Change Your Image
mwillyk-00336
Reviews
Freibad (2022)
A generally surprisingly frank look at cultural differences in contemporary Germany
Lots of negative ratings of this film, but no one wants to say what it is they don't like about it. Maybe because it is the frankness in addressing social, religious and cultural differences in a setting that is a female-only, in this case a public outdoor pool for females only, which admittedly seems like an invention necessary to support the narrative. This involves the "invasion" of Burka-wearing Muslim women who offend the "sensibilities" of a couple of older German women and embarrass the more "modern" Muslim women trying to "assimilate." The lifeguard, who is generally busier listening to her music, becomes frustrated refereeing the various disputes between the parties and quits. Without a life guard the pool is forced to close, so one of the German women convinces a younger male friend to be the new lifeguard, which as intended causes the Burka-wearing women to leave the pool for religious reasons; while other women seem to want the man's attentions, the the next day a "feminist" boycott occurs against the presence of a man, and from there the film takes the predictable easy way out, and rather than "mocking" the "PC culture" as another reviewer states, in the final scene everyone is one big happy family, which I found to be the only real "eye-roll" thing about this generally amusing film which attempts to incorporate Americanized sensibility to expand its audience, including the repeated use of snippets of the Mamas and the Papas' "Dream a Little Dream of Me" throughout the film.
Taking on Taylor Swift (2023)
The arrogant Swifties in full force here
You know, just because these two songwriters supposedly "sold" the rights to the song, that doesn't mean that Swift didn't steal the "riff" and there isn't anything wrong with that. Swift's songs all seemed to be based on the same one or two chords and they battle each other to sound "different." it shouldn't be any surprise that something that goes beyond that she would "borrow" from someone else's song. The arrogant Swift is one of the most overrated songwriters and musicians out there, and she is well known to have an "army" of co-writers to turn what she and her fans think are "cool" nonsense phrasings into coherent lyrics fit for the self-obsessed MeToo crowd. I remember when Jimmy Kimmel had her on his show when he asked her to explain some of her lyrics, and she was too narcissistic to realize that he was poking fun at them. This is contemporary music for you: someone who would be lost in shuffle in the 70s and 80s with this kind of crap is considered a "star" because she exists in an "era" of crap "music." I mean, what else are critics going to say relative to what passes for "pop" music today? And why is Swift really such a "success" today? Because unlike her country music contemporaries, she completely abandoned the country audience, prancing around on stage in baton-twirler outfits so that her "fans" can ogle her.
Lady Chatterley's Lover (2022)
The best adaptation of the book, relatively speaking
I've seen the 1982 version, the 1993 mini series, the 2006 French version and the sex-challenged 2015 version. This Netflix version is in my opinion, if not technically the "best"--that being a matter of one's expectations--is for me the most satisfying and watchable version, particularly how it found a way to bring Lady Chatterley and Oliver together in the end, suggesting that love really conquers all that wasn't too melodramatic, but the way real life sometimes works. Yes, there were many "shortcuts" taken in the narrative, but consider the fact that the 2005 film of Pride and Prejudice left out a lot and yet still gave the 1995 BBC series a run for its money, with the great soundtrack music filling in the "gaps" by giving voice to the emotions at play. The ending was entirely different but much more satisfying and touching, just as it was in this version of Lady. This film looked good as well; the cinematography added to the story with the drab colors of Lady Chatterley's existence with her husband, the bright colors of her clothing in stark contrast to those surroundings, but melding in well with the bright green during her strolls into the country, usually on her way to her trysts with Oliver. I also liked the subtle music of the film though sparse, but when it appeared it gave one the sense of suppressed longing and hope. Not a "perfect" adaptation by any means, but then again, the film medium is limited by time, and this film provides all that is necessary, and I particularly liked Emma Corrin in the lead role, whose character unlike in other versions of the story made more clear the emotional imbalance of her "normal" existence that drove her elsewhere to satisfy her needs, both physical and emotional.
Anatomie d'une chute (2023)
People need to know what motivated Triet to make this film, which was to perpetrate a fraud on the viewers
I wonder how many people are aware that the director of this film, Justine Triet, was "inspired" by the "misogynistic" Johnny Depp-Amber Heard U. S. trial, to create a film that presents an alternative narrative that refuses to accept the one adjudicated by a jury based on the evidence presented in a real trial. Triet takes the usual liberties in manipulating viewers with a contrived and tortured set of circumstances to heighten a sense of a woman victimized in every way, which of course denies the reality in the Depp case that it was a man who had rejected a life of being abused by a woman whose cruelty could never be satisfied or resolved-and having decided to step out of that relationship, he must be destroyed-or "canceled"-in a manner that only required that one "believe all woman" and reject the due process rights of the falsely accused.
The fact that a real jury rejected this narrative is what a gender activist filmmaker like Triet could not bear, and thus she attempted to "correct" the "injustice" against her self-obsessions caused by the Depp trial's judgment by making a film of unbelievable (and disreputable) contrivances and manipulations to satisfy her fevered mind against the truth, and in turn that of the viewer whose lack knowledge of the real trial would make them easy prey for her false narrative.
For Triet that most damaging evidence against Heard was the audios that proved she was the real abuser in the relationship, and thus in her film she tried to discredit the evidence of what one heard with their own ears. Thus the audios could not be accepted as literal truth, according to Triet's narrative; in her film, the accused was made to sound like a "monster" and yes, there were indications that she physically abused the deceased. But it wasn't the "truth." Yes, she hit her husband once, she admitted, but everything was a contrivance, a fraud perpetrated by the husband who was "hitting" himself.
Anyone who followed the Depp-Heard trial can't be but appalled by the disingenuousness Triet is trying to perpetrate on intelligent, thinking people here, contemptuous of both them and the truth. That Triet is perpetrating a fraud on viewers with her own self-victimized propaganda discredits not just herself, her film, film critics who "bought" her self-serving deceptions-but most importantly, the truth itself.
Nothing Personal (2009)
Fascinating but motives not entirely clear
I watched the DVD of this film, and it is one of those where an audio commentary would have been helpful to explain the director's intentions, especially the ending. I'm not sure what is going on at the beginning of the film, since we are left to make assumptions about the motives of the woman referred to as "You"; I suppose it is what your politics are. I personally believe her husband died and left her all these belongings that she no longer wants because they remind of her of her loss and she angry about why this happened. In fact this interpretation might explain what happens at the end of the film, which as I said, I wish on the DVD there was an audio commentary by the director to explain what is going on, since neither "You" nor Martin talk about their past, so we are supposed to "guess" what their motivations are.
Martin apparently has a serious health condition and doesn't want to start a long-term relationship, and when it becomes apparent that "You" does after having been so rude and stand-offish to him despite his assistance, he decides to stop taking his medication so that he dies. He apparently feels guilty about this, and so he leaves his house, possessions and what money he has to her. But then what does she do? She checks into a hotel and just lies in bed. What does that mean? Again, you'd wish the director would explain what the point of this is. Is she going to just lay there until she dies too?
Yes, we are supposed to get the sense that her relationship with Martin has renewed her faith in human nature (?), but Martin is a hermit for a reason, and his insistence on referring to her as "You" indicates that he does not want a "personal" relationship with her. His guilt about this seems to convince him the only way to dissuade her is to die. But the ending of the film doesn't make it clear that "You" wants to go on living either.
But these are all just questions that are left out there without easy answers, and overall I thought this was a interesting film about someone who wished to be a "loner" for arbitrary reasons and subject to change, and another individual who was a loner for reasons out of his control. This "relationship" worked only so long as their intentions coincided, and was bound to end once they diverged.
Marie Antoinette (2006)
Don't watch this if you want a history lesson
I've read "positive" reviews of this bubble-headed film that claim that its very superficiality is the "point." We are supposed to "infer: the film's version of Marie Antoinette's indifference to life beyond the walls of Versailles, yet the film doesn't really ask us to do that because we never see it. We can't really make a judgement on the reality of the Prince Prospero existence the nobility live in and the misery without. This is just fun and games with a little court intrigue thrown in until, suddenly, Marie and company have to leave Versailles because of some angry people on the way. Why are they angry? Who knows? What happens after that? Nothing. The movie just ends. The most interesting parts of the story are completely ignored.
Man from Del Rio (1956)
This movie shows us how bigotry hasn't changed
While slavery and Japanese internment has its proper place in the U.S. history books, what does not is the forced deportation of any person who had the misfortune of having a Spanish name (or looked "Mexican) during the Great Depression, when these people were rounded-up by local and federal agents and simply thrown across the border with little more than what they could carry, with no due process rights. It is estimated that 60 percent of these people were U.S. citizens.
During the 1950s, several films--Giant, Trial and Man From Del Rio--provided commentary on anti-Hispanic prejudice in this country, and obviously nothing has changed since then. Today the media and Hollywood fear to tread into the topic of this ongoing prejudice (usually disguised under the guise of "immigration" and "crime"), so it is fortunate that films like this still exist to tell us the ugly truth. David Robles (Anthony Quinn) is seen as just a "thug" who is good with a gun after he arrives to find a man who helped shoot-up his town of Del Rio. Even the only other Hispanic in town, Estella (Katy Jurado) is so desperate to "fit-in" with the Anglos that she also wants him gone. The townspeople offer him a job as sheriff, not to enforce the law, but to be a ready gun when needed. They will not socialize with him, they just want him to do their "dirty work." Sound familiar? There are several ugly scenes that manifest this racism, especially ones involving white women.
To Estella's credit, she witnesses one of these debasing incidents and changes her tune. As the film progresses we discover that Robles is not the ignorant "Mexican" the townspeople think he is; he is not just good with a gun, but he displays a cunning level of intelligence that even if the townspeople probably still won't socialize with him, they cannot underestimate him, and he wins the only things he wanted since coming to the town, his self-respect and the love of the only person in town capable of giving it to him.