is, and i feel that, based upon personal experiences, the opening credits of the film are almost claiming back the tower to the city. throughout the remainder of the film areas regularly associated with tourists (the champs elysees, the basilica, etc) are shown in a light expected more of bresson than the 'nouvelle vague'.

despite having seen the film inumerable times ''the 400 blows" remains as watchable as ever. the charm of the character of antoine doinel remains as affable as ever, with jean-pierre léaud playing the character that would become his most popular for the first time.

the final shot fo the film still manages to be staggering in its existence. one of my oldest memories of the film is just how haunting i found this final shot to be, and can confirm that this is still the case. a beautiful shot that leaves the viewer with more questions than ones it answers throughout rest of the running time of the film. this is cinema, this is film, this is art.

hunger (2008)

steve mcqueen meant a lot to me as a young art student. his work was much more accessible to the eyes of someone who held godard in as high a regard as an artiste like klimt, and especially stood out when compared to the late nineties round of british enfant terribles, a group with whom i just couldnt relate. it was with great pleasure that i left "hunger", an oxymoron if ever there was one, and perhaps not the right word.

as mentioned elsewhere, the way in which mcqueen brings european sentimentalities to a british film production is inspired, with the complete picture bringing together a largely unique final piece, especially for a film that was a borderline commercially successful product. visually the film reminds of bruno dumont, with his stark yet epic visuals that draw upon bringing the beautiful out of the less than average.

german actor michael fassbender is the closest thing the film has to a "star", asbobby sands, and charts the hunger strikes that lend themselves to the films title. fassbender is outstanding, going to the lengths of suffering for one's role that would impress even de niro. while the after thought of the film is all but concerned with the plight of bobby sands its easy to forget that sands doesnt appear until the films second act. much of the lead into the film revolves between that of a young inmate arriving at the maze prison, and the story of one of the prison guards. the story of the prison guard has an especially interesting body, showing that the film isnt completely one sided and unfairly sympathetic towards the other side.

the success of the film has been a great indication as to the quality of films that audiences are seeking out in britain at the moment, its taken me by surprise actually, but is no doubt a great thing.

i've loved you so long (2008)

many have referred to sean penn winning the academy award for best actor as an "upset". many referred to the exclusion of ''the dark knight'' from this years big awards as an "upset". i myself deemed the lack of a nomination for bruce springsteen and his eponymously titled theme to "the wrestler" as an ''upset". alas, ladies and gentlemen, i introduce to you the biggest academy award "upset" of 2009; philippe claudel's "i've loved you so long". now im not simply suggesting that "i've loved you so long deserved a shot at "best foreign picture", i think it should have been in the running for "best actress", "best adapted screenplay", "best director" and "best picture" too. its just a magnificent film, absolutely beautiful and tender, yet raw and unreliable in mood at the same time. iv never been a fan of kristen scott thomas, in fact im not sure if i have actually ever seen her in anything, but she just owns the role in this film, moreso than either sean penn, katie winslet or mickey rourke in their respective roles.

this film is outstanding and perhaps the greatest oscar snub in recent history.

rome, open city (1946)

my first foray into ''proper'' neo-realism (outside of education at least) comes in the shape of roberto rossellini's "rome, open city". the film is a true example of guerilla cinema, with rosselini shooting on location in the genuine aftermath of nazi occupied rome using scraps of found camera film. the film predates such fare as pontecorvo's "the battle of algiers", a film that looks at similiar fare with a similiar attitude.

"rome, open city" has a real charm. the flow of the narrative impresses this point, the way in which an incident is introduced and then revealed later works well (ie the girl moaning about her home, ten minutes before we see just why she hates it so much), and carries a humour that i didnt expect to find. the character of the elderly grandfather, a man paralyzed in some unknown incident projects this humour solidly.

the film struck me as a fairly basic parable on the battle between good versus evil. there is a fairly strong analogy between the tortured "hero" of the film and the suffering of jesus, enforced heavily by the presence of the priest.

unfortunately my copy of "rome, open city" was marred by poor subtitles. its hardly the most complicated film, but this still distracted rather heavily. regardless of this niggle, the film was an incredible portrait of an area that i had previously little familiarity with.

the rock (1996)

once again my studies dictate that i must head into unchartered territory, and an unattractive challenge lies ahead. michael bay is perhaps the opposite to what i love about cinema. his "edit-so-fast-and-you-wont-have-chance-to-see-any-problems" attitude of filmmaking jars with my usual preferences, but in an attempt to understand just exactly what it is about his work that i dislike so much i have set myself a challenge; work my way through his body of work.

with that in mind i started with his sean connery and nicolas cage starring "the rock" from 1996. in all fairness it wasnt as bad as i expected it to be, but the usual bay hallmarks of slightly racist caricature's and lots of sun-glare is evident aplenty. the film leads with a semi-interesting premise, as a post modern james bond-type leads a group of marines and a scientist into alcatraz prison. therein lies the twist, how clever that they are actually breaking INTO a prison, as opposed to breaking OUT?! i hope the irony isnt too subtle for you. bafflingly enough, "the rock" is actually a part of the criterion collection.

my big problem with michael bay films are that they have a tendency to lack any kind of substance, and instead focus on trying to sell you cars and manipulate you into feeling some kind of emotion. alas bay seems more concerned with the former than the latter, so on the brief occasions where he actually managed to measure the pseudo-emotion right he throws it all away within seconds with another sun-glare enthused chevy advert.

twelve monkeys (1998)

terry gilliam's first foray into science fiction since 1985's "brazil" marked the biggest success of his career (thus far at least). bruce willis is wonderfully overshadowed by a young brad pitt, in his pre-fight club days showing off the depths of his potential. indeed his turn as mental patient turned animal activist jeffrey goines proved that he wasnt just a pretty face, in a turn that is both full of humour and terror in equal measures. thats not to say that bruce willis isnt great either, his performance as jailbird turned human saviour james cole is the performance of his career, and probably the best thing to come out of any of the resurrected careers of pulp fiction.

the world of the future portrayed in "twelve monkeys" is that of a dystopian one, wherein a virus has ravaged the human race. its up to james cole to go back in time to prevent the terrorist attack that caused the decline in civilization. "twelve monkeys" is one of the films from the late nineties that deals with the subject of terrorism in the way in which it existed prior to the events of 9/11 and as such is an interesting take on the subject.

the film deals with the familiar gilliam themes of memory, time and perceived madness. in this case the most obvious comparison would be "brazil", but i think that the nature of the issues are far less ambiguous in "twelve monkeys" than that film.

for me, "twelve monkeys" sits alongside "brazil" as gilliam's finest film. its strange considering that "twelve monkeys" may actually be his most commercial feature, but i just think it works so well.