The Dark Fight.

As year end critics' lists begin to emerge, the terrific "Iron Man" is being found in several of them (including "The NY Post", "The New Yorker" and "TIME"); the equally worthy "The Dark Knight" not so much.
In several award sites and forums a lot is being made about how Iron Man has stolen the Batman's thunder, but honestly how can anyone with a slight reasoning mind say this?
Proving that Batman's core of supporters is made out of mindless fanboys, they are arguing how it's unfair for one movie to be there while the other is not.
When did "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight" become exchangeable?
Both films surpassed critical and box office expectations and perhaps the one thing they have in common is that they were adapted from comic books.
Other than that they stand at completely opposite levels: one is a joyous throwback to pure comic book aesthetics while the other is an attempt at neo noir with hints of social picture.
Both films were released during the summer and not counting the fact that critics' lists are completely subjective, individual works we might take a look that the sociopolitical effect might've had in both films come awards season.
Maybe Batman proved too dark with the way the economy threw people around and Iron Man's optimism was what they needed. Again, films have always been subjective to the times, just take a look at the Oscar winners during WWII, especially the fact that "How Green Was My Valley" beat "Citizen Kane" for Best Picture.
One is arguably the greatest film ever made, the other is one is also a very good film, but during the time, not counting Orson Welles' ego, people were in need of a traditional look at how values make society survive.
Does this make "Valley" a bad picture? Not at all, but then again this is perhaps seeing too much into something that shouldn't even be argued.
For all we know when all is said and done, none of the films will have important places in critics' lists or one might have more mentions. They'd end up being apples and oranges no matter what (last year nobody made a fuss about how "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood" were dark, brooding, absolutely inhuman westerns and they both were critical darlings throughout the season).
Why then must they be compared and pitted against each other?
If this stupid reaction continues not only will there be a backlash for both films, but for the whole comic book style which has had an already hard enough time getting some respect.
If fanboys say that one film making a list means the other one was kicked out aren't they in a way saying that therefore all comic book films are the same and should be treated so?

Another Reason Why I Love Musicals.

Despite being highly discriminated against nowadays, they are the most inclusive of film styles, as seen in this picture from "The Band Wagon" where they do film noir.

The Moment He Saw Her Smile...

From Liz and Richard to Russell and Meg, people making movies and falling in love is as common as their eventual separations.
One of the most well known film to real life romances was Vincente Minnelli falling for Judy Garland while he directed her in "Meet Me in St. Louis". It's funny now considering the fact that Judy tried hard not to make the movie (she wanted adult roles), Minnelli eventually convinced her and the rest as they say is history.
The musical became one of the most beloved examples of classic Hollywood and a huge moneymaker back in the day (as well as perhaps the first completely modern film musical, but that's another story). In one of the interviews included in the DVD, the legendary Liza Minnelli expresses how you can see her dad falling for her mom throughout the film because of the way she is photographed.
And it is actually true; watching her specifically you realize it's more than mere Golden Age beautifying, sometimes the camera seems to caress Judy's face (she never looked more beautiful in any of her other films) and he, always, frames her (even using her hands as means of framing) as if trying to grasp her essence for a moment (as proved in the following pictures).
When she performs "The Boy Next Door", her Esther wasn't the only one sighing, apparently Vincente came to direct a movie and lost his heart instead.



- This post is part of "Musical of the Month" hosted by Nathaniel Rogers of "The Film Experience".

Tony Manero **

Director: Pablo Larraín
Cast: Alfredo Castro, Paola Lattus, Héctor Morales
Amparo Noguera, Elsa Poblete

It's 1979 Chile, Augusto Pinochet has been in power for most of the decade, human rights have completely vanished and while armored cars patrol Santiago, people are killed for carrying anti-establishment pamphlets.
But for 52 year old Raúl (Castro) the only thing that matters is becoming Tony Manero. Obsessed with John Travolta's "Saturday Night Fever" character he spends his time watching the film while he phonetically learns the dialogues and rehearsing for a show in the guesthouse where he lives with the intention of winning a Manero look-a-like contest on national television.
If the premise sounds like a quirky comedy, the film becomes something else when Raúl helps an old lady after she's mugged.
Once she thanks him for his aid he murders her, steals her television set and pawns it for the glass bricks he needs to emulate the film's club dancefloor.
We don't know if this is the first time he's killed, but soon, and for the rest of the film, this becomes his modus operandi as he uses murder to reach his ultimate goal.
Castro's comitted performance is a thing to behold. His languid figure and wrinkled face could pass at some degree for the mug of some Eastern European droll comedian, but the blank stare in his eyes and his uninterested attitude give you chills.
Castro is able to convey a dark inner force that drives Raúl to commit acts of complete inhumanity with no evidence of remorse (what he does when the people from the theater take away "Saturday Night Fever" takes costumer service to a whole different level).
Like Patrick Bateman in Mary Harron's "American Psycho", Larraín's murderous Raúl is a product of insanity in spite, not because, of the sociopolitical climate.
But while "Psycho" criticized the materialistic, hedonistic culture of the 80's yuppies, "Tony Manero" has a hard time deciding exactly what it's trying to say.
At some point it becomes obvious that Raúl is a representation of Chile, not a citizen in Pinochet's regime, but the country itself.
As damaged and dirty as the city is impoverished and falling apart, Raúl conveys the battle between nationalism and irrational wishes of grandeur that was being held by Pinochet supporters and rebellious groups.
Like the military regime Raúl takes everything by force; one scene has him grab his girlfriend's (Noguera) daughter (Lattus), taking her to his room and attempting sex with her.
There are a couple of sex scenes in the film that are raw and ugly to look at and Larraín stresses the fact that Raúl has an impotence problem (one of his encounters has his companion preferring to masturbate while he sighs in disappointment).
But if he is a representation of Pinochet's troops what does his impotence mean? Now, after the dictator's death it has a sort of comic effect, but within the film's context it makes no sense, especially because the women around him are always lusting after him.
It would make sense perhaps if sex was related to Raúl's inner life, but the director has a hard time separating the character from his symbolism.
As with his obsession with Manero, why choose a character that represented the peak of a country's popular culture?
Is it means of contrast between the sexual liberation up North and the fear and poverty in the South? Or is Larraín simply pointing out the fact that Chile, like Raúl were at the time highly influenced by American culture? Considering that Pinochet's rise to power was aided by the CIA, Raúl's fascination with Manero results as some sort of accusation towards the American way of life, but also a critique to Chilean citizens who saw this and tried to adapt themselves to this lifestyle.
During one scene someone tells Raúl how some other guy would never win the contest, "he's too brown" she says, implying some sort of cultural self denial (the film also makes an issue out of this whenever someone asks Raúl if he likes folkloric music).
With "Tony Manero" director Larraín proves that he has a great ability by transforming recent history into a dark, wicked metaphor. But like his antihero, who after the contest stares at the camera with a "now what?" look, the film doesn't know what to do with what it has.

Things I Don't Miss About the Studio System.

Things I Miss About the Studio System.

Even bit players got the good lighting.

Her Sugar is Raw.

"I'm not fussy, I eat what you put in front of me."
- Marie (Madonna) to the Clown (John Malkovich) in "Shadows and Fog".