$4 Tuesday: Blue Ruin

I’d forgive you if you were crazy, but you’re not, you’re weak.

Last night I rallied my friends and we saw Blue Ruin, directed by Jeremy Saulnier. This film has won a bunch of awards and while I enjoyed the film making overall, the movie really dragged. I appreciate when a film builds up the tension and then is able to release it in a huge climax however I never felt like that tension was properly released with this one.

We meet Dwight (played by a transformative Macon Blair) in the middle of a complex story. The beginning of the film held that same slow pace but with acute attention to detail. Detail was paid to the routine and style with which the main character lived. a homeless man living in a busted up car in a beach town, the filmmaking leaves the impression that Dwight is patiently waiting for something, which allows him to organize his day-to-day life and cope with the present reality. That reality (and the wait) comes crashing down when a double murderer is released from prison and Dwight goes to meet him. Dwight is not a trained killer by any means and struggles to keep a clear head as he deals with the stress of seeking revenge, executing that revenge, messily executing the individual who was newly released from prison, and dealing with the repercussions. 

The film traverses the line between psychological thriller and gory violence and as we dive further into the psychology of the main character, we wonder ourselves how far we would go for vindication. But Dwight is poorly prepared, and is barely able to keep ahead of his antagonists, who are trained in weapons and killing. a strategically violent family, the antagonists of Blue Ruin are well prepared for confrontation, as the final scene indicates (whoops, spoiler!). Dwight is not without skill, though. He thinks ahead, he is quick and nimble, escaping from situations in the nick of time and problem-solving on the spot in times of tension. This allows him to confront the armed and criminal family who has so thoroughly damaged his life. 

a beautifully filmed thriller, Blue Ruin maintains it’s focus on the present events as they unfold. although it offers an explanation for the violence and revenge, the film doesn’t linger on the details. We’re left to imagine the grotesque murder of two lovers (the parents of Dwight) after a love affair goes array that has haunted the two families for decades. However, without offering more details, the film becomes difficult to follow since it fails to provide more concrete and timely explanations of who knows who, who is related to who, and who the families are. Part of this is by design, obviously, in order to provide a psychologically twisting narrative that keeps you engaged. However, the script, with all it’s “our parents, your parents, our aunt, your brother, this grandson, the guy in prison, this woman is your sister but the movie script makes you think they’re married” just ends up getting convoluted to the point that it becomes tedious to follow the plot line.

If the film passes the Bechdel Test, it barely passes. There are multiple female characters but they exchange only a few words between them, which may or may not be words that are about the men in the movie. 

Despite the dragging narrative at times and the complicated interpersonal relationships, the film is fascinating to watch and cinematically beautiful. I’ll be looking forward to watching this film again at home and further evaluating it in the future. The title, Blue Ruin, apparently alludes to a catastrophe but may also reference the bullet-holed up blue car that Dwight drives everywhere.

I recommend seeing it and making yourself watch the gory parts. Don’t shut your eyes or you’ll miss some great moments and dark humor!

– Hans 

 

Summer in Athens, Ohio

A place where the students retreat for months, the Union is full of good people, the coffee shop is relaxing, Strouds Run becomes a daily outing, there’s never a wait at Casa and the sun is hot hot hot on these Appalachian hills, this is Athens, Ohio.

And! I am back on the movie review train for my last summer here. $4 Tuesdays and her sister day, Free Pop Corn Wednesdays at The Athena Cinema on Court Street will once again be my movie viewing days, followed by my review.

I believe that we should experience a reflection of aspects of our own unique lives in movies. I watch movies by searching for the commentary on my own journey, because a great movie will reveal lessons to me. If I can’t learn a thoughtful idea on humanity than an important element is likely missing. Above all, this is the key element in a movie for me.

I also evaluate my films from the Betchel Test perspective. As cinema should reflect realities from our lives, the Betchel Test determines this accuracy from the feminist perspective. This test was designed to score the representation of reality for the female gender. Unfortunately many movies miss this mark, which is a pity because passing The betchel Test would enhance a lot of movies’ plot, acting, directing, and script writing.

The Test is as follows:

1) Are there more than 2 females in the movie? (Yes = potentially feminist, continue to question 2)

2) Do the 3 + female characters talk to each other? (Yes = THANK GOD. How many movies have you seen in which the female characters only talk to men? Consider. It’s a surprisingly high number, isn’t it?)

3) Do these 3 + female characters who talk to each other talk about anything (literally ANYTHING) other than men?

Answer yes to all these questions and congratulations, your movie may be feminist and conscious of the real lives of women the world over. Women who interact with each other.

Now let’s dig deeper. Why would women be portrayed in movies only in terms of men? Well because patriarchy. Fuck the patriarchy!

No, but really. Men run the film industry and therefore don’t often consider the female perspective. My own theory is that when we portray women in movies as having independent lives from men it threatens the sexist power dynamic.

Women who interact with each other, talk. Women who talk to each other inevitably start revolutions and stir shit up. Feminists of the 60s and 70s knew this when they began conciousness raising groups. Any female rock band knows this is true. Women are killing it in politics today.

So why are a large number of films failing to show women as they are- thinking, communicating, thought provoking and plot driving beings? Mysteries of the universe.

This speaks to my privilege but I’ve heard of a race version of the Betchel Test, which I’m assuming are very similar questions but with race instead of gender. I will look those up and use that analysis in my movie review.

Ah so summer, we meet again. I’ve waited all year for $4 Tuesdays to happen again. Sometimes we have to go through a year long depression before being able to pick a hobby like this back up. Or is that just me?

Another story for another time,
Hans SG

$4 Tuesday: Ginger & Rosa

Edit: Throughout the first part of the movie Ginger and Rosa are so close that they even wear the same things. But people change, they have to. As each girl discovers more her own individual identity they realize that the things that bonded them together as children can no longer bond them as adults. Is the ending of their friendship inevitable?

They said Elle Fanning would be sensational, and they did not lie. I just saw Ginger & Rosa directed by Sally Potter for today’s installment of 4$ Tuesday.

*Spoiler Alerts*

In 1960s London, at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ginger and Rosa are best friends and do everything together. Ginger, played phenomenally by Elle Fanning, is a budding activist who is deeply disturbed by the state of the world and is internalizing the stress of it all with the growing intensity and despair in the way that only revolutionary young adults do. She is a child in a world in which she sees no other choice but to be the grown up, in the micro-sense because of her dysfunctional parents inability to be adults and in the macro-sense as she confronts the government’s irresponsible and potentially lethal actions.

Rosa is religious and prefers a peaceful approach to the war over Ginger’s urgent need for forceful action. She’s flirtatious with boys and embraces her sexuality inclinations without much thought to the consequences and likewise unperturbed by the consequences in the end. Rosa develops a flirtation with Ginger’s father, Roland. Rosa and Ginger begin to drift apart as Ginger becomes closer to the activist movement and Rosa becomes closer to Ginger’s father. As Rosa and Roland develop an intimate relationship, Ginger struggles to cope with the deceit of her friend and family. Roland is a revolutionary whose articles are respected by Vietnam protesters. He tells Ginger “Every man must fight for his own authority, his own autonomous thoughts. Which means you shouldn’t listen to a word I say.”

Roland’s immaturity and hypocrisy show through when he tries to convince Ginger to understand him and his life philosophy, which has dictated his carpe diem actions even at the expense of his daughter’s lifelong friendship and well-being. The ending makes you wonder if Ginger has forgiven him. I don’t believe she does because the “I forgive you” that we hear narrated is from a poem to Rosa and does not depart from its train of thought to address Roland, who is in the scene by circumstance.

As strong as Elle Fanning’s performance is in this film, the weak points rest on newcomer Alice Englert’s character, Rosa. The film had the opportunity to explore the complexity of Rosa, but instead I was left feeling like I just could never get on her side because it was never made to feel appealing or logical. Instead we are left with a bitter taste in our mouths for a girl who has so easily hurt her friend and thrown their friendship away. Was there no internal struggle there? Rosa is delusional and thinks she can help Roland and that they are bonded by something other than a physical attraction. I wanted to feel Rosa’s pain, her conflicting emotions towards her friend and the tension of her budding sexuality pulling her to Roland. I didn’t get any of this. Instead it was more like a you-don’t-particularly-care-about-your-friends’-feelings-and-the-consequences-of-your-actions-plus-you’re-a-slut kinda vibe. When it comes to the war, Rosa is a pacifist, who chooses prayer over protest, religion over rebellion. Meanwhile, the intensity of Ginger’s emotions come across clearly, twisted and raw from the many stresses in her life that cannot be pushed away through prayer and attention from boys.

Christina Hendricks, who plays Ginger’s mother, gives a fairly weak performance, using a British accent that sounds authentically forced.

Overall though, I really did enjoy this film. I walked away considering my own point in time and the stresses in my own life. I relate to Ginger and her desperation. Though not the 1960s. the crisis of my generation is that of overpopulation, starvation, contamination, and climate change. I used to feel constant desperation and now I often feel hopeless. The human race is facing the greatest test: Our imminent mortality on a massive scale. There is only a matter of time before mass migration and wars over clean water cause issues more pressing than ever before. And there are days when I feel like I will explode too. And I have no answers.

Favorite Quotes:

-I think we should do something about the bomb, you know, protest.

-I think we should pray.

Can’t you be a girl for just a minute or two longer?

There’s poetry in small spaces… a beauty in confinement.

But I don’t want to die, I want to grow up and do things!

Happy is not really an option when the whole world is about to be blown to pieces.

I’d prefer the world not to end, wouldn’t you?

And I will say, “I loved you, Rosa.”

It’s worth seeing despite it’s weak points.

hsg

$4 Tuesday: Trance

*Spoiler Alert*

Last night I saw Trance with James McAvoy, Vincent Cassle and Rosario Dawson, three actors who I adore. I’ve been in love with James McAvoy since Atonement, at which point I learned he was Mr. Tumnus in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe and then promptly devoted the rest of my life to closely following his career. Also, Scottish accent. Can a person be more perfect?

I only know Vincent Cassel from Black Swan, and he’s certainly a good actor in that movie and weirdly attractive in general. Rosario Dawson is fantastic always. The problem here isn’t really with the actors. I thought they were pretty good. But the script, the plot, the whole movie, oh God what the hell did I spend a little under two hours watching this while I ate Sour Patch Kids until my tongue bled?

Let me recap: James McAvoy plays this fine art auctioneer Simon, who steals a $27 million dollar Goya painting at an auction in order to repay his gambling debts. So it’s an inside job which is kinda cool.

He was working with the guy who he owed the money too but then decided to try and steal the    painting for himself (and then what, spend the rest of his life running from these guys?) Most of this we learn as the plot unfolds and all we know in the beginning is that this is a highly orchestrated painting theft. But Cassel’s character, Franck, intercepts Simon’s plan and a fight ensures and McAvoy is knocked on the head pretty hard and loses his memory. So he has no idea where he hid the painting. After this point the plot loses me.

After an unnecessarily grotesque torture scene (I am of the opinion that torture/physical pain scenes in general are usually more effective in inspiring that spine-tingly feeling when the film cuts away from the act of torture a hair before it starts to happen. Nope, not here. We get to watch all the grossness of Simon’s fingers being shredded. This doesn’t work because Simon can’t remember where the hell the painting is. Franck takes Simon to Elizabeth, the hypnotherapist (Dawson), in order to uncover this lost memory. He uncovers keys instead and everyone is pissed. Little does everyone know those keys go to the car where the painting (!) and a dead body (!!!!) are hidden. Together with the maggots, like the painting would’ve survived an environment like that what-the-hell-ever.

So a whole bunch of plot twists happen. Elizabeth is apparently the ex-girlfriend of Simon who he nearly killed because he was an abusive asshole. So she used her powers of hypnotherapy to make him forget her. Then she’s the very hypnotherapist Franck and Simon unknowingly seek out. In ways I could not follow she then manipulates everyone by creating false memories and sexing it up with both Simon and Franck (Dawson has the most perfect breasts on this planet. That is a fact. But she really should’ve picked a better movie to be nude in. It was literally pointless in Trance… she could’ve just kissed Simon and instead of running away and coming back 20 seconds later without clothes) until at the end it is revealed that Dawson was playing everyone all along and now she has the painting and hahahaha joke is on you, fuckers.

Except, wait, what? There’s two girls. One is dead and in the trunk being nibbled on by maggots. Elizabeth is that girl, she isn’t that girl. She’s implanted herself into Simon’s memories, but they really did date… but Elizabeth is alive, so who did he kill? And are Simon and Elizabeth working together or are Elizabeth and Franck working together? All the while Elizabeth is working for herself but then Franck tries to warn Simon but Simon doesn’t believe him and then Elizabeth is raped and Simon rescuers her and they run off together and I think Simon drowns at one point and Franck should’ve blown up in a fire-y car explosion then drowned but somehow survives that and we never know if Elizabeth actually has feelings for either of these guys or if she’s just a really fabulous actress herself.

It totally lost me. I can imagine all the script writers sitting around a table with all the possible ending twists and being like “But this ending is good! And this ending is so good! And no one will see this one coming!” before deciding to literally just put in every single plot twist ever thought of in the history of man and cramming it into a movie that started off SO interesting and then quickly fell apart. I don’t want complicated plot lines, I want a good story. The movie was so focused on being action-y and intense that it lost any real cinema feel to it. McAvoy’s Wanted left the same dry taste in my mouth. Too many plot twists, not enough story.

See, she’s all broken up in the mirror, asking, who is she, really? What’s her angle on this crime? She can’t be trusted.

As I was watching the first 15 minutes of the movie I kept thinking about all the fantastic different directions this film could go, none of which happened in the movie (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but the final twist at the end didn’t make me feel like the movie challenged any of my plot twist ideas. The movie’s version failed to take hold of my imagination.)

Plus the whole film is about a Goya painting, which really becomes a side accessory in the movie. In my opinion, if you’re going to have a prominent piece of art as central to the plot, the art itself needs to become it’s own character and exert it’s own force on the characters. The painting could have been a giant diamond or something else entirely and it would’ve made no difference to the plot, filming, or characters. Good cinema examines the pull these objects have on us, deeper than greed or money. I will commend the film for the one point of depth that helped elevate the film: Elizabeth wanted the painting in order to get revenge on Simon (and maybe also Franck?) for the hurt he caused her. But it could have been presented in a different way, perhaps one that actually made sense to the viewer. I still don’t understand how this dead body came into play.

And apparently, it’s representation of hypnotherapy is pretty off the mark.

Skip this movie. It’s a headache to watch.

hsg

$4 Tuesdays/ RIP Roger Ebert

Tuesday is movie day for me. To be honest, it’s a new tradition and I’m kicking myself for having only started it this semester, making the constant excuse that I don’t have time to see a movie at the vintage 3 theater cinema a half minute walk from my apartment. So it’s movie day and I’m making up for lost time.

I’m in a dilemma today though. Last week I saw Stoker, which is a fantastic mind fuck of a movie in all the best ways. I want to see it again just so I can process the story line and appreciate more of the camera work and editing. I also want to see Spring Breakers. I will probably go see both because #YOLO.

I grew up doing a lot of theater- mainly acting, some crew work. In college I’ve done a few film roles on the acting side but lately I have really become obsessed with the process of post-production. Most of the time I watch a movie I pick apart each scene in my head, consider why it was filmed or edited a particular way, and praise or critique it or both. I’m obsessed.

Stoker

India Stoker what the hell. The movie starts with India running around her parent’s house and doing very mildly destructive things. She pops a blister on her foot and doesn’t flinch, she dumps over a box of tennis balls on the court, she deliberately cracks a hard boiled egg. India herself has a high attention to detail, noticing things normal people don’t, like a spider crawling on her ankle over her tights. The cinematography reflects this, obviously, with a vivid attention to detail and color. The 3 main actors all wore special contacts to give their eyes a menacing glint to great effect. This movie deserves another viewing.

After India’s father dies her previously unheard of uncle, Charlie, appears and, as Robert Ebert noted in his review (linked above), begins to seduce both mother and daughter in different ways and for different motives.

This movie questions and exposes our very dark sides. Sociopaths may be born but aren’t we all capable of suspending our human compassion and empathy to promote and enjoy the suffering of others? Bringing in some feminist analysis, people/mostly males rape because of the surge of power dominating another person can give. It’s not about sex, it’s about power. Since we live in a rape culture that condones and even encourages rape, men and women are socialized to accept it, perpetrate it, and enjoy it. Our reality is not so far fetched from the underlying themes in Stoker.

Anyway, another theme is about fulfilling our destinies, if we have them. India fights against her uncle’s friendship and herself until a sexual awakening draws her in. The shower scene would be a really positive portrayal in a Hollywood movie of female sexuality if you just took out the scenes she’s actually masturbating to. Alas, India is not normal and she grows up and accepts her destiny, her mother becomes more and more child-like.

The end has a great twist too but I don’t want to spoil it.

Favorite quotes: The obvious Nicole Kidman monologue shown in the trailer is excellent.

You know I’ve often wondered why it is we have children. And the conclusion I’ve come to is … we want someone to get it right this time. But not me. Personally speaking I can’t wait to watch life tear you apart.

Obviously a good one. My other favorite is a scene in which India and a school acquaintance are in a park. India is standing on one of those spinning toys going around and around as she says (I’m paraphrasing):

Have you ever seen a picture of yourself taken by another person from an angle you’ve never seen before and suddenly you see yourself in a whole new way. Do you know what I’m talking about?

As she says this she is spinning around and we see every angle of her as the camera remains stagnant. Masterful.

So that’s $4 Tuesdays for ya. Review of Spring Breakers and maybe an update on Stoker after seeing it a second time to come.

hsg