By David Ross. By pure chance, I recently happened upon Michael Atkinson’s discussion of David Lynch’s Inland Empire (2006). I was struck by Atkinson’s antic way with words and by his nimble intelligence, so much so that I checked for Atkinson on Wikipedia. He’s made a name for himself as a novelist and poet, as it turns out. I further discovered that he has a blog with much the same air of acuity. Among other things, Atkinson offers his list of the fifty top films of the decade (in order no less – no wimpy relativism there).
Atkinson is right to observe that the organizing principle of Inland Empire is not psychological, in this respect differing from Bergman’s Persona (1966) and most other experiments in pure cinema. But he seems to imply that the film’s dissociative chaos has no unifying principle or organizing logic, and that the search for codes and readings is a kind of category mistake. Atkinson comes closest to the mark when he observes that Inland Empire is purely a movie and nothing else. It strikes me that the film’s organizing principle is cinematic possibility, and that we witness, in essence, a kaleidoscope of set-pieces involving sub-genres of screen gothic (Southern gothic in the traditional sense, mean street gothic, mafia gothic, redneck gothic), though none are fully realized or contextualized. Continue reading On David Lynch’s Inland Empire
Today marks the 30th anniversary of the release of The Empire Strikes Back. Along with 1935’s Bride of Frankenstein, Empire is very likely the greatest movie sequel ever made. Our congratulations to everyone involved who made that marvelous picture possible, and in particular to director Irvin Kershner.
Although it’s difficult to appreciate today, the film took several enormous risks – among which were: 1) George Lucas putting up all of his own money to get the film made (only an emergency bank loan saved the picture after the production dragged on for months); 2) basing so much of the film around an untested character named Yoda, brought to life as a rubber puppet; 3) the film’s dark tone; 4) the most whopping end-of-film revelation in movie history.
I have a very distinct memory of seeing Empire in a theater when I was 9 years old. I was in a theater in Redondo Beach, near the present-day Redondo Galleria. I recall being thunderstruck at the revelation that Luke’s father was Darth Vader – to such a degree that I was actually a bit skeptical. [Vader must be lying! How could it be true?] But the overall effect of the film was so powerful that at the end, as the credits rolled, a grown man sitting in front of me shot up out of his chair and cheered. You always hear about that sort of thing happening, but rarely ever see it. The sense in the theater was that the film was so good, nobody wanted to leave! I actually thought for a second that the theater was going to be barricaded so the next audience couldn’t come in. [We did, eventually, let people in.] I’m not sure I’ve ever had that experience since.
On a personal note, I’d like to congratulate Empire‘s director, Irvin Kershner. I’m one of the many filmmakers whom Kersh has mentored over the years, and am proud to call Kersh a friend. Kersh has had an extraordinary career both as a director of huge franchise pictures (he’s the only person to have directed both a “Star Wars” and James Bond film), and also some wonderful indie gems (my favorite is probably Hoodlum Priest). Kersh has touched so many lives, and has had such an extraordinary legacy among filmmakers – and on this day I just want to thank him and wish him the very best.
Needless to say, they’re not making large-scale films of this quality any more. The factors that make Empire work so well are not so much the visual effects – as wonderful as they were – but the psychology of the film, the interactions of the characters. One thinks here not only of Luke’s relationship with his father – but also the budding, sparkling romance between Han and Leia, and Yoda’s tumultuous training of Luke as the last remaining Jedi. There’s something refreshingly adult and mature about this film.
It’s debatable, I think, whether Empire is actually a better film than the original Star Wars as so many critics say. Star Wars was so fresh and original – and came out of nowhere – and its purpose and tone are different. But no sequel has enlarged and deepened a film series, and taken such risks, like Empire did.
As a final note, I’m very much looking forward to J.W. Rinzler’s forthcoming book, The Making of The Empire Strikes Back. You can pre-order Rinzler’s book through LFM by clicking on the link below. Rinzler’s previous Making of Star Wars was a marvelous read; I had no idea what a harrowing production that film was, and what George had to do to get the film made. I’m looking forward to learning more about the huge effort associated with getting Empire made, and about the true origins of Boba Fett …
• And here’s an interview with the star of the new Carlos the Jackal film, which recently debuted at Cannes. Apparently he’s being fought-over for dueling Hugo Chavez biopics.
And that’s what’s happening today in the wonderful world of Hollywood …
[Editor’s note: this is the first of a new LFM series of ‘visual essays’ for classic movie fans, called “Classic Cinema Obsession” by Jennifer Baldwin.]
This Week’s Classic Cinema Obsession: SCANDAL SHEET (Phil Karlson, 1952)
Why do so many old movie obsessives (myself included) love Film Noir? Maybe it’s because so many films noir feature characters who are also, one way or another, obsessives themselves. Obsessed with money, with power, with justice, with a member of the opposite sex. The old movie obsessive can identify with these characters; we know what it’s like to have a passion that is all-consuming, which takes over our lives.
But classic film buffs like me love Noir for another reason too: Film Noir satisfies our obsessions. Beneath the surface of these B-movie programmers with their tightly woven plots and genre thrills, old movie obsessives can find complex, multi-layered themes and characters; hidden, coded messages about society and the human psyche; and a wealth of stylistic touches that make these films an endless source of study and analysis for the dedicated cinephile. In less than 90 minutes, your average film noir can provide an old movie obsessive with hours, days, years of film geek fun.
That’s what we’ve got with SCANDAL SHEET, a well-written, gritty and cynical little crime flick from director Phil Karlson, starring Broderick Crawford, John Derek, and Donna Reed, and based on a novel by Samuel Fuller (yeah, that Sam Fuller). It aired on TCM May 19, 2010 (2:00 AM EST) as part of their Star of the Month tribute to Ms. Reed and it’s my Classic Cinema Obsession of the Week. Continue reading Classic Cinema Obsession: SCANDAL SHEET (Phil Karlson, 1952)
Just a quick reminder to our Christian and/or conservative readers that a heartwarming little movie called Letters to God is currently out now in theaters. You can check for local listings here.
Even several months after its opening the film hasn’t received a great deal of media attention, but it appears to still be packing in audiences and doing good business – no small feat for any indie filmmaker … The movie is obviously getting good word-of-mouth.
The trailer for Letters to God is available on You Tube here.
Patrol Base Jaker is a feature-length documentary film about the US Marine Corps and the practice of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. The film apparently covers of the history of Afghanistan from the Soviet invasion to the current U.S. war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
We haven’t had the chance to see it yet, but Patrol Base Jaker recently unspooled at the GI Film Festival in Washington, and will apparently be released in theaters this summer (check the film’s website for further details). The trailer certainly makes the film look interesting, so check it out …
