Review: A Hard Day's Night

It's not particularly a secret that I LOVE The Beatles. Their music is so well-written and so well-executed that it still feels original, despite being over 60(!) years old. I have heard their songs a million times already, but I can still listen to them and find something new to like every time. 

Okay, enough of that. The Beatles, besides making wicked awesome music, also made some movies. And I happened to stumble upon the dvd of what I heard is the best of those: A Hard Day's Night. I remembered this movie not only being featured in a book I have of the 100 greatest movies of all time, but also on as Roger Ebert's list of Great Movies. I bought it without second thought, of course.

How could I have refused with such great cover art? Seriously, this poster rocks.

The movie follows The Beatles around during a "typical" day. They run from hordes of screaming fans, they run from the cops and they run without any reason. In between the running they dance, make jokes to reporters ("How did you find America?""You turn left at Greenland") and try not to lose sight of Paul's grandfather. And they play music, of course.

The movie is just as nonsensical as it sounds. It's hard to shake the feeling that the planning stage of this movie took about ten minutes and a whole lot of liquor. And the execution is far from flawless, too: the story is pretty much non-existent, the montage and cinematography are rather awkward at times and the pace lies surprisingly low for a movie in which everybody is constantly running.

Insert obvious Forrest Gump reference here

But although the movie might not be as brilliant as I had hoped, it has two saving graces. The first is the soundtrack, of course. But the second is something that really sets it apart: the fun everybody is having. You can literally see the guys just grinning. Not because they are supposed to, but because they can't help themselves. The movie feels more like something a group of friends make for shit and giggles then a serious cinematic undertaking, but just happens to be starring four of the greatest musicians of all time.

At the time, A Hard Day's Night was a major hit. This was mainly due to the immense popularity of The Beatles. But how does it hold up now? Not as good as their music, that's for sure. If you are a fan and can appreciate something that feels like a 1,5-hour long silly Youtube video with a really high budget, like me, I think you will like this one. But if that particular prospect doesn't appeal to you, you are not really missing out on anything either.

Alias

I had a hard time not to include any Beatles music, but I managed to constrain myself. Here is another great sixties band.

Pulling Rabbits: On Controversy

Every movie critic writes controversial stuff. For instance, I think David Lynch is a sadistic psychopath who has only vague ideas of what this pesky "film" thing is supposed to be. See? Controversy. The reason for this is simply that critics work with opinions, and people tend to differ in those. But the things that probably causes the most controversy is when one or more important critics dislike a popular film for being "too explicit".

The examples are endless: Roger Ebert calling Fight Club "fascist" and "macho porn", Pauline Kael calling A Clockwork Orange "pornographic", Bernardo Bertolucci actually being send to jail for making Last Tango in Paris. The list goes on and on. Notice that all those films are NOW (pretty much) considered to be classics or, at least, very very good. This is something that can haunt a critic for years: "Why didn't you see it for the genius it was when you first saw it? I totally did!" The fans then have a giggle at their superior judgment and go watch the dvd for the twelfth time. It really can put a dent in a critics credibility: Being seen as old-fashioned or prudish isn't very good for your reputation, especially in the circuit of cinema.

This stuff was outrageous back in 1896.

But something that is easily overlooked is that films, no matter the times, sometimes are just too explicit. For a contemporary example, think of Saw. And for an older example... Well, most of those are long forgotten. Only the real film buffs even know of the existence of something like Cannibal Holocaust, and even less have actually seen it.

The problem with explicit content is that it really has to to be meaningful to work. Take, for instance, this scene. You should know that before the fight started, the shabbier guys where raping a girl.



The violence might not be to revolting for a modern audience, but when it was released (1971) this was pretty heavy stuff. And you can still see the contrast between the pretty heavy beating the boys deliver and the cheerful music. But it beautifully illustrates what goes on in the minds of these boys. Violence is fun, just another outlet from your daily life. A theme that is as relevant now as ever.

You know what really is the only thing that makes controversial content justifiable? Actually creating controversy. When something is called "controversial" these days, it almost always means that some puritans where shocked, some teenagers loved it, the critics were "meh" and the general public didn't give a shit. You know the deal. But you know what "controversy" actually means? Something that people disagree with. Note that this is something completely different then outraged.

Disagreement means that somebody makes a choice that you don't think is the right one. And if a director makes a movie with content that you think is wrong, you'd better be able to tell why that is. And to do that, you have to think. What do I think of this or that matter? Is the director prejudiced or do I just see discrimination everywhere? Is the filmmaker perverted, or am I prude? If an artist can move people to reflect like that, he has done his job.

The Dutch artist Tinkebell strangled her own cat to make a purse of it. Do you find that disturbing? Then why don't you care if millions of pigs are killed each day? See, now THAT is controversy. She exposes our hypocrisy and forces us to look at ourselves.

Mission accomplished.

Micheal Haneke, an Austrian director, had something very interesting to say about big-budget movies. Most filmmakers despise them, but he said: "Those movies are fine. A lot of people are in shitty situations, and they want to escape those. However, it has nothing to do with art. Art always has to seek the confrontation with reality".

And THAT is what explicit violence should be used for. Telling the truth. Not giving fetishists boners.

Alias

P.S. OF COURSE I don't really think David Lynch is a psychopath. I just don't like his work. Please don't flood the comments.

I had no idea whatsoever which song I should post here. Nothing I could think of seemed appropriate. So I just decided to use a nice song that is nice.

Review: Black Cat White Cat

Genres are bitches. If you assign one to a movie people will start to expect all sorts of things. When you call it a thriller, the audience will expect people to die. When it's called a romcom, kissing is to be expected. And if you call your movie Faster, Pussycat, Kill! Kill!... Well, you get the point.

But the one genre that defies this notion is comedy. Simply put: if a comedy is funnier then another comedy, it is a better comedy. A scarier thriller is not a better thriller per se, a more dramatic drama does not make a better drama by default, but a comedy HAS to make you laugh as much as possible. Whatever it takes. And while Black Cat, White Cat might not be brilliantly on a purely cinematic level, it made me almost crap my pants with laughter every time I've seen it. And I've seen it three times now.

The movie, which is set somewhere in Eastern Europe, is about a father and a son, both gypsies. The father is a bit of a blundering small-time crook, who always sees his good intentions go wrong. After a particularly daring plan has gone wrong, he has to marry his son Zare to the sister of the man who screwed him over. But Zare isn't really eager to do that, since the girl in question is about half his height. It also involves an old man who constantly drives around in what looks like a stripped-down T-Ford, a woman who can pull nails from wooden boards with her ass and an orchestra in a tree. And a wedding where everything gets smashed, the bride runs off and the marriage commissioner is a junkie. And a pigs eats a car.

The movie doesn't really make sense, but it doesn't matter. It's not even trying to. Instead, what we get is a complete mess of slapstick, gypsies, AWESOME music and just plain hilarity. The atmosphere is pretty much what you would get if Laurel and Hardy would go to Hungary: light and funny, with nothing larger then a table surviving until the end of the movie. The movie is also genuinely funny, something that is actually very rare for movies labeled as "comedy". The humor might not be too sophisticated, but it's never vulgar or cheap either. Just plain fun.

 Random goats are always the best goats.

I guess that's the only thing you have to know about the movie: it's fun. It's incredibly much fun, in fact. The rest hardly matters. If you want to really laugh your ass off at a movie once, don't hesitate to track this one down.

Alias

P.S. I would like to stop for a moment to honor a great actor and filmmaker who passed away a while ago: Dennis Hopper. He has made and acted in some of the most original and groundbreaking films ever, including Easy Rider and Blue Velvet. Besides that, he was also a great photographer. He will be missed. Rest in Peace.

On a somewhat happier note, this is my 50th post on the weblog. I hope people have as much fun reading it as I have writing it.

This song fits the atmosphere of the movie absurdly good. So good, in fact, that if you like the song I'm pretty sure you will like the movie. Drunken gypsies, hurrah!