118. Harder dan Ik Hebben Kan &...

Lyrics

Je buien maken vlekken

(Your temper tantrums)
Op mijn hagelwit humeur

(Blacken my great mood)
Ik heb m'n handen op je heupen

(My hands are on your hips)
Maar m'n hoofd is bij de deur

(But my head is at the door)

Ze zeggen dat het went

(They say you get used to it)
Ik heb het geprobeerd

(I've tried)
Maar hoe ik het ook wend of keer

(But no matter how I look at it)
M'n huis beschermt niet meer

(My house protects no more)

Het regent harder dan ik hebben kan

(It rains harder than I can handle)
Harder dan ik drinken kan

(Harder than I can drink)
Het regent harder dan de grond aankan

(It rains harder than the soil can handle)
Harder dan ik hebben kan

(Harder than I can handle)

Je buien zijn de wolken

(Your temper tantrums are the clouds)
Aan mijn hemelsblauw humeur

(Ruining my good mood)
Ik heb m'n handen op je heupen

(My hands are on your hips)
Maar m'n hoofd is bij de deur
(But my head is at the door)

Je ogen blijven grijs

(Your eyes remain grey)
Ontkennen elke kleur

(Deny every color)
Het is alsof hier niemand woont
(It's like no one is living here)

Alsof er niets gebeurt

(Like nothing is happening)

Het regent harder dan ik hebben kan

(It rains harder than I can handle)
Harder dan ik drinken kan

(Harder than I can drink)
Het regent harder dan de grond aankan

(It rains harder than the soil can handle)
Harder dan ik hebben kan

(Harder than I can handle)

Je buien zijn te donker

(Your temper tantrums are too dark)
Voor mijn hemelsblauw humeur

(For my good mood)
Want mijn hoofd is in de wolken

(Because my head is in the clouds)
En m'n hand al bij de deur

(And my head is at the door)

Het regent harder dan ik hebben kan

(It rains harder than I can handle)
Harder dan ik drinken kan

(Harder than I can drink)
Het regent harder dan de grond aankan

(It rains harder than the soil can handle)
Harder dan ik hebben kan

(Harder than I can handle)

Het regent harder dan ik hebben kan

(It rains harder than I can handle)
Harder dan ik drinken kan

(Harder than I can drink)
Het regent harder dan de grond aankan

(It rains harder than the soil can handle)
Harder dan ik hebben kan

(Harder than I can handle)

These lyrics are quite uncomfortable to say the least. I chose to link this song to a movie about a husband who has to take care for his mentally ill wife. Luckily the movie has more empathy for the sufferer than this song. Having said that, one could argue that my interpretation of this song is more sexist than the song itself. The song is written and sung by a man, but its lyrics are gender-neutral. It would not have been entirely wrong to link the song to a movie about woman who is abused by her husband.

The Movie: A Woman Under the Influence (John Cassavetes, 1974)

It's easy to see why Nick Longhetti (Peter Falk) loves his wife Mabel (Gena Rowlands). You can imagine that many years ago, Mabel was the most popular girl on the block. She probably hung around in blue collar bars, where she was desired by all the men. They saw in her a free spirit who sang and danced in front of everyone. Construction worker Nick was the lucky one for for who she fell.  Now years later, it's clear that things weren't as rosy as they seemed back then. Mabel's behavior is the result of a mental illness, and nobody in this film is prepared for that.

I have written often that I am not really a fan of overtly realist modes of film making. I don't much care about documentary/fly on the wall aesthetics in narrative films. I often find them purposeless, as I don't think it's a film's job to present reality as it is. Moreover, I think film is an inherently subjective medium, and realist aesthetics are often used to present whatever is being shown as objective, as an unfiltered reality. I don't think that Cassavetes is doing that here, and the purpose of his aesthetic is very well clear. It allows him to focus fully on the actors, and in doing so allows them to portray their characters very vividly. They can now act in a theatrical way, and go over the top while their characters remain grounded in reality. This especially works very well for Gena Rowlands, who gives a fantastically unrestrained performance. She creates an often frightening character who even in her saner moments seems completely out of it. Even when she seems aware of the reality of the situation, it's not clear whether she grasps truly what is going on.    

That uncertainty is I think the greatest strength of A Woman Under the Influence.  There have been many films made about mentally ill, insane people. Very often these characters are rich, or members of the higher class. They are professors, or their sons, actors, businessmen, doctors, etc. And if they are not, the film makers are cultured, highly educated people. They know the problems their characters are facing, and try to make them understandable for the audience. I don't entirely like A Woman Under the Influence, but this is a film that is never more intelligent than its characters. Nick is completely out of his depth here; he has no idea how to deal with his wife's insanity. In fact, nobody around Mabel knows, least of all herself. And director John Cassavetes, at all times, remains on their level.

This is the first time I have seen this film, or any Cassavetes film for that matter. I had of course heard about it, and its themes. Now that I've seen it I think that any critic who tries to explain the reasons for Mabel's insanity is doing the film a huge disservice. There is a reason why Cassavetes doesn't even show a glimpse of Mabel's stay in the mental hospital.  A Woman Under the Influence declines to offer any explanation for what's bothering Mabel, and why. It is entirely in the dark about it. It mirrors its characters confusion and their utter despair in not knowing how to deal with this situation. In doing so, the film also shows why other films don't take this approach. This is a film that's 2,5 hours of yelling, quarreling and suffering without much progress of any kind (thematic, narrative, stylistic). Cassavetes is relentless. He never changes his tone, never allows any room for breath. It can sometimes be enormously frustrating to watch, as Cassavetes repeats the same beats and points a bit too often for my taste. I also wish he'd offer a window into what Mabel is fighting for. What kind of woman would she be if she were sane? What are her desires and values? How does she actually want to behave? I would have found the film more interesting if it gave at least some answers to these questions. I am aware though that declining to do so, may be the point, and that the film's actual representation of Mabel may be a more realistic depiction of madness.

117. De Vondeling van Ameland &...

Lyrics

Op het strand van Ameland

(On the beach of Ameland)
was hij als zuigling aangespoeld

(He washed up as an infant)
overboord gegooid

(Thrown overboard)
op een reddingsboei gebonden

(Bound on a buoy)
hij had zich op de golven

(On the waves he felt)
als in de baarmoeder gevoeld

(As in the womb)
en schreeuwde tot hij

(And he screamed)
door een jutter werd gevonden

(Until a beachcomber found him)

Ameland sprak schande van de jutter

(Ameland deemed the beachcomber a disgrace)
een zonderling die leefde van de wind

(A quaint living of the wind)
die al de raarste dingen had gevonden

(Who had already found the weirdest things)
hoe kwam die jutter nu weer aan dat kind

(How did that beachcomber come across that child)
als hij er daags op uitging om te jutten

(Every day when he went to comb the beach)
moest de vondeling altijd met hem mee

(The foundling had to join him)
en toen die na een jaar begon te praten

(And when he started speaking after a year)
was zijn eerste woordje: zee

(His first word was: sea)

Op het strand van Ameland

(On the beach of Ameland)
speelde de kleuter jarenlang

(The toddler played for years)
de jutter was zijn meester

(The beachcomber was his teacher)
die hem wijze lessen leerde

(He taught him wise lessons)
hij stond wijdbeens in het zand

(He stood on the sand, his legs wide open)
was voor de woeste zee niet bang

(Wasn't afraid of the furious sea)
en schreeuwde net zo lang

(And screamed until)
tot de vloed zich keerde

(The tide retreated)

Ameland sprak schande van de kleuter

(Ameland deemed the toddler a disgrace)
de vondeling die schreeuwde als de wind

(The foundling screaming like the wind)
hoe was het in vredesnaam toch mogelijk

(For God's sake, how was it possible)
dat de zee zich terugtrok voor een kind

(For the sea to retrat for a child)
wat hij riep zou niemand kunnen zeggen

(Nobody could say what he was yelling)
dat was uit de verte moeilijk te verstaan

(That was hard to understand from a distance)
en toen ze het de jutter vroegen zei die

(And when they asked the beachcomber, he said)
volgens mij roept hij: ik kom eraan.

(I believe he is yelling: "I am coming)

Ik kom eraan ik kom eraan

(I am coming, I am coming)
zee wind zon oceaan

(Sea, wind, sun, ocean)
ik kom eraan

(I am coming)

Op het strand van Ameland

(On the Ameland beach)
stond hij als knaap in de avondzon

(He stood as a boy in the evening sun)
hij zei geen woord

(He didn't say a word)
begon zich langzaam uit te kleden

(He started to slowly undress)
de vloed kwam hem tegemoet

(The tide was coming his way
hij zag alleen de horizon

(He only saw the horizon)
nog eenmaal draaide hij zich om

(Turned around once more)
liep toen de zee in

(And walked into the sea)

Ameland sprak schande van de jongen

(Ameland deemed the boy a disgrace)
die naakte zonderlinge vondeling

(That naked, quaint foundling)
men had zich boven op het duin verzameld

(People gathered up on the dune)
omdat men voelde dat er iets gebeuren ging

(Becuase they felt something was about to happen)
en toen begon hij plotseling te schreeuwen

(And then suddenly he started screaming)
zo hard dat het tot aan de duinen klonk

(So loud they could hear it at the dunes)
nog even zagen ze hem op het water lopen

(They saw him walk on water)
voor hij in de diepte zakte en verdronk

(Just before he drowned in the deep sea)

Ik kom eraan ik kom eraan

(I am coming, I am coming)
zee wind zon oceaan

(Sea, wind, son, ocean)
ik kom eraan

(I am coming)
Ik kom eraan

(I am coming)

It's obviously an indictment of the Dutch film industry that I had to link this song to an Irish film. It's not very surprising though. This is a laudable attempt of Boudewijn de Groot, (and cabaret performer Freek de Jonge, who wrote the lyrics) to create a Dutch folk tale. That is not a genre that has ever been very popular in Dutch culture. It's a bit of a shame. As this song shows the Netherlands' relationship with water provides plenty of opportunities to tell stories in this vein. I actually think this song is better than the movie I am about to discuss. 

The Movie: The Secret of Roan Inish (John Sayles, 1994)

This is one of the first films I saw in the cinema. It's definitely the first 'arthouse' film I've seen. I don't remember why, but in elementary school, we went on a class trip to see this film. I think I liked it a lot; I probably wouldn't have remembered it otherwise. I also probably wouldn't have remembered it if I saw it in high school. This is very much a film for young children. This does mean that I did not care that much about the film this time around, but this is a good thing. There are way too few good directors making films aimed at young kids. Pixar is sometimes criticized for not really making films for children. I think those critics do have a point. Having said that, I'd much rather re-watch Up than The Secret of Roan Inish (I'd also much rather re-watch The Looney Tunes or Tom & Jerry, than watch a Pixar film, but that's a topic for another post. For now, let's just say that films about robots and rats with feelings existed long before Pixar).

What I like most about the film is its relaxed, leisurely pace. It is no rush to get anywhere, and the first hour is mostly an excuse to tell Irish folk stories. These are literally the kinds of stories a grandfather tells to his granddaughter. They are part family history, part Irish history, but above all they are stories about the power of the sea, and the love for it. Fiona's (Jeni Courtney) grandparents used to live on the island of Roan Inish, close to the seals and the water. The war - the film is set in 1946 - and the financial problems forced them to move. Moreover, an accident caused Fiona's infant brother to disappear, making it emotionally hard for the elders to return to the island. They do long for it though, it's clear from the way they talk about it. I enjoyed some of these stories, but I have never cared much about mythical creatures. Unfortunately the key story here is about Selkies. A Selkie is half seal, half man, and the stories tell that the people of Roan Inish are their descendants. And it is said that those with dark hair still have Selkie blood in them. For that reason they are great seamen, able to navigate the waters with whatever means they have at their disposal, even an infant crib. Indeed, Fiona's infant brother was a 'darkie'. Could it be that he still lives, and is roaming around on Roan Inish?   

John Sayles tells this story with utter sincerity. He deserves a lot of credit for that, as well as for the fact that he doesn't care at all to make this story contemporary relevant. In fact, I'd say it's so old-fashioned that if the film had actually been made in 1946, it would have to be set around 1890-1900. In a couple of scenes characters speak archaic Gaelic, and you get the feeling that resisting the urge to tell the entire film like that took the film makers a lot of willpower. Of course that would made it less suitable for children, both those in the audience, and those acting. 

This is the only John Sayles film I have seen until now. I hope to see more of him, He seems like a director who would be right up my alley. In this film, it's quite interesting that he often films from a child's height. And the scene where we first learn of Roan Inish, is quite wonderfully conceived as well. Fiona's granddad points toward the horizon and tells her that the island is right of a light tower, and that only true descendants of the island can see it at the first try. Sayles than cuts to what Fiona and her granddad are watching. It's mostly water; far away on the horizon there are some fuzzy islands that are hard to discern, and I definitely could not see a light tower. Yet Fiona does see the light tower and the island. She is special, we in the audience are not.  

116. I Can't Get No Satisfaction

Lyrics

I can't get no satisfaction
I can't get no satisfaction
'cause i try and i try and i try and i try
I can't get no, i can't get no

When i'm drivin' in my car
And that man comes on the radio
He's tellin' me more and more
About some useless information
Supposed to fire my imagination
I can't get no, oh no no no
Hey hey hey, that's what i say

I can't get no satisfaction
I can't get no satisfaction
'cause i try and i try and i try and i try
I can't get no, i can't get no

When i'm watchin' my tv
And that man comes on to tell me
How white my shirts can be
But he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke
The same cigarrettes as me
I can't get no, oh no no no
Hey hey hey, that's what i say

I can't get no satisfaction
I can't get no girl reaction
'cause i try and i try and i try and i try
I can't get no, i can't get no

When i'm ridin' round the world
And i'm doin' this and i'm signing that
And i'm tryin' to make some girl
Who tells me baby better come back later next week
'cause you see i'm on losing streak
I can't get no, oh no no no
Hey hey hey, that's what i say

I can't get no, i can't get no
I can't get no satisfaction
No satisfaction, no satisfaction, no satisfaction

I have been listening a bit more to The Rolling Stones recently, and while they may have never reached the heights of some other great groups, I am now convinced that they have basically never made a bad song. Satisfaction is, I think, not one of their greatest. It did allow me to discuss a film I never expected to like so much. 

The Movie: Shame (Steve McQueen, 2011)

Near the end of this film, Brandon (Michael Fassbender) is riding the subway, when his train suddenly stops. Someone has committed suicide by jumping in front of it. Leaving the underground, Brandon hurriedly, anxiously goes home, where he finds his sister (Carey Mulligan) covered in blood. She has tried to commit suicide by slitting her wrists. It is an incredibly tacky sequence, and its tackiness only stands out more because the rest of this film is so ridiculously good. In fact, if it wasn't for the aforementioned sequence I might have claimed that this is the best film of the decade. This is challenging, radical, and extremely confident film making that does not provide easy answers.

I was hooked from the opening sequence. McQueen presents a period, I'd say about a week, but it doesn't really matter, in the life of Brandon by crosscutting between scenes at his home, and his commute on the metro. We see that his morning routine consists of waking up miserable, after a night of sex with some prostitute or a random woman. He ignores her, as well as his sisters' messages on his answering machine. On the metro he sits silently, while he is cautiously flirting with a girl who sits across him every day. Every day, the flirting seems to become more serious, but it's not certain whether this is what's really happening, or whether McQueen is showing us Brandon's distorted point of view. All of this happens without any dialogue. For the most part, all we hear on the soundtrack is a constantly, relentlessly ticking clock. The sequence eventually ends when the girl on the metro gets off without seeming to pay much attention to Brandon, leaving him confused and kinda desperate.

The key sequence of the film though comes, when Brandon goes on a date with his colleague Marianne (Nicole Beharie). McQueen shoots their dinner date at a high class restaurant in an exceptional long take. In much of the scene we see Brandon and Marianne in a wide shot, together with the other restaurant guests. We hear their conversation, but are constantly aware of the other conversations around them. McQueen lets us hear snippets of them, or people coughing, while at the the same time we see their animated/amused hand gestures and faces. These are real people having real conversations about all kinds of different things. That is obviously what happens in a restaurant, but I have rarely seen a film so aware of it as Shame. While this is happening, Brandon and Marianne are constantly disturbed in their conversation, by the waiter, who seems to be relatively inexperienced, and constantly makes sure that his guests have the best possible experience at the restaurant.

Fassbender and Beharie act wonderfully throughout the film, but they are never better than in this scene. They are perfect in showcasing their amused irritation with the waiter's intrusions. They are annoyed by him, but understand that it's his job. They have to control their behavior in such a way to brush off the waiter as soon as possible, while at the same time not making their annoyance visible to him, to not offend him. The scene has a very weird effect because of this. It plays at moments like the slowed down version of a slapstick scene, and this seems like a very conscious decision of McQueen. Despite Shame's dark subject matter, McQueen finds certain moments like this in which he can showcase a sly, dry sense of humor.

This scene serves two other functions as well. It shows that Brandon and Marianne have a click. They both react with amusement to the waiter, and to each other's behavior in response to him. Furthermore it shows that Brendan is perfectly capable of controlling his emotions and his behavior. He is in all respects a completely normally functioning member of society, except in matters of love and sex. Brandon is an intelligent man who is perfectly aware of this. For him the tragedy is not so much that his sexual behavior is (self-)destructive, but that he fails to understand why this is the case. He sees himself, as a non-mentally ill person, who in certain situations acts like a person he'd consider ill.

In any case, Marianne and Brandon have a pleasant, fun conversation in the restaurant, which they continue on their way to the metro station. While Marianne finds it strange Brandon has never had a serious relationship (and tells him so), she still likes him a lot and is attracted to him. The next day she happily joins him to a luxurious hotel in order to have some romantic adventures. Unfortunately at the moment suprême Brandon cannot get it up. When Marianne leaves, he calls a prostitute and fucks her.

I do not know much about (sex) addiction, but to me one of the great aspects of the film is that McQueen does not present Brandon as man with a particular diagnosable problem that he can solve if he does certain things. It seems to simple to call him a sex addict. McQueen hints that Brandon that it may actually be power that Brandon is addicted to, and sex is merely a vessel to exhibit that power. That scene with Marianne may exemplify that. Perhaps he does not perform with her, because he genuinely likes her. He does not want, or need, to exert his power over her. This reading seems to be supported by the ensuing scene with the prostitute. He takes her from behind right in front of the large luxurious window of his room. He does not mind being seen, and knows he will be. A couple of scenes before, we saw him watch such a spectacle happening at that place.

I did not expect to like Shame this much. I am not much of a fan of miserable addiction narratives. Besides, I was a bit disappointed by 12 Years A Slave, a film that actually does deal with a subject I am interested in. After the first 30 minutes, it becomes a very conventional, Hollywoodized film. It sometimes feels like a film made 20 years before Django Unchained, not one year after it. Especially the Brad Pitt as a white savior plot device is awful, also because of the terrible dialogue Pitt is given. In any case, thanks to Shame I will very much look forward to the next McQueen film. This is a film that seems to be combine the style/sensibility of the great European art films of the 1960's like Repulsion and L'Avventura, with that of Kubrick, while never copying either.

    

Mad Max: Fury Road

I was writing a PhD-proposal, and it turned out to be an interesting piece on Mad Max: Fury Road and aesthetics. 

A day before the 2016 Academy Awards, writer Brian Phillips took to Twitter to discuss Best Picture nominee Mad Max: Fury Road (Miller, 2015). Phillips argued that in the film there is a 'weird tension between its critique of, and its reveling in, patriarchal violence. Its moral theme is basically a sustained attack on its visceral entertainment value'. I think Phillips here gets at the heart of what makes Mad Max: Fury Road so interesting. Throughout the film director George Miller complicates his audience' enjoyment of it. His aesthetic choices, to a very large extent, reflect the ideology of the film's antagonists.

The apocalyptic society in Fury Road, with its uninhibited violence, its aggressive displays of masculinity, and its objectification of women, is clearly presented as an extension/result of the norms and values of the film's villains. Moreover it is profitable to them, while hurtful to the heroes, who are looking for peace and quiet. The film itself hardly allows for peace and quiet. There is a minimum amount of dialogue, and except for one scene in the middle, the film basically amounts to one long chase sequence through an apocalyptic wasteland.  The action is ramped up from the beginning, and Miller never lets go. He presents pumped up monster cars, flamethrower guitarists, gruesome deaths, scantily clad women, madmen crying for war, and brilliantly staged extended battle scenes full of bloodshed. The action is further intensified by the relentlessly loud, bombastic soundtrack.

In other words, the patriarchal society criticized in Fury Road manifests itself in the style of the film, forcing the audience to directly engage with it.  Instead of merely showing the audience the problematic aspects and dangers of patriarchal societies, Miller lets the audience, to some extent, experience them. While watching the film the viewers realize that their enjoyment of it is tied to the fact that the film revels in the patriarchal values of its apocalyptic society. This could contribute to personal self-reflection. Viewers could reflect on how the society they live in has shaped them to enjoy the patriarchal aesthetic of Fury Road. They could ask themselves to what extent their society is patriarchal, and whether they have to share some of its values to enjoy the film. They could also reflect on how attractive many patriarchal values are on the surface, and how easily they can be accepted.

Style is not merely about how something is communicated, but also about what is being communicated. As communication professor Barry Brummett puts it 'When we put on jeans, we are not just clothing our nakedness, we are speaking a language formed in cloth. Style is a complex system of actions, objects and behaviors that is used to form messages that announce who we are, who we want to be, and who we want to be considered akin to. It is therefore also a system of communication with rhetorical influence on others. And, as such, style is a means by which power and advantage are negotiated, distributed and struggled over in society" (Brummett 11). By wearing certain jeans we make a statement about ourselves. It may not be a conscious statement, or a relevant statement worth exploring, but it does mean that there are certain aspects of these jeans that we like. Our jeans communicate something to the world about who we are.

A similar argument can be made about our consumption of (popular) culture. In an analysis of television show The Tudors, media scholar Kevin Williams discusses the casting of Jonathan Rhys Meyers in the leading role. That casting is consistent with the slick, cool, and sexy, style of the show. Through this style The Tudors connotes to its audience that Henry VIII was something like the historic equivalent of a modern rock star. Yet this is not the only way to tell this story. The producers of The Tudors could have easily chosen a more restrained, 'serious' aesthetic in which case they could have cast 'some fat 250 pounds red-haired guy with a beard" (Williams 139). Then the show's connotation could have been that, despite his many wives, Henry VII was a serious, devoted king. That show would also have attracted a different audience. Some people certainly watch the The Tudors primarily because they are interested in learning something about the Tudor dynasty. Yet there are many other cultural objects they can consume in order to do this. They choose to watch this show specifically, because of the style it is presented in. They watch it because they like slick representations of Henry VIII and the historical period in which he lives, and because they like seeing Jonathan Rhys Meyers in the role of the notorious king. They share these 'values' with the rest of The Tudors' audience.

It is important to note that the audience of The Tudors would not exist without the show. Their shared values are created by the show. In other words, style is not merely used to communicate meaning, but also to create it. This is explained very well by the British sociologist Simon Frith who attributes the success of folk music in the 1960's the musicians' ability to create a fictitious, imagined, folk community. According to Firth, these communities were not formed because a group of people with the same values decided to make music. Rather, these values were created through the music. As he puts it: "My point is not that a social group has beliefs which it then articulates in its music, but that music, an aesthetic practice, articulates in itself an understanding of both group relations and individuality, on the basis of which ethical codes and social ideologies are understood. What I want to suggest, in other words, is not that social groups agree on values which are then expressed in their cultural activities, but that they only get to know themselves as groups through cultural activity, through aesthetic judgement"(Frith 1996). Furthermore Firth states 'it is the aesthetic rather than organizational/contextual aspects of performance that betray a continuity between the social, the group, and the individual. It is in deciding - playing and hearing what sounds right that we both express ourselves, our own sense of rightness, and suborn ourselves, lose ourselves, in an act of participation" (Firth 1996).

These ideas can be connected to Marshall McLuhan's famous notion that 'the medium is the message'. McLuhan argued that a medium affects society not through its content, but through its characteristics (McLuhan 108). For McLuhan, it does not matter much what is being broadcast on television. What matters is that the introduction of television affected people's behavior. For example, it allowed families to gather together around a television set, thereby creating a new social environment. These changes in behavior are the true message of television. McLuhan himself offers the light bulb as an explanation of his ideas. The light bulb itself has no content, yet it is a medium with a social effect. In the nighttime it enables people to lit spaces that would otherwise remain dark. In doing so 'a light bulb creates an environment by its mere presence' (McLuhan 112).

Now, let us return to Mad Max: Fury Road. Director George Miller could have addressed his concerns about patriarchal societies through a straightforward dramatic film that criticizes the patriarchy, perhaps even in a more coherent way than Fury Road does. The plot of that film could show the audience exactly why the heroes had to overcome the patriarchal values, how they did it, and what these values exactly are. In the process it could offer its audience plenty of room for thought. I would argue that approach would be less effective than Miller's approach in Fury Road. The message of Miller's hypothetical film would be that people like watching dramatic films that criticize the patriarchy, and make them think about it. The message of Fury Road is that people like watching a patriarchal aesthetic. As Firth would put it, Fury Road 'allows' the viewers to express themselves as people who like the patriarchal aesthetic. Miller's hypothetical film allows the viewers to think about how patriarchal values may be part of their lives. Fury Road allows the viewers to directly experience how patriarchal values may be part of their lives. In doing so Fury Road gives its audience more reason for (self-)reflection 

115. Perfect Day &...

Lyrics

Just a perfect day
drink Sangria in the park
And then later
when it gets dark, we go home

Just a perfect day
feed animals in the zoo
Then later
a movie, too, and then home

Oh, it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spend it with you
Oh, such a perfect day
You just keep me hanging on
You just keep me hanging on

Just a perfect day
problems all left alone
Weekenders on our own
it's such fun

Just a perfect day
you made me forget myself
I thought I was
someone else, someone good

Oh, it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spent it with you
Oh, such a perfect day
You just keep me hanging on
You just keep me hanging on

You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow
You're going to reap just what you sow

You're going to reap just what you sow

Radio 2's listeners criminally under-appreciate Lou Reed. Perfect Day and Walk on the Wild Side are his only songs on the list, and there is nothing by Velvet Underground either. I also suspect people who call themselves 'true Lou Reed fans' would scoff at the notion that Perfect Day is the man's best song. It's certainly isn't the song that can define his place in, and importance for, music history. Heroin would probably be a better example of that. I can understand why that song is not in the top 2000. It's one of the most disturbing songs ever. I think there are few works of art that depict the despair of an addict in a more harrowing way. It's last two minutes are unlike anything I've heard. On the other hand, there is no logical reason why Radio 2's listeners don't go for Pale Blue Eyes, maybe the most beautiful, sweetest, romantic song ever made. I've heard that song for the first time in a film that I consider nearly equally romantic. It's the one film I think of when I think of Lou Reed. 

The Movie: Adventureland (Greg Mottola, 2009)

I've banged the drum often for this film, and I'll continue to do so in the future. Having now seen it three times, I think it's one of the best films of the 21st century, and one of the most romantic movies I've seen. 

The greatest strength of Adventureland is that it's not quite a coming-of-age film. James (Jesse Eisenberg) and Em (Kristen Stewart) have already come of age. They are confident, intelligent recent graduates who know their way around the opposite gender. They are attracted to each other, from very early on in the film, but it's not a lack of life experience that keeps them from starting something. Similarly, once the happy ending does arrive, they have not become better people, nor have they learned anything groundbreaking about life and love they did not know before. Furthermore, their relationship is not delayed because of external factors. There is nothing in the outer world keeping Em and James from being together. Yes, has Em has an affair with the married maintenance guy Mike (Ryan Reynolds), but the film makes explicitly clear that Em can stop that affair whenever she wants without Mike protesting. It also makes clear that Em is very much aware this affair has no future.

I remember liking the film quite a lot while watching it for the first time, but I was really sold on it the first time we hear Pale Blue Eyes. By that point in the film James and Em have spend a lot of time together, and it is clear that they are starting to like each other a lot. James has even made Em a mix tape which they listen to in a car, while driving home from a bar they've been to. Since Adventureland Eisenberg and Stewart have become very respected, beloved actors, but I am willing to argue they have never acted better than in this single scene. They are sitting together in the car, silently working through their feelings, trying to think of something to say. They yearn for each other, but fear what may happen if they express it. They know they have a lot of fun with each other, they both know they are attracted to each other, but are not completely sure about each other's feelings, nor about their own really.

That scene encapsulates the whole movie. One of film critic Roger Ebert's repeated sayings was that it's more romantic to wonder whether you are going to be kissed, than to actually be kissed. To that I'd add that it's more frustrating to not be sure whether you should kiss the other person, than to have no one to kiss in sight. Throughout Adventureland James and Em find themselves in both of these positions, often at the same time. They are fully aware that every action they take, every word they say, may have consequences, perhaps not just for their relationship, but for their life as a whole. Few movies have represented so wonderfully, this glorious frustrating confusion of falling in love and not exactly knowing what to do about it. Even fewer have evoked how fun this is. That makes it very clear what is at stake for James and Em. The risk of losing each other's friendship is far bigger than the reward of a relationship. James and Em will definitely have a very good life if the situation stays as it is. If the situation changes, by them entering a relationship, it could get substantially better, but that's only a possibility. If the situation changes by them losing each other, their life would be worse. This is a very analytical, unromantic analysis of romance, but it is the best way to explain what makes this film so much more romantic than your average Hollywood rom-com. There the implicit suggestion often is that the lovers should become a couple, because, hey, what do they have to lose. The fact that James and Em have much to lose, and much to win, makes us care far more about the characters and their relationship. It also makes them far more interesting, as they are constantly forced to negotiate and think about their strong feelings. Apart from all this, it is simply more realistic.      

Greg Mottola, who is the writer-director deserves a lot of credit for all this. Especially his dialogue is often pitch perfect. James and Em's conversations often evade the central point, but through these evasions the point becomes very clear. Mottola understands that these evasions are not just a self-defense mechanism, but also a way for allowing the other person to be more comfortable. They are like a tacit, unspoken agreement to maintain the status quo, while allowing one another to poke around and see whether to change the status quo, and if so, how. And again, Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart deserve a lot of credit for their performances. Especially Eisenberg manages to have James maintain a genuinely relaxed attitude around Em, while simultaneously consciously acting out such an attitude in front of Em. It's a very remarkable performance. Stewart and Eisenberg are helped by the way Mottola shoots them. We very often see a large part of their body in the frame, allowing us to see the hesitant movements of their arms and legs.

I really like the cinematography of this film in general. Many scenes are shot as if they are a hazy. beautiful memory of a special time. This sounds pretentious, but to some extent it's as if the film is shot by the current James and Em, trying to evoke their feelings at that time through the cinematography. Everything looks slightly prettier, slightly more joyous than it is. This approach sometimes creates a rather disorienting effect, has set his film in the context of a financial crisis. While that is definitely not the main subject of the film, it's definitely not ignored. In fact, financial problems are the reason why most of the characters we meet in Adventureland work there. And James' parents very clearly struggle to make ends meet. Now, you can ignore what I am about to say, as I am going to wildly overpraise the film. But seeing it now, it reminded me to some extent of films like Five Easy Pieces and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. It's not so much that it takes the problems of its working class characters seriously, and that it has a lot of empathy for them, it's that it takes the working class itself seriously. It believes that these people have interesting lives worth exploring, and they are interesting, articulate people themselves who have more ideas and goals in life than just getting rich and escaping their class. As I've said often here I don't believe that movies now are worse of than they used to be, or such crap, but I can't deny that this is indeed sorely lacking in modern Hollywood.

I was going to say that the film has a lot empathy for every character, and that it doesn't create dumb stereotypes. That's not really true. The only false note in the film is Em's evil stepmother. Apart from the very stereotypical conception of her, the evil stepmother trope should be hidden away in the 21st century. It rings even more false here, where the rest of the characters are so original and incredibly well developed. Take Lisa P for example, brilliantly introduced through The Rolling Stones' Tops, and equally well performed by Margarita Levieva. At first it seems like she's the park slut, who will sleep with everyone. Turns out she is Catholic and a virgin. She is not in that many scenes, but it is enough to create an incredibly interesting, conflicted character, who really wants to have sex, is aware that she is desirable, but is too hindered by her faith to do anything about it. You could really make a whole movie about her. 

You could also make another movie about James and Em. Mottola could absolutely give these characters the Before Sunrise/Sunset treatment. I like Linklater, especially Boyhood, Bernie and Slacker, but to me Adventureland feels like Mottola in one try made the movie Linklater has been trying his whole career to make. With Adventureland and Superbad, Mottola has also made by far the two best Judd Apatow-related movies. I hope he gets to make more movies, and more movies like those two. For me, these movies put him among the greatest contemporary directors.

114. Belfast Child &...

Lyrics

When my love said to me
Meet me down by the gallow tree
For its sad news I bring
About this old town and all that it's suffering
Some say troubles are bound
Someday soon there gonna pull the old town down
One day we'll return here
When the Belfast child sings again

Brother sister where are you now
I don't look for you right through the crowd
All my life here I've spent
With my faith in god our church and the government
Some say troubles are bound
Someday soon there gonna pull the old town down
One day we'll return here
When the Belfast child sings again
When the Belfast child sings again

So come back Billy won't you come on home
Come back Mary you've been away so long
The streets are empty and your momma's gone
The girls are crying it's been oh so long
And your fathers calling come on home
Oh wont you come on home come on home

Oh come back people you've been gone awhile
And the war is raging on the emerald isle
There's flesh and blood there there's flesh and blood
All the girls are crying but all's not lost
Well the streets are empty the streets are cold
Oh wont you come on home come on home
The streets are empty

But life goes on

One day we'll return here
When the Belfast child sings again
When the Belfast child sings again

I had never heard of this song before knowing Radio 2's top 2000, and I have never heard it outside the context of this list. War-themed songs seem to really attract Radio 2's voters, because I cannot imagine any different context in which this song is more popular than Don't You Forget About Me. Nevertheless this song is quite good and allowed me to link it to a better film than The Breakfast Club. I think that film is OK, but is certainly not some sort of classic in its genre. I will write about it later on, as Don't You Forget About Me does (of course) feature on Radio 2's list. 

The Movie: In the Name of the Father (Jim Sheridan, 1993)

As you see I haven't published on this blog since august. I was doing an internship, while at the same time writing from home for a financial website. I did not have much time for this blog. I hope that will not be the case in my next job, as I really enjoy this. In any case, after my internship (about which I will write some day) ended I discovered Hamilton, Lin Manuel Miranda's brilliant hip-hop musical about the life of founding father Alexander Hamilton. I obviously haven't been able to see the stage play, but the songs were enough to convince me that this is one of the best things ever created, in any medium. Most historical fiction, including In the Name of the Father, really cannot hold a candle to Miranda's play. Having said that, this film is quite good, especially during its first half. Besides no film with Pete Postlethwaite and Daniel Day-Lewis can be any less than enjoyable. 

During its first hour In the Name of the Father is exceptional. It shows exactly how and why Gerry Conlon (Day-Lewis) could be indicted for a bombing he did not commit. Even more importantly, it shows how Gerry is helpless to do anything about it. He is a cog in the machine who needs to be indicted, so the British police can save its face. The screenplay and Sheridan's direction is relentless. It shows with every progressing scene how Gerry is more and more being stripped of his agency, and is helpless to do anything about it.. It is unflinching in showing how the abuse heaped on him by the British police, and legal system, led to his indictment, and the indictment of 10 others, including Gerry's father Giuseppe (Postlethwaite).   

Once in prison, the film becomes a character study that rather wonderfully portrays the complicated relationship between Gerry and Giuseppe. They love, but don't really understand, each other. The dialogue makes very well clear what the problems between them are, but Sheridan achieves way more by just putting Postlethwaite and Day-Lewis in the same frame and focusing on their anguished faces, often in long takes. Of course as the film progresses Gerry and Giusuppe grow closer together and create a stronger bond, but to the film's great credit, it does not turn their relationship into a simple-minded feel-good story. In their final scene together, Giuseppe reveals that he doesn't believe Gerry can take care for his mother after he dies. 

Unfortunately in other aspects, the film does make us of unfortunate cliches about redemption. I read the film was criticized for including the completely fictional Joe, who in the film confesses to the bombing Gerry is accused for. I do not really mind this, except for the fact that Joe is used rather badly. The film needs Joe to show that Gerry becomes a better man in prison. Gerry, before entering prison was a petty thief from Belfast. His father sent him to London to have a better life, only he ended up living in a hippie community, and then us a a bum on the streets. Through the vile Joe, Sheridan shows us that Gerry in prison becomes a more cultured, loving person, someone we should really care for. 

This portrayal of Gerry and Joe is unfortunate for two reasons. First of all, Joe is actually a quite interestingly conceived character who could have been used to explore the conflict between Brittain and Ireland in a more interesting, layered way. Sheridan completely scrambles that opportunity. More importantly, the movie really should not go to great lengths to show that Gerry becomes a good person who we should care for. It is irrelevant. We should care for him because he is an innocent person thrown in jail, because evidence against him was fabricated. That should be enough to make us root for Gerry's release from prison. That would still make the final 10 minutes of the film, the trial where Gerry is acquitted, incredibly powerful. For that Emma Thompson deserves a lot of credit too. She is only in the film for a short time, but her performance as the passionate lawyer Gareth Peirce is very good. She got an Oscar nomination, meaning that at the 1994 Oscars two actresses were nominated for both a leading and a supporting role. Emma Thompson for respectively The Remains of the Day and this film. And Holly Hunter for The Piano and The Firm. I have now discussed three f those films on this blog. While I liked this film a lot, I think The Piano and The Remains of the Day are way better, richer films.