93. Niet of Nooit Geweest &...

Lyrics

Ik zie twee mensen op het strand 

(I see two people on the beach)
Vlak bij het water, hand in hand

(Near the water, holding hands) 
De zon zakt, ze zwijgen van geluk

(The sun sets, they are silent out of happiness) 
Ik ken haar net, want dat ben jij 

(I just know her, because that's you)
Ze lacht naar hem, hij lijkt op mij 

(She smiles at him, he looks like me)
Maar dat kan niet, want ik maak alles stuk

(But that cannot be, because I ruin everything) 
Ik kan die jongen toch nooit zijn 

(I cannot actually be that boy)
Die rust, die liefde, niets voor mij

(That calmness, that love, it's just not me) 
Maar waarom lijkt het dan toch zo vertrouwd?

(But why then, does it seem so familiar) 
Ik heb je lief, zoals je ziet 

(I love you, as you see)
Maar ergens klopt er hier iets niet

(But something isn't right here) 
Ik draag een ring maar 'k heb jou nooit getrouwd 

(I wear a ring, but I've never married you)

Ik ben mezelf niet 

(I am not myself)
Of al die jaren nooit geweest

(Or haven't been it in all those years) 
Ik ben de gangmaker op het verkeerde feest

(I am the moodsetter at the wrong party) 
Ik ben mezelf niet of nooit geweest

(I am not myself, or have never been it)
Ik ben mezelf niet of nooit geweest 

(I am not myself, or have never been it)

Ik zie twee mensen, ze gaan staan 

(I see two people, they are standing)
Ze draait zich om, we moeten gaan 

(She turns around, we must go)
Kijk in me ogen en zie dezelfde pijn

(Looks in to my eyes, and I see the same pain) 
Twee mensen eerder al verbonden 

(Two people connected once before)
Al die verliefdheid, wat een zonde 

(Al that infatuation, what a waste)
We zijn het allebei maar willen het niet zijn 
(We are both it, but we don't wanna be it)
Ik ben mezelf niet 

(I am not myself)
Of al die jaren nooit geweest

(Or haven't been it in all those years) 
Ik ben de schoenmaker bij de verkeerde leest

(I am doing the wrong profession) 
Ik ben mezelf niet of nooit geweest

(I am not myself, or have never been it) 
Ik ben mezelf niet of nooit geweest
(I am not myself or have never been it)

Oh, laat het de zon zijn (laat het de zon zijn)

(Oh let it be the sun)
Oh, laat het het strand zijn

(Oh, let it be the beach) 
Laat het de zee zijn 

(Let it be the sea)
Laat mij iets doen nu

(Let me do something now) 
Waardoor je mij nooit meer wilt zien

(So you wouldn't want to see me ever again) 
O, laat het het zout zijn (laat het het zout zijn)

(O let it be the salt)
Laat het mijn allerdomste fout zijn

(Let it be my stupides mistake) 
Maar laat me dit nooit meer vergeten 

(But don't let me ever forget this)

Nooit meer vergeten 
(Never forget this)

laat me dit nooit meer vergeten, bovendien 

(Let me never forget this, above all)

Ik ben mezelf niet of al die jaren nooit geweest 

(I am not myself, or haven't been it in all these years)
Ik ben mezelf niet of al die jaren nooit geweest 

(I am not myself, or haven't been it in all these years)
Ik ben mezelf niet of nooit geweest

(I am not myself, or have never been it)
Ik ben mezelf niet of nooit geweest)

(I am not myself, or have never been it)

Ik ben mezelf niet of nooit geweest

(I am not myself, or have never been it)

Ik ben mezelf niet of nooit geweest

(I am not myself, or have never been it)

This is basically Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in song form. This is just a coincidence, as this song is written in 1998, six years before the movie, and Jim Carrey and co. most probably never heard this song. You never know though. Maybe Charlie Kaufman is an Acda & De Munnik fanboy. I am just kidding of course, but it may be quite silly to dismiss Acda & De Munnik as just another decent Dutch group. I feel that this is one of those times, when the conceit of this blog has been genuinely insightful. Acda and de Munnik may be more interesting, than I (and others) think they are. This is the second song of theirs I discuss on this blog; the first one I linked to Seconds.  My links are obviously not perfect, but all of them do make some sense. Any band whose songs can be linked to Seconds and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is not to be dismissed. Their songs contrast rather interestingly between form and content. Their music is jolly and poppy, while their lyrics are quite a bit unsettling. Both this song and the previous one deal rather interestingly with (loss of) identity and memory. 

The Movie: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry, 2004)

This is in some ways a typical Charlie Kaufman move. It has a wonderful original screenplay full of interesting twists. It deals with the 'behavior' of our minds, and how our identities and memories are shaped, both by ourselves and by others. Yet in many other ways this is a very atypical Kaufman movie. I have not seen Human Nature and Synecdoche, New York, but based on what I know of them they appear to be share the same outlook on life as movies like Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. This are all grim, dark movies that are very cynical about human nature. Most of their characters are very unpleasant, and sometimes downright vile people. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is not such a movie. (This is by the way neither a compliment nor a criticism. It's just an observation. I think Being John Malkovich is a better movie than this one, but this is a better film than Adaptation, and a far better one than George Clooney's directing debut). This movie works partly because Joel (Jim Carrey) and Clementine (Kate Winslet) are genuinely nice people we care about. They also feel like very real people. Carrey and Winslet seem to have gotten the freedom to make their characters very specific and to add to them whatever they want to. As a result both Joel and Clementine come of as characters who are not held back by movie conventions. Carrey and Winslet are allowed to play their characters if they are real people, who just happen to be in this movie. The joy they have in doing this is palpable, and it transfers to the audience. Apparentlythis is Kate Winslet's favorite role of hers, and that's not a surprise. It's also her (and Carrey's) best. It's quite a shame she has never really gotten a similar role, and I can only imagine how bored she is by the fact that she is now asked to play dull teachers in dull young adult sci-fi such as Divergent, or depressed mums in Labor Day. 

The movie would have been a lot of fun, even if was just these two characters in a rather straightforward rom-com. But that's where Charlie Kaufman comes in. Anyone could probably think of the basic concept of this movie. The idea that you might lose some of your most important memories that have very much, for better or worse, shaped the way you are today is such an obviously disquieting and dramatic one that it is quite strange that there haven't been more movies like this. That when in pain some people might really want to, is a slightly more interesting insight, but also one that's very obvious. What Kaufman, and Gondry do well is to present this all in a very matter of fact, and funny way. Lancuma, the memory erasing corporation, functions very much like an ordinary, rather dull, corporation. What the employees are doing is quite spectacular, but the way in which they are doing it is kind of dull and monotonous. The Tramp from Modern Times would basically be just as bored doing mind erasing as working on a conveyor belt. The contrast between the real world and the world of Carrey's memories is pretty enormous. His memories are very imaginatively presented. A good example for this are the two brilliant, and quite moving, scenes where we see the adult Jim Carrey remembering his youth. Even better is the reason for why he is doing this. 

Beyond the fact that this screenplay is so original, it is also brilliantly constructed. The circularity of the movie is greatly important here. Often a movie that begins with its final scenes, or in media res, does this, because it's a lazy and effective way to build drama and intrigue. I usually fall for it, and quite like such movies, but that's not the point here. Here the circularity is a necessity, because if it would begin in a chronological order we would care much less about the characters. The movie only works so well, because we get to know Joel and Clementine, and care about their relationship, before Joel starts the procedure to erase Clementine from his mind. Because when Joel starts erasing Clementine from his memory, we first see his last memories of her, just before they broke up. In these scenes both of them are just very unpleasant, and we see nothing of their love. If one would start with these scenes, it would in fact be quite unbelievable that these characters could ever possibly love each other, especially considering they are being played by Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet, at first sight, a very unfitting romantic couple. Thus we would care much less about it all when Carrey changes his mind about the whole erasing thing, and he tries to change/hide his memories in order to defeat the erasers. Scenes, like the previously mentioned ones, in which Carrey memorizes his youth would play much more like zany scenes from a not very successful Jim Carrey sci-fi comedy. 

I also simply love that by opening with the final scenes Kaufman makes us care about the saving of a relationship that hasn't factually happened yet. It's quite genius viewer manipulation. Also genius is the subplot involving Kirsten Dunst and Tom Wilkinson. That helps us understand without the use of dumb exposition why Joel and Clementine get back together. It shows after all that Lacuna's procedure may erase the memories of a love, but not the feelings. If the ex-lovers meet again they might develop feelings for one another again. Which means that while that plot point is resolved tragically, within the larger frame of the story this is a hopeful plot point. This is again ingeniously manipulative. 

92. The Sound of Silence &...

Lyrics

Hello darkness, my old friend;
I've come to talk with you again.
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping,
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains within the sound of silence.

In restless dreams I walked alone,
Narrow streets of cobblestone.
'Neath the halo of a street lamp,
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night, and touched the sound of silence.

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more.
People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,
People writing songs that voices never shared.
And no one dared disturb the sound of silence.

"Fools," said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might lead you."
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed in the wells of silence.

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the sign said, "The words of the prophets
are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls, and whispered in the sounds of silence."

When I discussed Bridge Over Troubled Water I apparently claimed that Simon & Garfunkel are rather bland. What utter bullshit! I do not like that song very much, but if you can make a song like The Sound of Silence you don't ever deserve to be called bland. The song allowed me to discuss a silent movie for the first time on this blog, yet a silent movie in which sound plays an important role. 

The Movie: Modern Times (Charles Chaplin, 1936)

It is quite ironic that the Charles Chaplin's most iconic and enduring scene has become his famous, and justly revered, speech from The Great Dictator. The scene is filmed in one shot with hardly any movement in it, and its power lies in Chaplin's words. In other words, it's a shot that bears exactly none of the characteristics that made Chaplin famous and beloved. Besides that Chaplin hated the advent of recorded sound in movies, and he continued to make silent movies as long as he could. Modern Times was his last, and was made in an era when sound films had become the norm. Modern Times is not completely silent though. Chaplin uses sound at certain moments in the movie, and from the way he uses it is clear that he hates it. Yet that's exactly one of the reasons this movie is so interesting. Chaplin for much of the movie connects sound to unpleasantness. Sound is used to exploit the workers, such as during the brilliant scene with the feeding machine. It is used every time police cars arrive to arrest someone, thereby conflating it with the loss of freedom. It is most hilariously used anytime someone clanks his head, obviously connecting it to pain. And it could be argued that at the end of the movie Chaplin has made peace with the advent of sound, when during one of the most pleasant scenes of the movie he sings a song, This must have been quite special for audiences in 1936. For many of them this was probably the first time they ever heard Chaplin's voice. Chaplin realizes this and the scene gets a proper, suspenseful built up. Until he starts singing you are not entirely sure, whether he is really going to do it.    

Chaplin's use of sound in the movie is connected to his larger idea that modern technology dehumanizes people. This argument has been made by various people throughout history, and is one I am really not very sympathetic to. The modern equivalent of this are those claims that social media actually individualize us. Ideally technological developments should improve our lives, and most would if we used them correctly. For example the conveyor line that's criticized by Chaplin in Modern Times. That should ideally make labor conditions for the workers better, not worse. After all, because of it products can be made faster and easier. For the conveyor line workers in Modern Times life is hard, and they are exploited by their bosses. This leads to Chaplin becoming ill. That's all pretty horrible, but it is not the fault of the conveyor belt, it's the fault of their awful bosses, who are driven by power and greed. If it wasn't for the conveyor belt they would exploit their employees in other ways. And it is this last part that Chaplin doesn't seem to understand. What makes Chaplin great though is that all of this doesn't really matter. He knows how to express this ideas in a funny and interesting way. The movie begins with a long scene at the aforementioned conveyor belt, which is extraordinary funny, and it has many other similar scenes. But what makes the movie really special that within all that comedy there is hidden a rather dark and emphatic drama about the horrific effects of poverty. 





   

91. Like A Hurricane &...

Lyrics

Once I thought I saw you
in a crowded hazy bar,
Dancing on the light
from star to star.
Far across the moonbeam
I know that's who you are,
I saw your brown eyes
turning once to fire.

You are like a hurricane
There's calm in your eye.
And I'm gettin' blown away
To somewhere safer
where the feeling stays.
I want to love you but
I'm getting blown away.

I am just a dreamer,
but you are just a dream,
You could have been
anyone to me.
Before that moment
you touched my lips
That perfect feeling
when time just slips
Away between us
on our foggy trip.

You are like a hurricane
There's calm in your eye.
And I'm gettin' blown away
To somewhere safer
where the feeling stays.
I want to love you but
I'm getting blown away.

You are just a dreamer,
and I am just a dream.
You could have been
anyone to me.
Before that moment
you touched my lips
That perfect feeling
when time just slips
Away between us
on our foggy trip.

You are like a hurricane
There's calm in your eye.
And I'm gettin' blown away
To somewhere safer
where the feeling stays.
I want to love you but
I'm getting blown away.

I really hate the term 'dad rock', which is nowadays too often used to describe classic rock, which is some of the most progressive, exciting and experimental music ever made. That does not mean that because a song belongs to the genre of classic rock is automatically great. Like A Hurricane is a good example of this. It's just a very dull song. And I actually like Neil Young quite a lot. Old Man is a truly great song I think. For the purpose of this blog though, I am at least quite happy by the lyrics of this song about a brown-eyed dreaming dancer with whom the narrator of the song is quite obsessed. It resulted in one of the few links between song and movie which are completely logical.

The Movie: The Barefoot Contessa (Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1954)

"Once upon a time there was a beautiful dancer named Maria Vargas..." The Barefoot Contessa could have easily started with this line, because this is the kind of story it wants to be: a dark-ish fairy-tale about Hollywood and romance. And for much of its running time it is a pretty entertaining one, with some great scenes, lines and performances. It's just too bad that in the last 30-40 minutes it nearly completely flies of the rails. 

The movie starts at the funeral of Maria Vargas (Ava Gardner) with the voice-over of writer-director Harry Dawes (Humphrey Bogart, who is great, but what else is new) telling us about how he met Maria when she was dancing in Spain and persuaded her, at the request of arrogant businessman Kirk Edwards (Warren Stevens) to come to Hollywood to act in movies. During the course in the movie we will constantly return to that funeral where there are more people who have known Maria including PR-manager Oscar Muldoon (Edmond O'Brien, who justly won an Oscar for this performance) and Maria's husband Count Vincenzo Torlatto-Favrini (Rossano Brazzi). The narration will shift between all these characters allowing them all to share their viewpoint of the mysterious Maria. 

The opening of the film is pretty great. After about 30 minutes there have been only two extended scenes full of fantastic dialogue, wherein we get to know most of the main characters. It also helps that these characters are very well written. Harry, as played by Bogart, is especially great. He is a kind, goodhearted cynic who is willing to be very curt to the arrogant self-indulgent Kirk and Oscar, who follows him around like a do. But Harry's good heart shows during his interactions with Maria. They strike up a slightly odd, but very warm and kind friendship that feels to be very realistic. It is very rare in Hollywood movies to present a relationship between two Hollywood characters in such a way, let alone if these two characters are of a different gender. Still, the best scene in the movie occurs during the narration of Oscar, when he finds out that some people such as Maria can become so popular, beloved and famous that they turn his talents obsolete. Maria transcends PR management. It is during these scenes that we actually get some sympathy for Oscar,. We learn to know him as a rather tragic figure who certainly has human emotions, but if he is to do his job well he has to turn of these emotions. And without the script making it explicit O'Brien through his acting shows that he tries, as much as possible, to not be a dirty, vile cynic when doing his job. And so the movie goes on quite entertainingly, while we get to know most of the characters pretty well. Maria remains a mystery, but considering the movie starts with her funeral you expect that near the end some tragic secret about her will be revealed that will very melodramatically leads to her death. This is not really my favorite kind of plot mechanism, but it's a popular one for reasons I can very well understand, so I don't have much of a problem with it if it follows logically out of the rest of the movie, especially if the rest of the movie is so entertaining as The Barefoot Contessa. 

It's unfortunate than that the movie is not resolved in quite this way, but in a much worse one. I think that Mankiewicz completely blows the final act of the movie, which is narrated by the count, which is all the more unfortunate considering he also wrote the film. First of all, for some reason Mankiewicz seemingly felt that his movie wasn't enough of a fairy-tale so he decided to add another dash of magical realism. That doesn't fit the mood of the rest of the movie. Even more curious though is the dialogue between the count and his sister, who are two noblemen existentially discussing their empty legacy. Their behavior comes straight out of an Antonioni movie which fits the movie even less, and especially the section in which it occurs. Now, I usually quite love movies with constant changes of tone, but usually the filmmakers seem aware that they are changing the tone, and they seem to have control over it. Mankiewicz does not here. The biggest problem though is that it is not one of Maria's secrets that leads to her death, but one of the count's. It's probably a spoiler to say that his impotence leads to Maria's death, but it is such a lame reveal that is treated with such ridiculous reverence that the movie becomes a farce instead of tragedy as intended. That is also because the reason given for the count's impotence is completely ridiculous. And because the actions (which directly lead to Maria's death) of both Maria and the count after this reveal are nonsensical based on what we know of these characters until then. 

The rest of the movie is very much worth seeing though, but I really hated the ending. Lastly it is worth mentioning that the movie can be criticized on feminist grounds. After all, Maria's sole function in this movie is to be mysterious and be admired and loved by men. You could argue that she is not a human being, but a narrative trope that is only used to explore the characters of the men. In this case I do not think that's much of a problem, partly because it is quite unfair to judge older movies according to modern norms and values. But also because the movie is completely honest about its intentions from the first scene on, which is filmed in the bar where Maria is dancing. Only we do not see Maria dancing, we just see how the audience reacts to her. The movie is not really interested in the life of an actress, but on the impact she has on the people around her. There is nothing wrong with that, and if you want to achieve that it does make sense to use Maria, and Ava Gardner, in this way.  

              

90. Ne Me Quitte Pas &...

Lyrics

Ne me quitte pas
Il faut oublier
Tout peut s'oublier
Qui s'enfuit deja
Oublier le temps
Des malentendus
Et le temps perdu
A savoir comment
Oublier ces heures
Qui tuaient parfois
A coups de pourquoi
Le coeur du bonheur
Ne me quitte pas (4 fois)

Moi je t'offrirai
Des perles de pluie
Venues de pays
Où il ne pleut pas
Je creuserai la terre
Jusqu'apres ma mort
Pour couvrir ton corps
D'or et de lumière
Je ferai un domaine
Où l'amour sera roi
Où l'amour sera loi
Où tu seras reine
Ne me quitte pas (4 fois)

Ne me quitte pas
Je t'inventerai
Des mots insensés
Que tu comprendras
Je te parlerai
De ces amants là
Qui ont vu deux fois
Leurs coeurs s'embraser
Je te racont'rai
L'histoire de ce roi
Mort de n'avoir pas
Pu te rencontrer
Ne me quitte pas (4 fois)

On a vu souvent
Rejaillir le feu
De l'ancien volcan
Qu'on croyait trop vieux
Il est paraît-il
Des terres brûlées
Donnant plus de blé
Qu'un meilleur avril
Et quand vient le soir
Pour qu'un ciel flamboie
Le rouge et le noir
Ne s'épousent-ils pas
Ne me quitte pas (4 fois)

Ne me quitte pas
Je ne vais plus pleurer
Je ne vais plus parler
Je me cacherai là
À te regarder
Danser et sourire
Et à t'écouter
Chanter et puis rire
Laisse-moi devenir
L'ombre de ton ombre
L'ombre de ta main
L'ombre de ton chien
Ne me quitte pas (4 fois)

The English translation of this lyrics can be found in the video above. As one can see a lot of time has passed between this post and my previous one. That's partly because I am busy looking for a job, partly because I couldn't find the movie I was planning to link this song too. I decided I had to find a French romantic movie about involving regret and desire that was full of grand operatic gestures. After some searching I chose Leos Carax' Lovers on the Bridge (1991). I was quite excited to see the movie. The only previous Carax film I had seen was Holy Motors, which I utterly loved. Lovers on the Bridge though apparently cannot be found anywhere in the Netherlands, and I also couldn't find it anywhere online (without downloading torrents and such stuff). So eventually I chose the movie that seemed to be the closest in spirit to Lovers on the Bridge. 

The Movie: Mauvais Sang (Leos Carax, 1986)

Mauvais Sang, literally translated as Bad Blood is the movie Leos Carax made before Lovers on the Bridge. It also stars in Juliette Binoche and Denis Lavant the same two main actors as Lovers on the Bridge. It's strange that I could find Mauvais Sang so easily on DVD in the Netherlands, while Lovers on the Bridge is somehow extinct here. As far as I know Lovers on the Bridge is by far the more famous film. I also assume that Lovers on the Bridge is a for more accessible film than Mauvais Sang to general audiences. This is a downright strange movie. 

Anyone who believes that art is above all about personal expression must see Mauvais Sang. This is a movie that Leos Carax clearly made purely for himself. To me Mauvais Sang feels like a movie that answers the following question: What if a young French Romantic existentialist chose to make a heavily stylized movie that combined the aesthetics of the silent melodramas of the early days of cinema with the aesthetics of the crime movies of the French New Wave, while at the same time dealing with some of the main anxieties of the 1980's? It's also one of the best examples I've seen of Roger Ebert's famous saying 'It's not what a movie's about, it's how it's about it'. What the film's about is quite easy to explain and will sound familiar to everyone who has seen more than 10 films in his life. Two seasoned crooks, and a young girl in love with one of them try to execute a heist. They used to be three crooks, but their safe opener has now died, so they enlist the help of his son who has ceased to speak to his father a long time ago, but has the same quick hands. While preparing the heist the young boy and girl gradually grow closer to each other. So far so good, you may think. This is one of the most archetypal setups ever. 

What this crew wants to steal though is a newly isolated drug culture that can treat the new sexaully transmitted disease called STBO, contracted when one has sex without feeling love. This is the kind of slightly dopey idea only a young hopeless romantic would think of, but the connection to the 1980's panic about AIDS is quite obvious. An American gang is also after this drug culture that belongs to a giant international conglomerate housed in a giant skyscraper such as the ones we often see in New York. Considering the movie takes place in Paris, the movie also touches on concerns/ideas that globalization is essentially Americanization and that American capitalism is going to become the dominant system in the world. These were of course popular ideas in 1986, when Reagan was in the middle of his presidency and it was becoming clearer and clearer that the Soviet Union was declining. 

It's not that the rest of Paris here looks like the Paris we know. The city is filmed in an expressionistic way that often reminded me of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Most of the movie takes place on the street where our crew is planning from and Carax at no point even tries to make it seem as a real street. It's filmed and lit in such a way that it is always clear that we are watching a film set. This is a very theatrical movie, which is also visible in the acting of Juliette Binoche and especially Denis Lavant. Interestingly the older actors, act in a way that's more familiar to modern audiences. I have seen Lavant only in two movies now, this and Holy Motors, but I already think he is one of the greatest living actors. You could call him a French Robert De Niro, only if De Niro acted in the pre- 1930's. But calling him that would not be fair to Lavant. I prefer De Niro, but Lavant is a totally unique actor. In any case Carax even further emphasizes the connection of Mauvais Sang to silent cinema during a couple of short, silent, black-and-white sequences, which seem to come straight of a one-reeler from the earliest days of film.

The isolated drug culture, by the way, could be called a McGuffin. A McGuffin is, as I have written earlier on this blog, the thing that sets the plot in motion. Therein lies the problem of calling the drug a McGuffin. There is hardly a plot to speak of in the movie. It's above all interested in creating a mood and an atmosphere, and in letting Lavant and Binoche discuss the complexities of love and life. Being 25 I fully understand how that was very appealing to a 26-year old Leos Carax. So I quite liked the movie a lot; I love/like stylized movies in general. I will never completely connect to/love this movie though. It's sensibilities are entirely different from mine. And I can see quite easily why others may hate it. It's definitely not for everyone, nor is it meant to be. If one doesn't like it though, one shouldn't complain that it doesn't work. Carax doesn't give a shit whether this movie works or not. Besides how can you possibly judge whether it works or not? There is nothing else to judge it against. Mauvais Sang is completely singular. And having just seen two movies of his, I am very eager to see other things Carax has made.

89. Suspicious Minds &...

Lyrics

We're caught in a trap
I can't walk out
Because I love you too much baby

Why can't you see
What you're doing to me
When you don't believe a word I say?

We can't go on together
With suspicious minds (suspicious minds)
And we can't build our dreams
On suspicious minds

So if an old friend I know
Drops by to say hello,
Would I still see suspicion in your eyes?

Here we go again
Asking where I've been
You can't see the tears are real
I'm crying (yes i'm crying)

We can't go on together
With suspicious minds (suspicious minds)
And we can't build our dreams
On suspicious minds

Oh let our love survive
I'll dry the tears from your eyes
Let's don't let a good thing die
When honey, you know
I've never lied to you
Mmm yeah, yeah

Repeat Verse 1 & 2

We're caught in a trap,
I can't walk out x6

Jailhouse Rock is of course a great song, and so is Hound Dog. But for the most part I am a bit indifferent towards Elvis Presley. I like most of his faster paced rock songs, but do not really put them on voluntarily. And his ballads, such as this one speak even less to me. Having said that, Elvis Presley is one of those artists about whom it doesn't matter squat how you feel about him. He is one of the greatest, and most important musicians of all time. His cultural influence is undeniable, and maybe bigger than of any other artist on this list. I won't write much else about him, because I don't really have anything to add to what's already been written about him. But if you want to read a film critic write extensively about Elvis, you should read the blog of the great Sheila O'Malley. I'll just move on to the film I am going to discuss, which is a rather obvious choice. A song about suspicious minds must result in a movie by a certain director. Coincidentally that director can also be seen as a cinematic counterpart to Elvis. There may have been no more an influential director than Alfred Hitchcock.

The Movie: Suspicion (Alfred Hitchcock, 1941)

Some of my favorite recent movies are Bernie, The Informant (which is by far the greatest film Steven Soderbergh ever made) and David Cronenberg's new Maps to the Stars (I am surprised to see that this one got such negative reviews. I loved it). What all these movies have in common is a protagonist (or in the case of Maps to the Stars, a couple of protagonists) who is placed in a (romantic) comedy setting. At, least, that's how it appears to be. Gradually, the plot unfolds, and we get to meet the other characters better, and the movie becomes darker. We realize that the main protagonist is actually placed in a rather realistic, dramatic setting, but that the movie plays as a (black) comedy is because we are watching the movie from the point of view of the main protagonist. And you can even perhaps say that we are watching the movie as if it were made by the main protagonist. That's certainly true about The Informant and Bernie. I find this a very interesting way to make a character drama, as it allows the directors to really dig deep into the dark mind of their main character. It also makes the characters more disturbing and fascinating than if they were simply presented as sociopaths/psychopaths in a more straightforward drama, which is of course not to say that these movies are by definition less valuable. 

Hithcock does a similar thing with Cary Grant's Johnny in Suspicion, and for most of the time this is a very interesting mix between a thriller and a romantic comedy. It is, certainly for a Hitchcock movie, a bit light on tension and suspense, but its characterizations are very strong. Joan Fontaine got an Oscar for her role as Lina, Johnny's wife, and although I haven't seen the other nominated performances, I think Fontaine's Oscar (interestingly she beat her sister Olivia de Havilland, who was nominated for Hold Back the Dawn) is very deserved. She gives a great performance as a really rather normal, but slightly shy woman. That the movie can be called one of Hitchcock's lesser efforts is because of the ending, which utterly disrespects the character of Lina. 

During the movie Johnny has been quite greatly portrayed as a sociopathic gambler and liar, who doesn't even seem to realize that his behavior is/may be considered problematic. While he is wooing Lina he acts as a familiar character of a romantic comedy, and so does Lina. Eventually Lina falls for him, and they marry and go on a honeymoon. Considering that happiness never really lasts long in a Hitchcock film their marriage and honeymoon are handled in two very short scenes, after which Lina and Johnny start their life as a married couple in their new home. Lina begins to act as a serious ordinary responsible woman, while Johnny is stuck in a romantic comedy mode. Moreover he is broke and doesn't seem to care about it. Johnny's behavior slowly grows more shocking, and Lina is rightfully becoming more and more afraid and suspicious of him. Some of these scenes are quite powerful, exactly because Johnny is presented in a quite benevolent way. Without really being evil he is slowly and silently abusing Lina and making her submissive to him. The scene in which Johnny and his best friend try to make Lina laugh, and eventually succeed may be the best example of this. For a while this movie is such a stark portrayal of latent sexism that one can't help but think that those critics accusing Hitchcock of being a misogynist should really watch this movie. Unfortunately these critics would consider themselves right by the movie's ending. But the fact that the ending is sexist is not its biggest problem. I would not really object to it, had it been consistent with the characters' behavior. It also cannot be called ambiguous, because of the stylistic choices made by Hitchcock. I understand that Hitchcock himself was not happy about the ending, and that it was imposed on him by the studio because it didn't want Cary Grant to be a villain, but that doesn't make the ending less sucky. It brings the movie down as a whole. 

Anyway this was a rather short piece, and not the most interesting one on a Hitchcock movie you'll ever read. That would be the case even if the movie had a better ending. It would have been a fun character drama, making some interesting points, but this is not one of Hitchcock's richer movies. This was most certainly not the last Hitchcock movie I'll discuss here though. And those other movies, and posts will certainly be more interesting, though my feelings about Hitchcock are a bit similar to those about Elvis, though I get much more out of Hitchcock's movies than out of Elvis's songs. It's undeniable that Hitchcock's movies are great. Modern critics may sometimes be a bit to defensive about them, but if you wanna write that his movies are overrated, you really don't have any bossiness writing (about film). I just enjoy Hitchcock's movies mostly on a textual/narrative level. There are other directors whose themes and ideas they explore I find much more interesting than Hitchcock's, even if Hitchcock most often explores his themes and ideas more expertly than these other directors.                  

    

88. The Load Out/Stay &...

Lyrics

Now the seats are all empty 
Let the roadies take the stage 
Pack it up and tear it down 
They're the first to come and last to leave 
Working for that minimum wage 
They'll set it up in another town 
Tonight the people were so fine 
They waited there in line 
And when they got up on their feet they made the show 
And that was sweet-- 
But I can hear the sound 
Of slamming doors and folding chairs 
And that's a sound they'll never know 

Now roll them cases out and lift them amps 
Haul them trusses down and get'em up them ramps 
'Cause when it comes to moving me 
You guys are the champs 
But when that last guitar's been packed away 
You know that I still want to play 
So just make sure you got it all set to go 
Before you come for my piano 

But the band's on the bus 
And they're waiting to go 
We've got to drive all night and do a show in Chicago 
or Detroit, I don't know 
We do so many shows in a row 
And these towns all look the same 
We just pass the time in our hotel rooms 
And wander 'round backstage 
Till those lights come up and we hear that crowd 
And we remember why we came 

Now we got country and western on the bus 
R and B, we got disco in eight tracks and cassettes in stereo 
We've got rural scenes & magazines 
We've got truckers on the CB 
We've got Richard Pryor on the video 
We got time to think of the ones we love 
While the miles roll away 
But the only time that seems too short 
Is the time that we get to play 

People you've got the power over what we do 
You can sit there and wait 
Or you can pull us through 
Come along, sing the song 
You know you can't go wrong 
'Cause when that morning sun comes beating down 
You're going to wake up in your town 
But we'll be scheduled to appear 
A thousand miles away from here 
People stay just a little bit longer 
We want to play -- just a little bit longer 
Now the promoter don't mind 
And the union don't mind 
If we take a little time 
And we leave it all behind and sing 
One more song--

These are two songs which Jackson Browne recorded for a live-album, and although they are always listed as two separate songs he always sings both both of them in one go. It's therefore quite irrelevant to treat them as two separate songs, but I must say that I think Stay is far better than The Load Out. These are obviously not some great insights; in fact what I wrote in the first sentence here, I basically copied straight out of Wikipedia. That's because I don't really know anything about Jackson Browne, and what I do know of him, is because of his collaborations with Warren Zevon. 

As you may have guessed by now my taste in, and knowledge of, music doesn't go much farther than the mainstream, so I am quite surprised that very few people I know, with far greater knowledge of music, have never heard of Warren Zevon, who is a slightly overlooked singer-songwriter, who performed from the 70's until his death in 2003. He is one of the sharpest lyricist I know. His lyrics have very dark humor, they be satiric, biting and cynical, while at the same time being incredibly humane. My favorite song of his may be Genius, which among other gems contains these lyrics: Albert Einstein was a ladies' man/while he was working on his universal plan/he was making out like Charlie Sheen/He was a genius. Zevon's best lines though may be in his song Desperadoes under the Eaves: And if California slides into the ocean/like all the mystics and statistics say it will/I predict this hotel will be standing/until I pay my bill. I hope to write more about Zevon some other day, but for now I'll mention the following great songs: Lawyers, Guns and Money, Mohammed's Radio, Roland the Headless Thompson Gunnner, Hit Somebody, My Shit's Fucked Up and Let Nothing Come Between You.

Now, it's time to return to The Load Out/Stay which I linked to a movie I saw a long time ago and remembered liking because it was a movie about rock artists that paid a lot of attention to the hard, unglamorous labor that has to be done to be a successful rock star.  

The Movie: Rock Star (Stephen Herek, 2001)

Rock Star is not a great, or even really good, movie and it does not pay as much attention to the unglamorous labor as I remembered. Still, this is an underrated, odd movie that is much more interesting than it seems to be at first sight. And I also don't know whether the filmmakers are always conscious of how interesting, and sometimes downright subversive their movie is. It's actually quite a shame that David Cronenberg did not direct this movie, as it would fit right into his wheelhouse. This at times plays like the most Marxist movie a Hollywood studio can make about the political economy of a rock band. It also deals with questions of (sexual) identity and authenticity, and it has a main protagonist whose obsessions impact his mental and physical stability.

The main protagonist Izzy Cole, by the way, is played by Mark Wahlberg. Izzy is a super fan of the band Steel Dragon, who is also the lead singer in a cover band (or as Izzy calls it a tribute band) of Steel Dragon. Izzy is not the brightest light in the universe, but he is presented as basically a nice guy who loves his friends, family and girlfriend (played by Jennifer Anniston, whose presence in this movie is a total mystery. Izzy has one main problem though. He wants his band to be an exact copy of Steel Dragon, meaning that when the lead singer of Steel Dragon pierces his nipple Izzy does the same. Even more problematically Izzy throws a tantrum any time one of his band members changes a cover even slightly. His band members eventually tire of him, and throw him out of the band. Than, in a scene that nicely mirrors the previous one, Steel Dragon throws their lead singer out of the band, so now they have to search for a new lead singer. Of course it's Izzy who becomes it. And now the movie really starts getting interesting. 

The movie posits that the Steel Dragon tribute band may offer a more 'authentic' experience than the 'real' Steel Dragon. Izzy may imitate Steel Dragon lead singer Bobby Beers, but that's actually a true representation of Izzy's personality and his emotions. He most importantly defines himself as a super fan of Bobby Beers, and his shows are a direct expression of that. His songs may not be 'personal' or 'authentic', but the love he has for Steel Dragon and Bobby is deeply personal and authentic. And that's basically what his shows are about. On the other hand Bobby is a closeted homosexual, who performs songs in which he sings about all the girls he has loved and conquered. That's basically why he leaves Steel Dragon. That Steel Dragon is entirely uninterested in authenticity becomes even clearer later on in the movie, when the now successful Izzy is reprimanded by his fellow band members for having the tenacity to write his own songs that have a new, slightly different sound. They basically claim Steel Dragon to be a brand with its own distinct sound from one which cannot deviate. There is no space for personal expression in their music. The only purpose of the music they record is to sell it and to make money. 

The movie also entirely deglamorizes the debauchery of the rock stars. They sure have wild parties, full of sex, drugs and rock 'n roll, but these parties are all fabricated. Steel Dragon actually has a specially employed person whose sole function basically is to direct the debauchery. This is made explicit in a speech by Steel Dragon's manager (Timothy Spall) to Izzy in which he basically says that Izzy's main function is to sell a fantasy to his male fans. His female fans/groupies are basically commodities, which leads to the conclusion that even Izzy's sex life was basically more authentic (and interesting) when he was in the cover band than when he was in the 'real' band. There are throughout the movie many other similar insights. Therefore this is quite a strange Hollywood movie that should not be easily dismissed. The movie basically presents the whole experience of rock as a commodity. It then goes to analyze how that commodity is created and sold, who its producers and consumers are, and how these consumers are created. It furthermore exposes the power relations that make this process possible and shows that (and how) those in power exploit the powerless. This may be the only mainstream movie I know that makes the audience aware of audience labor