#I really love the thing in the Ullman shorts where if a character isn’t in the short they throw their picture in the background somewhere

[allieinarden]

I find this funnier than it objectively is.

[arecomicsevengood]

Watching Movies In Self-Isolation, Part Two

L’Assassin Habite Au Rue 21 (1942), dir. Henri-Georges Clouzot. Clouzot is better known for directing The Wages Of Fear (the movie William Friedkin remade as Sorcerer) and Diabolique, but this is the first movie he directed. It’s a pretty effective comedy, as well as an Agatha Christie style murder-mystery thriller. It’s really cool to watch these things that feel like they are just “movies,” before a bunch of genre conventions got built up and put in place. This one’s also eighty minutes long, super-short. The premise of the movie is there’s a serial killer on the loose, leaving a business card on every dead body. A dude passes along to the police that he found a stash of the business cards in the attic of a boarding house, so the killer must live there. A police officer goes undercover as a priest moving into the boarding house to investigate the residents. His wife, an aspiring singer, has made a bet with him she can solve the crime first, and in doing so become a celebrity that will be hired to perform places, so she also moves into the boarding house, partly to annoy him. The stuff at the boarding house is basically the film’s second act, while the first and third act are more typical murder-mystery stuff, although the tone of comedy is maintained throughout, despite all the cold-blooded murders.

All These Women (1964), dir. Ingmar Bergman. Kind of dumb sex comedy directed by Ingmar Bergman, but with gorgeous Sven Nykvist cinematography, bright jewel-toned pastels, and sort of theatrical staging in spots seeming to foreshadow Parajanov’s The Color Of Pomegranates or eighties Greenaway stuff. About a critic who visits the palatial estate of a famous cellist to write a biography of him only to find a harem of women; the whole thing unfolding from the cellist’s funeral a few days later. The winking humor is both music-hall bawdy but in a way that feels self-aware or “meta” in the context of a sixties film.

The Touch (1971), dir. Ingmar Bergman. Bergman’s one of my favorites, many of his canonized classics resonate deeply with me, but he was also astonishingly prolific, with a bunch of movies of his blurring together in my mind, and even more that I didn’t know existed, like this English-language one, starring Elliott Gould. Gould’s another favorite of mine, being in a bunch of great movies in the sixties and seventies, but damn, he’s unlikable here. Unlikable characters “hit different” in older material because I’m not sure if you’re supposed to sympathize with them according to the sexist cultural attitudes of the day. Here he’s “the other man” Liv Ullman is cheating on Max Von Sydow (RIP) with, but he’s pretty emotionally abusive, just a shit to her, extremely demanding of her in a relationship he did nothing to earn, though it does feel like the movie is kind of treating him as a romantic lead.

The Anderson Tapes (1971), dir. Sidney Lumet. This is heist movie, starring Sean Connery as a dude fresh out of prison, planning to rob his girlfriend’s apartment building, costarring Christopher Walken in his first film role. It contains all the plot beats of a typical heist thing, all the satisfying “getting the gang together, planning things out in advance, chaotic elements interfere” stuff but also a totally superfluous bit of framing about like constant surveillance, video monitoring and audio tape. All this dystopian police-state stuff seems, implicitly, like it would make a crime impossible to execute, the criminals are monitored every step of the way, by assorted agencies. But then the punchline, after everyone’s arrested for reasons having nothing to do with that, is that all this recording is illegal and all the tapes should be erased as the high-profile nature of the case makes it likely the monitoring agencies will get caught. Sidney Lumet directs a good thriller, even though I don’t find Connery (or Dyan Cannon, who plays the girlfriend) particularly compelling.

The Testament Of Dr. Mabuse (1933), dir. Fritz Lang. I watched this years ago, after reading Matt Fraction praise it, particularly how skillful the transitions between scenes were, and I really enjoyed it, but didn’t remember much about it and was excited to rewatch it. It’s got a lot going for it: An exceedingly elaborate criminal plot whose only goal is to wreak chaos, low-level criminals caught up in something they’re morally unprepared to reckon with, a charismatic police detective interviewing a bunch of weirdos, Fritz Lang following up M by continuing to be a master of film and sound editing very early stitching it all together. The Mabuse character was previously the star of a silent film I haven’t watched, and here he’s mute, which is a clever choice I didn’t register until writing it out just now. He’s gone completely insane, but is nonetheless writing a journal filled with elaborate crime plots, and his psychologist is completely insane and following these directions, in a commentary on the rise of Nazism in Germany at the time.

House By The River (1950), dir. Fritz Lang. I watched this in the pre-Quarantine days, but it totally rules. Again, it feels sordid in part because of how old it is and my assumption you’re meant to identify on some level with the completely loathsome protagonist’s sexual desire and anger at getting turned down. It’s so creepy, he’s listening to the sound of his maid showering at one point. All the characters seem very fun to play, they’re all pretty cartoonish. This guy murder his maid, and then gets the idea that he should write a book about the murder when someone explains the idea of “writing what you know” to him, and he is then surprised when his wife reads the book and puts together that it’s a murder confession, saying something like “Really? I thought I disguised it pretty well.” The film functions as a dark comedy because every character is completely mortifying. Lang’s work becoming less ambitious and more reduced in budget during his time working in America is pretty sad but this movie feels legit deranged.

Midsommar (2019), Ari Aster. Heard good things about Hereditary, but haven’t watched it yet, having been put off by the plot summary of Aster’s preceding short film, about a kid who rapes his dad. This is like a longer version of The Wicker Man, basically, starring Florence Pugh, who I had heard was like the new actress everyone’s enamored with, but didn’t think was that compelling in this. A bunch of Americans go to a Swedish village, one of them (played by Chidi from The Good Place) has studied their anthropology extensively, but all are unprepared for the fact that their whole culture seems to revolve around human sacrifice and having sex with outsiders so they don’t become totally inbred. There’s a monstrously deformed, cognitively impaired child who’s been bred specifically so his abstract splashings of paint can be interpreted as culture-defining profound lore, which I took away as being comparable to the role Joe Biden plays within the death cult of the DNC.

Long Day’s Journey Into Night (2019), dir. Bi Gan. This got a lot of acclaim, but I am almost certain the main reason I watched it is because the director made a list of his favorite movies and included Masaaki Yuasa’s anime series Kemonozume on it. Does a sort of bisected narrative thing, where half of the movie is this sort of fragmented crime thing, a little hard to follow, and then you get the title card, and then the second half is this pretty dreamlike atmospheric piece done in a single shot, with a moving camera. I’m not the sort to jerk off over long shots, although I appreciate the large amount of technical pre-planning that goes into pulling them off. The second part is pretty compelling though, enveloping, I guess it was in 3-D at certain theatrical screenings? I’m a little unclear on how my fucked-up eyes can deal with 3-D these days and I was never that into it. The first half is easy to turn off and walk away from, the second half isn’t but I’m unsure on how much it amounts to beyond its atmosphere.

Black Sun (1964), dir. Koreyoshi Kurahara. This one’s about a Japanese Jazz fan and dirtbag squatter who meets a black American soldier who’s gone crazy and AWOL. He loves him because he loves Jazz and all Black people, but the soldier is pretty crazy and can’t understand him anyway. Jazz is, or was, huge in Japan and this is a cooler depiction of that fandom than you get in Murakami novels but it’s a fairly uncomfortable watch, I guess because the black dude seems so crazy it feels a little racist to an American audience? Maybe he wasn’t being directed that well because there would be a language barrier but it’s weird.

Honestly the thing to watch from sixties Japan on The Criterion Channel is Black Lizard (1962), dir. Umetsugu Inoue, which I watched shortly after Trump’s election in 2016, when all the Criterion stuff was still on Hulu, and it cheered me up considerably in those dark days. It feels a little like The Abominable Dr. Phibes, but with a couple musical numbers, and is about a master detective who thinks crime is super-cool and wishes there was a criminal who would challenge his intellect. Then the Black Lizard kidnaps someone. It’s a lot of fun, with a tone that feels close to camp but is so knowing and smart it feels more genuinely strange and precise. One of those things you get fairly often where the Japanese outsider’s take on American genre stuff gets what it’s about more deeply and so feels like it’s operating on a higher level. I really love this movie.

I had this larger point I wanted to make about just feeling repulsed by genre stuff that self-consciously attempts to mimic its canonical influences and that might not be all the way present in this post. Still, something that really should be implicit when talking about movies from the past is that they are not superhero movies, and how repulsed I am by that particular genre’s domination of cinema right now, and how much of cinema has a history of something far looser and more freewheeling in its ideas of how to make work that appealed to a broad audience, and how much weird formal playfulness can be understood intuitively by an audience without being offputting, and the sort of spirit of formal interrogation connects the films I like to the comics I like (as well as the books I like, and the visual art I like), this sense of doing something that can only be done within that medium even as certain other aspects translate.

[humanoid-lovers]

2.0 out of 5 stars Understand what you are buying! It's just a Scrapbook of The Simpsons as a Family, not a history of the TV series at all.

3.0 out of 5 stars More of a "scrapbook" of images than a history of this classic TV series. More of a "scrapbook" of images than a history of this classic TV series.When I knew this book was being released by Abrams - one of the great ART BOOK publishers - I had really high expectations. The cover is really colorful and - after a one page "intro by creator Matt Groening - the pages are colorful and full of great graphics - including lots of "screen shots" from the TV series. But as I progressed through the next 300 pages - all UNNUMBERED - I saw very little text - only captions., and short ones at that. Okay, so the subtitle of the book is "A Celebration of Television's Favorite Family", but I figured there'd be a story here somewhere. (There isn't). It's honestly more like a scrapbook and memory jogger (Look at this page. Remember when (insert character name here) did that?". The pre-title page lists "Writing: Nathan Kane" and "Book design and layout: Serban Christascu" so I'm guessing they are ones whose names belong on the front of the jacket.Last year Abrams published a similar "pop culture" book on Rube Goldberg and there was plenty of informative text throughout.Yes, Simpson's fans will enjoy the images (and they are in great color) and it's probably a good holiday gift for a Simpsons fan. But don't expect to read anything by Groening - except the intro - or learn the "backstory of the long running series on the family from Springfield. By the way it's so big that it weighs almost four pounds!I hope you found this review both informative and helpful.Steve Ramm"Anything Phonographic" Go to Amazon

2.0 out of 5 stars Not really a history When the description states "unravels 25 years of Simpsons facts and fun", I expected a 25 year history. This just collects the handful of 'flashback' episodes, which were some of the dullest of the bunch. The first few like 'Lisa's First Word' were fun, but by the time Homer is in a 90s grunge band it's tired. Lots of filler.A lot of the screen captures are pretty poor for an art/coffee table book -- look like smartphone pics of a TV screen -- blurred. At least they could have gotten original artwork for the price.I am a huge Simpsons fan, but wish I would have paged through this at a bookstore..They've put out 'scrapbook' type Simpsons material in the past that was a lot more fun than this thing. Go to Amazon

2.0 out of 5 stars Poorly Done Cash Grab This was incredibly disappointing, even if you were aware that this book is NOT a history of the show. It's interesting to see all the flashbacks laid out in chronological order, but other than that novelty, this book is a shameless cash grab. It basically repurposes episodes almost frame by frame to take up page space. This is nothing but filler. A 2 line, 10 second scene will take up 20 pages in the book. The layout is pretty uninspired, and the images are screenshots from the episodes instead of any new designs. This is just pathetic. If you're looking for a better, more original experience, check out the Simpsons Family Album instead. Go to Amazon

1.0 out of 5 stars Don't waste your money. Will be sending this back ASAP. Absolutely not what I expected when I pre-ordered months ago. It's literally screencaps from episodes with quotes surrounding them on each page, that's the book. A total disservice to longtime fans of the show. Go to Amazon

1.0 out of 5 stars Cheap ripoff that the Simpsons themselves would mock Wanted to get this as a gift but was deeply disgusted when I flipped through the pages. This book looks like someone emailed a series of low resolution screen captures from old episodes to a bored and disinterested 7th grade year book club for assembly.You will find more interesting and substantive content by purchasing a Simpson Comic book. If you must have it, wait for the $2 clearance rack. Worst. Simpsons. Dreck. Ever. Go to Amazon

2.0 out of 5 stars Not what I was expecting... First off, for Simpsons fans, it is a really nice coffee table book and a really good book in general. My review doesn't reflect upon the quality of the book, had it been I would've easily given it the 4 or 5 stars it deserves.The reason for my 2 star review is that the book wasn't what I was expecting or hoping for when I ordered months ago. Being that this year is the year the Simpsons TV show has been on the air for 25 years now, I was hoping for an in-depth look at the show from it's earliest days up until now, similar to the recent (and incredibly awesome) "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Ultimate Visual History" which helped ring in it's 30th anniversary in top notch form. This book is simply the history of the Simpson family as depicted throughout the show in a chronological order starting with Homer & Marge's youth up until their present day with all images taken from the 25 seasons of the show.When I originally saw the family portrait picture in the center on the cover, I assumed that it would cover all the way back to the "Tracey Ullman Show" skits from where that image came from. That's where I feel disappointed with this book, as crude as those skits were back then, those skits still hold a special place for me because that's where I (and countless more viewers) were first introduced to the Simpsons. Having aired in late 80s, to me, they broke such new ground and being the young age I was, it was amazing seeing a dysfunctional animated family that got away with stuff that was unheard on television back then, even for almost all live action TV family shows as well. I would've loved to have seen some behind the scenes pictures and stories from those early days, especially with it's anniversary it seemed more fitting.Read more › Go to Amazon