Altman at his best/worst: Pret a Porter

Altman loved his sprawling ensemble pieces, and when they worked: Gosford Park, The Player, Nashville, they are quite masterful testaments to the power of film to silently observe human interactions.  Watching Pret a Porter the other day I was struck by Altman’s grand vision, even if he doesn’t manage to pull it off.  I don’t believe this film is as bad as some critics commented, but it isn’t a masterpiece either.  It has also not dated fairly well, probably a result of the fact it was filmed on location at the 1994 Paris Spring Collections.  The times have moved on, reflected not only in the fashions but the fact this film is somewhat unique in its scope and attitude.  How many films today attempt the grand ensemble tradition as displayed here?

The dialogue in Pret a Porter is ultra naturalistic- people talking on top of people, confusion and deliberately murky audio.  Altman creates a pseudo-documentary style but there are also some striking visual moments that work against this and end up placing the film in a murky no man’s land- his directorial flourishes ensure this isn’t a traditional mockumentary, but it aint a conventional feature film either.  The various sub plots variously stop and start and amount to not much- this is not a traditional narrative but rather a glimpse at the behind the scenes goings on at an event.  Just as he has for radio, the movie business and other spheres, Altman is laying bare the mechanics at the heart of the fashion world.

I failed to immerse myself in this world of fashion, as perhaps Altman intended, partly because he utilises such a strong cast (and quite a few notable cameos) that it is hard not to play “Spot the Actor”.  Tim Robbins, Julia Roberts, Lauren Baccall, Sophia Loren, Linda Hunt, Tracy Ullman, Kim Basinger, Rupert Everett, Richard E. Grant, Forest Whitaker, Jean Rochefort…such a strong and numerous cast can ultimately detract, particularly if they are just jumping in and out of the film.  Not to mention the cameos from the likes of Jean Paul Gautier and Naomi Campbell.  It’s hard not to feel Altman is just lumping them in there for stunt value, and not for some attempt at verisimilitude.

Having said that, when compared with other fashion oriented films such as The Devil Wears Prada the totallity of Altman’s exploration is made clearer.  We may not get much backstory but we do get a

slightly overlong glimpse into the characters and events behind the scenes of fashion.

The sprawling nature of much of Altman’s work has its benefits and drawbacks, both of which are clearly evident in this film.

Weird Science

Man have I been slacking off.  Anyway from today I will endeavour to talk about, as the title suggests, a film a day.  Or something approaching that.  And here we go.

-

Eighties teenpics haven’t particularly aged that well (Sixteen Candles borders on racism, The Breakfast Club has a rather copout Hollywood ending and Weird Science’s naff title song) but they’re still an ideal prism for exploring the teenage years we all go through and I have only recently realised we never experience again.  Which may be why these films remain popular: not just for the teenagers who they seem to talk to, but the adults who maybe want to go back to what are, on many accounts, some of the best years of our lives.  But let’s get to one movie in particular.  Weird Science may have aged the worst of the Hughes teenpic cycle (check out Kelly Le Brock’s hair), but it still remains a lot of, surprisingly risque, fun.

Weird Science is a teenpic retelling of the Frankenstein story (intertextually woven into the film on a few occassions).  Fifteen year olds Wyatt and Gary, two best friend “losers” create a virtual “perfect woman” who comes to life.  She attempts to transform their lives, and in the process gives them the self confidence to realise that their lives are good enough already.

The thing about watching teenpics from twenty five years ago is that what you are watching is tinged by the knowledge that things have changed. Anthony Michael Hall is now 40 and Robert Downey Jnr has moved on to far bigger and better things than his bit part in this (while we’re on this theme count Bill Pullman’s role in this film and John Cusack as a geek in Sixteen Candles).  The fun and hijinks that the two guys get up to here, and that we all got up to (OK so we don’t all create frankenbabes but you get my point) at a certain point ceases to be fashionable.  Which, to be honest, makes me feel a bit sad.  Sad as it is, these kids will one day turn into the sniffy grandparents or overbearing parents that are also depicted in Hughe’s films.  This sense of inevitability that comes from watching a movie knowing its kids have moved on adds a tinge of melancholy to an otherwise broad teen comedy.  Which is perhaps why I am getting into these movies so much.

Anthony Michael Hall has three iconic roles, all variations (but, crucially, not just identikits) of the outsider geek.  He was plain annoying in Sixteen Candles, surprisingly fragile in The Breakfast Club (a character I definitely related to) and here he plays a more comedic, stronger version of his Sixteen Candles character.  After the cruel first scene where he and Wyatt are dacked in front of a gym full of girls, you know he deserves a bit of a break.

It is undeniable that sexuality plays a surprisingly major role in this film.  It is inferred that the “perfect woman” Lisa takes fifteen year old Wyatt’s virginity, and there is a rather out of place scene in which Lisa tells Gary’s parents that she is taking him to “an orgy” with “whips”.  As you do.  Add to this the phallic imagery of a missile piercing through the bedroom floor and you get a teenpic that, in its own gentle way, is pushing boundaries.

Weird Science may not be the best of the eighties highschool film but it is a lot of fun.  And as a piece of eighties popular culture it is required viewing, along with Hughes’ other great teenpics.

UPDATE

Regular posting on this blog will commence this Monday August 18th.

The Dark Knight and the Urban Environment

Batman surveying the seedy anonymity of Gotham City below

I have always been drawn to explorations of the urban environment in cinema, from the intricisies of small towns to the sprawling anonymity of megalopolises, and in fact this is one of the reasons why I would list Garden State (Braff 2004) as my favourite film of all time (but that’s for another post). Although Nolan perhaps doesn’t explore it quite as much as I had hoped, or even as much as Burton’s Batman films, I believe that characters and their relationships to Gotham City are central to the success of The Dark Knight as a new kind of blockbuster.

The importance of Gotham City itself to the film is even emphasised in the viral marketing campaign for the film. Countless fake websites were set up that add to the verisimilitude of Gotham City (all currently “defaced” by the Joker character). Gotham City Ferries, Gotham National Bank, Gotham Police Force, Betty’s House of Pies…the list goes on. What, then, does Nolan say about the city? Note that this is all being written after one viewing of the film, and will be revised and expanded upon with subsequent viewings and interpretations.

Skyscrapers as Gilded Cages

Bruce Wayne and the other “good” protagonists (Harvey Dent, Lucius Fox, Rachel Dawes et. al.) all inhabit a glamorous high rise world completely disconnected from the world down below. With money comes comfortable safety, these are the gilded cages that protect the Gotham elite. This is a world where no matter who you are- from the spheres of business, the arts, or law- as long as you have money you can sit in a comfortable restaurant (owned by Bruce Wayne of course) and indulge in conversation about how undesirable Gotham City is (as the characters indeed do at one point.) There is a sense that perhaps Bruce Wayne is getting bored with this world when he falls asleep at a board meeting. But in the next scene he is shown looking out the window, admiring the view of Gotham City, and the glamour of literally high living is restored once more.

The first sign that perhaps highrises are not as safe as their inhabitants believe is when Batman, on a sojourn to Hong Kong (also interesting as it reinforces the notion of Gotham City as a real place, whose characters can travel to real locations), manages to perform his own brand of a citizen’s arrest on a “creative accountant” working for the mob. Highrise or lowrise, small time crook or millionaire financier, Batman can find you. Which is all well and good, until the Joker intervenes at a fund raising party Bruce Wayne holds in his penthouse apartment. This is the pivotal moment, the realisation that “evil” sofar as it is represented here, has now exploded even into the gilded cages. This is also the impetus for Batman and the police force to act: once the high rise world of sophisticated comfort is threatened, a renewed sense of urgency is injected into the fight against evil.

A portion of the Gotham City rail network

City Crime, Threateningly Real or Overexagerrated?

What is most interesting is that Gotham City is constantly referred to as a violent, crime riddled city, but we don’t really see evidence of this, aside from the various showdowns between Batman and the his enemies. “Criminals in this town used to stand for something” the unfortunate Bank Manager says in the opening bank robbery scene, inferring that even people in respected jobs such as his come into contact with this undesirable element of any big city on a regular, even mundane basis. The goings-on of the mob play a crucial role in the plot, to be sure, but their actions only really affect other members of the mob and those whose job it is to shut them down. Where is the senseless murder, the random muggings and rapes and killings that would characterise a truly crime ridden city? They are nowhere to be seen, which of course does not necessarily mean they do not exist. But perhaps their nature has been overstated by various characters looking to justify Batman’s existence, an interesting political parallel. Of course, when the Joker bursts onto the scene with his threats to ambulances and ferries, Batman is definitely needed, and there is suddenly a very real threat to the innocent working people of Gotham.

Terrorism and a City Under Threat

When the funeral procession comes under fire you know that it is only a matter of time before Gotham City becomes a city on edge. Here is a sad event that has united the city: there are mourners all along the sidewalks. But when the Joker makes his assassination attempt the crowd scatters in fear, drawing inevitable parallels with New York’s experience in 2001. But that’s only the start of it: the Joker blows up a hospital and forces two ferries to choose between blowing the other up or being both blown up. In a very bleak film, the fact that neither ferry can bring themselves to blow the other up, despite one ferry overwhelmingly voting to do so, is Nolan’s optimistic testament to humanity’s shared kindness and concern. The look on the Joker’s face when this occurs is menacingly priceless: for once the citizens of Gotham refused to play in the chaos agent’s games.

Harvey Dent, Gotham's symbol of city-wide hope and justice.

The Face of the City

The ultimate city-related issue Nolan explores in The Dark Knight is emblems and symbols of cities. When one thinks of the grand cities in the world: New York has the Statue of Liberty, Sydney the harbour, Paris the Eiffel Tower, Beijing Tianamen Square all cultural symbols that represent and are emblematic of the city’s personality. Although Batman would be a strong contender, in The Dark Knight it is highly suggested that Gotham’s symbol is Harvey Dent. Here is a man much like ordinary Gotham citizens, fed up with crime and the festering rot that has set in. However it is his transformation into Two Face which blows this apart. What hope do we all have if this one symbol of what is all well and good in Gotham City is horribly disfigured and ultimately driven crazy by jealousy and revenge? Two Face is, for a short time, at once light and dark, good and evil, chaos and control. But in the film’s final scenes he well and truly gives in to the darker aspect of his personality. It is inevitable, Nolan is saying, for cities treading the fine line between good and bad to finally give in to chaos and corruption, just as the “White Knight” does here.

Introduction

This is my new exercise in blogging. I have left my old sprawling blog behind for something a little more focussed. Having been inspired by such blogs as Only The Cinema and The House Next Door I decided to get in on the critically-appraising-films action. This will be a scatter-gun record of my daily film viewing, with no pretentions to anything else.  Posts will be of various sizes on various aspects of films I see…some will be reviews, some will be essays on aspects of the film, and some will be entirely different.  I hope you enjoy the ride as much as I do.