Blindspot: Fight Club (1999)

I'd like to go on the record to say that I've never been the biggest fan of David Fincher. I'd seen two movies of his before this one and neither made a huge impact. I could never get into The Social Network the same way everyone else seemed to, and I felt lis ike Panic Room had a very good buildup that ended up leading to an underwhelming conclusion. Still, Fight Club was a movie I kept hearing about everywhere. Everyone seemed to be talking about Fight Club (even though both the first and second rule of Fight Club is that you're not supposed to talk about Fight Club).

Naturally, since it was also iconic enough to be easy to find it made a good candidate for my 2015 Blindspot list. This was a popular one, just about everybody who commented on my lists recommended that I see Fight Club, and out of the Fincher movies I've seen so far, this is probably the best. The surprising thing is that Fight Club proved to be absolutely nothing like I would have expected from its premise. I wasn't completely sure what to expect, but it proved to be a very strange and disorienting film that went in some odd directions.

An unnamed character played by Edward Norton is an everyday man who has a dull job in an office and is suffering from clinical depression and insomnia. When he tries to consult a doctor and claims to be "suffering" this character is told to visit a testicular cancer support group to see what pain really means. He does so and finds this to be an unexpectedly pleasant experience after making friends with a man named Robert "Bob" Paulsen (Meat Loaf). Suddenly he realizes that support groups are comforting to him and he begins sneaking into several other support groups. After a few weeks, he has become a regular participant in just about every type of support group except a support group for people who have addictions for sneaking into support groups. One day he encounters a strange mentally unstable woman named Marla Singer who also begins doing the same thing, coincidentally sneaking into every single one of the same support groups.

The part with the actual "Fight Club" begins when the main character encounters Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), a projectionist and part-time waiter whose hobbies include urinating in people's food and splicing pornographic shots into family films (why the theater he works at hasn't already sacked him I don't know). When the protagonist's apartment mysteriously catches fire, he has no choice but to turn to Durden for a place to stay. The two of them then begin getting into regular fights outside a local bar which draws interest from other patrons. This leads to the idea of starting an underground "Fight Club" where men (women are excluded, presumably the result of a certain choice made by Marla) can beat the crap out of each other as a way of venting all their anger.

At first it proves effective and becomes extremely popular, but over time things spiral out of control as fight clubs begin emerging around America. Increasingly large numbers of men join in, and suddenly it begins to turn into something more closely resembling a terrorist organization. Combining that with an... unexpected twist about how these two men are connected, the protagonist quickly finds himself in over his head and needing to do something about it fast, but Fight Club always seems to be one step ahead.

Naturally, this is one violent movie (which is saying something considering Kill Bill and Gangs of New York were also on my list for this year). The fight scenes are extremely vivid and graphic and there are a lot of them (and that's just the fistfights, not even getting into the attempted castration or self-inflicted gunshot wounds). The film also demonstrates quite effectively just how much those fights must hurt. Curiously enough, for once I also found I was never totally bothered by the lack of women. I couldn't help noticing it and found it a curious choice but I presume it had something to do with Tyler's characterization. They also seemed to constantly draw attention to the men's backwards thinking. I also never could seem to decide if Helena Bonham Carter's role of Marla Singer was a strong female character or not. In any case, she was certainly still an interesting and eccentric figure.

The plot of the movie, on the other hand, is quite a disorienting one. I will definitely give credit that I did not see a lot of the twists coming, especially the big reveal about where Tyler comes from (which I will refrain from stating), but I'm still not sure I understood everything that went on here. It certainly got confusing on several occasions, since there was a lot of stuff going on and I will also confess that I had some trouble wrapping my mind around some of the twists. I'm not sure if that's good or bad, or if it just means this is the kind of movie one has to watch several times to fully understand. It's certainly got me thinking about it which is a good sign.

From what I've seen of David Fincher's work, Fight Club is probably one of his best if only on the grounds that as weird and disorienting as it is I could actually get into it unlike The Social Network or Panic Room. It is a curious and strange movie to be sure, one that I'm still not totally sure I understand but certainly a film that seems to be worth talking about. The first rule of fight club is that you're not supposed to talk about Fight Club, but for this movie that seems like a rule worth breaking.

Blindspot: Back to Bataan (1945)

I'll be honest here and admit that I did not go into this one with high expectations. Back to Bataan was a film that had been sitting in my drawer for years. The truth is the only reason I had it was because of this one time I found it among some low-priced DVDs and I happened to be a big John Wayne fan at the time. If it hadn't been for him I probably would have overlooked this one entirely. Going in now offered a better understanding of why the film was made, but that was really about it. I expected this film to be basically American propaganda and I was more or less right, as you can expect from a Hollywood film made just as World War II was ending.

Though the film begins with a disclaimer claiming that the story is based on real events, Back to Bataan is really a sequel to a 1943 combat film called Bataan. That film centered on a small ragtag group of American soldiers who were forced to band together in order to make a stand against the Japanese. Bataan basically ended with everybody dying and the last man standing trying to take as many Japanese soldiers with him as he can. There was then a title card which promised that one day America would return to avenge its fallen soldiers and retake Bataan.

Unfortunately, real life failed to deliver on that promise, so a sequel was made to "fulfill" it: Back to Bataan. That's literally all this film is: it's an American fantasy made to fulfill a so-called promise made in a single film two years earlier because reality didn't work out the way people wanted it to. John Wayne plays the role of Colonel Joseph Madden, an army officer given some kind of top secret mission to unite members of the Filipino resistance against the oppression of the Japanese. Meanwhile, a middle-aged teacher named Bertha Barnes (Beulah Bondi) is running a school at a local village in which she tries to force American values on provide a proper education for Filipino children. Unfortunately for her, the village is invaded by Japanese soldiers who show they mean business by hanging the principal over the American flag. Then some stuff happens and Madden suddenly decides to try and help the village or something while we occasionally get glimpses of Japanese atrocities.

One thing I only found out after seeing Back to Bataan is that the filmmakers were trying to keep up to date with current events in the war and had to keep changing the script according to major developments. Unfortunately for them, it really shows. The story gets extremely disjointed and confusing as the film develops, probably the result of all the abrupt changes being made to accommodate what was going on in the actual war. None of the characters really seemed particularly memorable, and plot threads seem to come and go out of nowhere. Even the basic military objectives of the main characters weren't very well explained.

There were also plot threads that never really seemed to connect; like the film begins and ends with the liberation of a Japanese POW camp and then takes the time to identify several of the captives... and it has no connection to the rest of the story. It never ties into the central plot, none of the POWs named make an appearance outside of those scenes, let alone have a part in the actual narrative. The POW raid itself was also ridiculous, considering it happened in the most unsubtle way imaginable and in real life the Americans would probably have been slaughtered.

In many ways, Back to Bataan is really a product of its time. While some credit could be given to there being at least an attempt to present strong sympathetic Filipino characters, most of them are stereotypes by today's standards and the choice to cast Anthony Quinn, a white actor, as someone who is supposed to be Asian can definitely leave a bad taste for modern viewers. Also true to propaganda of the era, the Japanese are given no humanity. The only Japanese character of note is a single officer (the rest are anonymous soldiers) who is also a very obvious stereotype and treated as a monster. While historically the Japanese did commit some horrifying war crimes and ran POW camps that calling inhumane would be an understatement, this part of the film has definitely not aged well.

The only thing that I would say makes Back to Bataan at all a worthwhile experience for anyone is from a purely historical perspective. It does offer some insight into American views of World War II and makes sense for scholars who want to study this film and how it fits into contemporary cinematic reactions to the war. So for academics and scholars this film might be okay to look at, but for casual viewing there are better options as far as John Wayne movies go. Personally, I'd say John Wayne's later propaganda film The Green Berets is a better choice; as much as most people today would disagree with its pro-Vietnam messages at least that one was somewhat entertaining and had a coherent story. There isn't much of that in Back to Bataan.

Blindspot: The Killing (1956)

I've made no secret on my blog of the fact that Stanley Kubrick is one of my all-time favorite directors, but until very recently there were still two of his movies that had eluded me. These were his second and third films: Killer's Kiss and The Killing. Both naturally seemed like logical choices for the 2015 Blindspot Challenge, but ultimately it was The Killing that made it onto the final list. I saw Killer's Kiss last week, so this was the last Kubrick film I had not already seen, at least out of his feature films (I still need to see his early documentary work), and now I can say I've seen them all. So far, the only other director for whom I could make the same claim is David Lynch, who I might know better than Kubrick now as I've not only seen all of his features but also most of his shorts, a large portion of his television work, his paintings, and his various bizarre web shows like Dumbland and Rabbits that sometimes get even weirder than his movies.

The Killing was Kubrick's third feature, after presenting an unusual war story in Fear and Desire and somehow getting away with quite a few violations of the Production Code in Killer's Kiss. Johnny Clay (Sterling Hayden, who would later work with Kubrick again in Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb) is a criminal mastermind who has planned a brilliant heist on a local racetrack. He has assembled a crew of tough men, including corrupt cop Randy Kennan (Ted De Corsia). He has an in-depth understanding of how the race track works and has figured out every angle necessary to steal a large amount of money, with every person having a role to play. However, one of the participants, George Peatty (Elisha Cook Jr.) accidentally mentions it to his wife Sherry, who much to his frustration refuses to be submit to him and be a typical 1950's housewife. What George doesn't know is that Sherry is having an affair with another criminal named Val (Vince Edwards), who she informs about the planned heist. The job goes off perfectly, but afterwards complications turn what would have been a successful heist into a bloodbath (and a pretty gory one for 1956).

So how did I feel about seeing this film? I'm not entirely sure. This post has actually proven to be very hard to write since I don't really have a lot of specific comments related to the film. It's okay, but Kubrick would go on to do far better (2001: A Space Odyssey being a standout example). Personally I would say I enjoyed Killer's Kiss a lot more. Sterling Hayden delivers a reasonable performance that makes his character interesting enough, and Sherry makes for a decent femme fatale antagonist. However, the rest of the cast isn't really all that memorable. For one thing, I didn't feel like Marvin's role in the whole operation was very well explained; he was apparently supposed to be financing the heist somehow... but they were planning to steal money so spending money to steal money seems a bit redundant, and I'm not sure why he was helping them either since he seemed to be doing okay for himself.

The actual heist was still fairly well-executed. Kubrick really defied the Studio System this time around by presenting a narrative that jumps back and forth through time (though a voice-over narration helps to establish when everything happens in relation to each other). Taking this approach, he is able to spend time focusing on each individual involved with the crime and illustrate their role in the heist. Once it's done, it makes sense why each person was involved and what they contributed (except Marvin, who I still feel they could have explained better). It also gives time to focus on developing each of the individual characters, and in some cases the problems they encountered (one guy ends up in the awkward situation of having to pretend to be racist to get a parking attendant to leave him alone; this strategy also ends up backfiring in an unexpected way). Still, as interesting as all this was, I can't say I ever felt emotionally invested with anyone in particular.

In addition to that, I think the ending may have been a little contrived. They set up a plot thread with Val, but he only shows up in two scenes. He appears near the beginning when he finds out about the heist and decides to get involved, and then they forget about him until he suddenly shows up again at the very end and there's a shootout that somehow ends up killing everyone. It didn't seem clear from the editing so when everyone suddenly turned up dead it was a bit confusing. There is a bit of comedic value to how Johnny Clay is eventually caught, but even that seemed a little contrived. I get why it ended this way: it wasn't unusual for noir films of the time, especially those centering on criminals, to have a "crime doesn't pay" message at the end (usually involving the deaths of said criminals), I just wonder if there might have been a better way to do it.

The Killing is an interesting experience, and I'm glad I saw it, but I don't think this really strikes me as Kubrick's finest work. Of course, even a great director has to start somewhere, and Kubrick seems to be doing his best with the source material and working under the Production Code, but this is probably a very good example of Kubrick's biggest difficulty in his early career: he always needed complete control over everything, and he probably did not get that here. Still, The Killing does have its merits and it isn't that long a film so I'd say it is still worth looking at if you get the chance.

Blindspot: Gangs of New York (2002)

I won't go on the record to say that this one is my favorite Blindspot so far, and I will also confess it was not one I obtained under the most pleasant circumstances. It happened when I was in college, back when I was still collecting films by Lynch and Cronenberg. At the time, both directors proved extremely elusive, and for whatever reason it was very hard to find films by Lynch (with the exceptions of Blue Velvet and Mulholland Dr., though Lost Highway appears to have since become easier to obtain). I'd just figured out how to use my debit card and I was having some trouble controlling how much I'd spend at a time on films. Adding to that, because of how frustrating it was locating films by either director, I started to find other targets to search for in between. This came from Martin Scorsese's crime films.

Gangs of New York was one I picked up for no real reason other than because I'd enjoyed some of Scorese's other films while I was also buying Lost Highway and Inland Empire. I had no real reason to buy it at the time, and for a few years it sat in the drawer, probably out of personal shame. I'm not proud of those days, and while I still struggle sometimes with saving money I have since made a more concerted effort to avoid spending recklessly on films. Still, a few films remain in my collection from incidents like this one (another film on my Blindspot list, Atonement, was also obtained through similar circumstances). That naturally made it perfect material for the 2015 Blindspot Challenge.

When people think of the 19th century, the images that often come to mind are those of upper-class Victorian England. I'm talking about the fancy houses, the men in suits, ties, and top hats, women in elegant dresses. Typically the men are in business or some respectable career, smoke thick cigars, and like to drink tea. The "Victorian gentleman" is itself one of many stereotypes commonly associated with the English people. What many do not understand is that the world was far more complicated than that, and what we get here is another side to that same era. This is arguably the greatest strength displayed by Gangs of New York, as it was interesting to see this angle normally reduced to the background. Instead the lower class is placed front and center, and while I can't be 100% certain of its historical authenticity, it certainly makes for an interesting world.

It is the mid-19th century, and the American Civil War has just begun. It is a dark time for the American working class of New York, who live in a town torn apart by crime and prejudice. Every day thousands of Irish immigrants arrive in America only to be met with hate from the so-called "Natives" who through backwards thinking actually have a range of outrageous assumptions about the new arrivals that sadly weren't too uncommon for the time. At the same time, the society of New York has been split into various "tribes" in the form of gangs in constant conflict with each other. The most powerful of these gangs is led by a nasty man known as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting, who has eliminated most of the competing gangs and even bought out some of the authorities (and is also extremely vocal about his bigoted worldviews).

Also thrown into the mix is Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio), the son of a gang leader (Liam Neeson) killed by Cutting fifteen years earlier. Amsterdam is not pleased with the actions of Cutting, but manages to find a place in the latter's gang and works his way to being second in command. However, despite all outward appearances, Amsterdam is still loyal to his Irish heritage, and plots revenge against Cutting. Meanwhile, he also finds an unlikely friendship and eventual romance with a young Irish thief named Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz), who proves to be quite talented and a valuable ally. However, in the end, it is left open whether any change has really happened, with the ending montage suggesting that modern New York is not that much different.

One thing I will note I was pleasantly surprised by was the general moral ambiguity that came with this story. The film makes a point of highlighting early on just how messed up a world the characters are living in, with several very real issues for the period. These included situations like rivalries developing between early fire departments, something that actually happened quite often and caused a lot of trouble (two different groups would show up at the same emergency, and then get distracted fighting over which one gets to put out the fire). The racism and backwards thinking, like the various characters who claim that the Irish and people of colour are "stealing jobs" from white men, is absurd today but also not unusual for the 19th century.

The main character himself is not so much likable as interesting, but it helped that he was never fully portrayed as being the good guy. He may have had some sympathetic goals but on several occasions his methods are called into question and it is never totally certain if he is doing the right thing (this calls to mind similar vigilante themes explored in Scorsese's earlier film Taxi Driver). Cutting also makes a decent antagonist, though sometimes his mustache seems to be a distraction from the overall performance. The rest of the supporting cast do okay as well, though there aren't very many who particularly stand out.

One exception to that rule is Everdeane, who I will have to admit I was pleasantly surprised by. My initial expectations of the film included her simply being a love interest and motivation for Vallon, and while that was partially true it turned out to be a lot more complicated than that. Writing strong female characters into historical movies is note easy, especially in a period like the Victorian Era, but here they really pulled it off. She's a thief but she is also smart and capable of looking after herself (and indeed, saves herself on multiple occasions, as well as Vallon at least once), all while maintaining the illusion of being an "ideal" 19th century girl.

Another area where I can definitely give this film credit is its pacing. The full movie is almost three hours long, but it actually moves fairly quickly. I don't recall any specific point at which I felt a scene was going on longer than it needed to, and I could see it was trying to use the long runtime to its advantage. The only trouble was that there is a lot going on in that time. Maybe not quite as much as a movie like The Godfather or Scorsese's later film The Departed, but still a lot. The central narrative: that of Vallon, Everdeane, and Cutter, is pretty straight forward and easy to comprehend, but there are plenty of other characters and sub-plots that can be easy to lose track of.

I won't say that Gangs of New York is my favorite Blindspot so far, but it proved to be an interesting experience, and I'm certainly glad I watched it. It has its flaws but it is a compelling story with some amazing period detail that shows a side of history often overlooked. I'd recommend checking it out if you like Scorsese or want a good crime film, and even with the long running time it hardly feels like it's that long. If I were to label Scorsese's best crime films, I would probably choose either Goodfellas or Taxi Driver, but Gangs of New York is a reasonable second or third option, and I will say that it is definitely better than Raging Bull.

Blindspot: Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2 (2003 and 2004)

Okay, this is a little bit of an embarrassment. My love for strong female characters and my numerous articles encouraging better depictions of women in film are practically the stuff of legend around the blogging community, second perhaps only to my equally-notorious hatred for the films of Jean-Luc Godard. I've written a multitude of articles about how women are represented in film, and a large number of my reviews make a point of highlighting strong female characters or female characters that I find don't live up to standard. I have also made clear my love for action movies, and in particular action heroines.

Everybody else talked about how great a movie Snowpiercer was, I was the only one with the nerve to admit that I had some concerns about its general lack of female characters; and that's just the tip of the iceberg. That's not even getting into my more controversial criticisms of Ghostbusters and Sean Connery's Bond films in the ways they treat their female characters, or the fact that I seem to have some sort of quota in place when it comes to television programming, also for strong female leads. I've even had to deal with a mountain of angry IMDB users because I criticized the movies Black Sea and Alien Outpost for choosing to have an all-male cast when there was no reason it was necessary.

How is it, then, that it took me this long to see the popular two-part film featuring one of the most iconic action heroines in cinematic history? The Bride ranks as one of the biggest names among action girls, right up there with Sarah Connor, Ellen Ripley, Lara Croft, Xena, and Black Widow; and yet somehow I had failed to see Kill Bill before now. I should be ashamed of myself. It therefore made a perfect choice for my 2015 Blindspot List. Even more fitting is that I am doing this one now, seeing as I actually share my birthday (March 27) with Quentin Tarantino.

Uma Thurman stars as (*censored*), a former assassin who was also the victim of a massacre at her wedding, of which she was the only survivor. Four years later, this woman, known only as "The Bride" wakes up from a coma and, after dealing with a perverted orderly named Buck (Michael Bowen), begins planning her revenge against the people responsible for the massacre, led by a mysterious man simply known as "Bill". Tarantino's trademarks are all over this one, with the story being presented in anything but chronological order (similar to Pulp Fiction) and the frequent use of blood as a spectacle.

There is a lot I can see influenced Tarantino in the production of Kill Bill. The most obvious influence is the old Japanese samurai films such as those of Akira Kurosawa, but there are also elements of the martial arts film. More specifically, it appears to draw on the Wuxia style (also commonly nicknamed "Wi-Fu"), where the fight scenes are stylized and presented more as a dance, as is especially evident in the Bride's confrontation with Lucy Liu. There is also definitely a bit of the western mixed in for good measure, complete with desert landscapes and a cowboy character in the form of Michael Madsen as Budd.

This blending of different genres is also reflected in the various soundtracks employed by Tarantino, composed by RZA. Throughout the film, we get several pieces of music that fit a variety of different genres which normally would not be seen together. This includes tracks that sound like they would belong in a 70's blacksploitation movie, ones that should be in a martial arts film, and ones that actually sound like something Ennio Morricone would have composed for a Sergio Leone western (though Tarantino also uses the actual theme from A Fistful of Dollars in one scene). These changes in soundtrack create very different tones, fitting to the different environments encountered over the course of both installments.

Even the Bride herself has some elements of several prior action heroines before her. While she may be played by a Caucasian actress, her character arc is in some ways reminiscent of the heroines featured in 70's blacksploitation movies (to which Tarantino paid homage directly in his previous film, Jackie Brown), such as Foxy Brown. Much like the Bride, Foxy Brown (and many other heroines of blacksploitation cinema) is a woman who single-handedly takes on an entire gang in revenge for the murder of her boyfriend.

There is definitely a bit of Sarah Connor in there as well, particularly her Terminator 2 incarnation. Though the Bride does not show off her muscles as prominently (at least not in Volume 1), she does display a similar sense of determination. By Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Sarah develops into something closer to a hardbodied heroine than the reluctant heroine we met in The Terminator. Part of what makes Sarah so admirable as a character is her persistence. While the films don't hide the pain of her wounds, she is still able to keep getting up and fighting.

The Bride has something similar, where she keeps on going even when it is obvious that she is in excruciating agony (as one can expect from getting slashed multiple times and bashed in the head by a spiked ball on a chain). She is tough but she has those odd moments that allow us to see that she is still human. She has emotions and weaknesses just like everyone else (she doe seem genuinely scared when Budd tries to bury her alive). Her maternal instincts displayed in Vol. 2 also call to mind Sarah Connor as well as Ellen Ripley in Aliens.

This kind of character also has its roots in the "wise-guy" hero, popularized by John McClane in Die Hard, to which the Bride also has some similarities. Though perhaps not as much as McClane, the Bride does go through moments in which she acts as though she isn't taking her situation entirely seriously (i.e. casually agreeing to have coffee with someone she intends to kill) which add a bit of comedic tension once in a while. All of these create an interesting experience to be sure, but then there is the rest of the cast.

If there is one thing Kill Bill can't be accused of being short on, it's strong female characters. In addition to the Bride herself, both films produce an interesting selection of equally tough female antagonists. In fact the women in Kill Bill arguably bring out the most interesting fight scenes while the few male villains are mostly dispatched quickly. In Vol. 1 we have a brief but... interesting confrontation with Vivia A. Fox as Vernita Green (which is disrupted by her daughter arriving from school, forcing her and the Bride to hide the fact that they were just trying to kill each other a moment ago), but the real treat is when the Bride starts going after O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) and her assortment of eccentric characters.

O-Ren herself is quite a remarkable character. Not only is she talented with a sword, but she is also smart (she manages to take command of several Japanese crime syndicates) and still has a strange sense of nobility to her work. It's also not hard to fall in love with her personal bodyguard, Gogo (), a psychotic schoolgirl who likes to fling around a spiked ball on a chain in a disturbingly playful fashion. Also on board is her lawyer, Sophie Fatale (Julie Dreyfus), who is competent and tough in her own right, at least until she has her arm sliced clean off. Even the so-called "Crazy 88" (apparently there aren't actually 88 of them, the name just sounded cool) is of mixed gender if you look closely. In Vol. 2 we get another female villain, Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah), a one-eyed assassin who doesn't take crap from anyone male or female.

I've seen some great films come from Tarantino, and even the ones I didn't like (Inglorious Basterds) generally had something redeeming about them. This one continues show Tarantino's brilliance, as he never fails to amaze the viewer with a variety of crazy action scenes, characters, situations, and environments making every piece of the film seem a unique experience. The nonlinear structure also adds a strange sort of charm to the film, if in a disorienting kind of way similar to Pulp Fiction. I think there is a very good reason the Bride is often ranked as one of the greatest action heroines, because she is. She's right up there with Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley in terms of her competence and emotional depth. How have I not already seen this one?

Blindspot: Night of the Living Dead (1968)

I had to change around the order of my list for this one, as an unforseen scheduling issue prevented me from seeing it when I originally intended. When I chose to include George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead in my 2015 Blindspot List, I meant to watch it for Halloween. I had a DVD copy sitting in my drawer for a few years that I had not yet gotten around to watching, along with all the other films on my list. Everything was all worked out, and I'd even developed a few rough ideas of which movies I was going to watch during specific months. Unfortunately, one thing happened I had no way of anticipating: it turned out it was being shown in one of my classes during the last of week of January, and by the time I found out I'd already done my blindspot entry for that month. The simplest solution was to move Night of the Living Dead into February, since I was not sure if I would have time to watch any of the other movies on my list anyway.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, we can get on with the movie itself. The story is pretty simple, and summed up more or less by the title. Night of the Living Dead takes place over the course of a night, and there are malevolent reanimated human cadavers staggering around. This particular movie does have a certain historical significance from a cultural perspective in that it was responsible for popularizing the modern image of zombies as monstrous flesh-eating corpses. A lot of the groundwork can be seen here, with elements that would get picked up by many later films, particularly in the generally bleak tone as well as the fact that the zombies consume human flesh and can only be killed by destroying their brain. It is also implied that being bit by one turns the victim into a zombie themselves.

There is also one element here that is not as popular in zombie films, though it will no doubt be familiar to viewers of The Walking Dead: everyone is infected. Night of the Living Dead runs with the idea that not only do the protagonists have to worry about the zombies outside, but also each other. The tension that develops among the small group of survivors is what ultimately ends up being their downfall, a theme that would recur prominently in The Walking Dead; a series in which the tension between survivors mounts to a point where the zombies themselves begin to feel more like an annoyance than a serious threat.

There are some sociological issues that should also be addressed regarding Night of the Living Dead. The story is in many ways about twisting social norms of the period, something particularly evident in the decision to focus primarily on a black man, Ben, and a woman, Barbara (who for a large portion of the film are the only two characters). Later on a middle-aged white man tries to take control of the situation for no other reason because that is what he is used to. Ultimately, Ben (Duane Jones) is the person who has to take control of the situation and the one man who knows how to survive. The fact that he is the only one to make it through the night (only to get mistaken for a zombie and shot when help finally arrives) serves to emphasize the point.

However, there is a question of how Romero treats women. While many of his later films make an effort to include stronger female roles (including the remake of Night of the Living Dead, for which he served as executive producer), it is debatable whether that applies here. There are four female characters among the main cast, but the only one who really gets any focus is Barbara, played by Judith O'Dea. While she begins by showing a degree of self-reliance (she manages to work her way to the farmhouse independently, evading a few zombies in the process), she spends the majority of the film in a traumatized state. She is largely unable to think for herself and requires protection from Ben. This aspect is also not helped by the fact that she gets killed just when she starts to get her act together and actually tries to help barricade the house once its down to her and Ben.

As for the other three female characters, none of them get much development. These include Helen (Marylin Eastman), Judy (Judith Ridley) and Karen (Kyra Schon). Helen is the wife of one of the supporting characters, Harry (Karl Hardman) and to be fair she gets some intelligence as she is the one calling him out on his foolishness (he keeps insisting he needs to lock himself in the cellar). Judy is apparently the girlfriend of another supporting character, Tom (Keith Wayne), but it is not very well explained. Karen is the daughter of Harry and Helen, who gets very little development as she has already been bit by a zombie. Judy is especially notable as she is killed shortly after being introduced and while she seems promising at first, she literally runs outside into a hoard of zombies and gets herself blown up for no other reason than because she loves Tom; not exactly the smartest move on her part.

As for the rest of the film, I honestly found it to be a bit campy. The ending works to great effect, but I found everything up to it to be very predictable. It was obvious from the moment that little girl was first introduced that she was going to turn out to have been bitten and then turn into a zombie. The zombies themselves were okay, but a lot of the situations seemed contrived; particularly in the ways that certain characters die (what happened to Judy being a perfect example). The acting is okay, though the only two characters that really stand out are Ben and Barbara, with Ben's presence being a nice touch but Barbara could have worked a lot better if she had not spent most of the movie sitting on a couch in a half-delirious state of mind only to get killed off as soon as she actually started to do something useful. The editing is also a bit choppy at times, and there are some jarring inconsistencies (the way that scenes on the television showed things happening in the same area during the day even though this is supposed to be night).

Ultimately, while Night of the Living Dead does have a cultural significance, it really has not aged well. While I can respect the things it does do well, such as Ben's characterization, it ultimately feels extremely contrived with a largely underdeveloped cast. The effects are alright, but sociologically its treatment of women makes it difficult to sit through. It is not a bad movie, though, on account of the things it does get right; it just does not have the same impact it did in 1968. I would be open to seeing the 1990 remake, which I have been told improves on many of the problems of the original (particularly in how Barbara is treated). Perhaps I will respond to that one better.

Blindspot: Strike (1925)

It's time to begin my 2015 Blindspot Challenge and what better place to begin than with the earliest film on my list, Sergei Eisenstein's Strike. This one was something of an unexpected addition, and included for different reasons from the other entries in my blindspot list. I had actually never heard of Strike until we covered Soviet Montage cinema in one of my classes. We spent two weeks looking at how the Russians influenced filmmaking in the 1920's. The first week we watched Vsevolod Pudovkin's Mother, which I can't say I enjoyed. It was boring and tedious. Between that and Solaris, I was starting to wonder if I would ever find a Russian film that I actually liked. Little did I realize that I would... only a week later.

The next film we watched was Battleship Potempkin, a movie that completely won me over and opened my eyes to so many things. A week earlier I had been wondering why Soviet Montage was such a big deal, but after seeing Battleship Potempkin it all seemed to make sense. It was so effective in turning me around I even went an wrote a whole article detailing everything I'd learned about why the Soviet Montage movement was such a crucial part of film history. After that I was starting to wonder if Sergei Eisenstein, was a director I could get into. The following week I told my professor how I felt and asked if he could recommend any other films by the same guy, and he gave me the title of Strike, a film that had been referred to in the readings and the lecture but to which I never gave much thought.

Fast forward a few weeks later, and I actually managed to find a copy. The only way I could get it was as a double feature with Battleship Potempkin (not that I'm complaining) and it cost me just about every bit of money I had on hand at the time, but it was worth it. My professor was amazed that I even managed to find a copy. The trouble is sometimes even when I own these old movies I sometimes tend to put them off for one reason or another (as was arguably the case for five other movies also on my list). My solution was to include Strike as a candidate for my Blindspot List, and I decided to start off the new year with it.

I could definitely see a lot of Eisenstein's directorial style in Strike. A lot of the ideas he experimented with here are developed a lot more in Battleship Potempkin. The most obvious parallel is the use of the proletariat masses as a "collective" protagonist, instead of having one single hero. In this case, the Bourgeoisie and the police also serve as a sort of "collective" antagonist. Focusing on groups of characters instead of including a designated hero and villain allows Eisenstein to directly address the issues of the class system and how it affects the people as a whole. This same idea is revisited on a smaller scale in Battleship Potempkin, where the same division of class and the need for change is presented through an allegory in the form of the divide between a battleship's officers and its crew.

Building off of Kuleshov's experiments that demonstrated how editing could be used to create an emotional response in the viewers, Eisenstein believed that editing could be used to create meaning. His theory was that two contrasting images that each have separate meanings could be combined together to create a new message, one that was not originally present in either shot. This idea would be refined in Battleship Potempkin but it is more obviously present in Strike.

The example that was often cited in my readings was the climactic scene in which the massacre of the workers is cut alongside shots of a bull being slaughtered (incidentally, I do wonder if this inspired Francis Ford Coppola when he was making Apocalypse Now). On their own, these visuals would have nothing to do with each other, but placed together there is a connection to be drawn. They even set it up with shots of an apartment complex that make it look suspiciously like a corral. That's a great example, but it's one of many.

Another instance where Eisenstein applies his theory to great effect is in the way he shows the factory shutting down due to the workers' strike (you may recognize this moment, as it was a still from this scene I used in my Blindspot list). In this case he juxtaposes two separate shots: three workers folding their arms, and a wheel slowing down and finally stopping. Once again, on their own, these shots would not mean much. When placed together, it symbolizes a simple connection: as soon as the workers stop operating the machinery, the factory shuts down.

As you can imagine, this is hardly a conventional story. Much like Battleship Potempkin, Strike is very much an allegory for a much larger issue, that being the luxury of the bourgeoisie at the expense of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are represented by a group of businessmen who respond to the workers' demands not with any serious consideration but instead skim through them, dismiss them all as ridiculous, and then pull out wine and lemons while sitting around smoking huge cigars. They even demonstrate how little these men think of the workers when one of them spills a bit of lemon on his shoe. He seems to be appalled by the idea of picking it up himself, and instead uses the paper containing the workers' demands to wipe it off before calling a valet over to "clean it up". In addition to all that, Eisenstein even cuts the men sitting together with scenes of the police rounding up the workers outside.

Strike is a brilliant film in many ways. After seeing Battleship Potempkin I thought I could get into Sergei Eisenstein and if this film was anything to go on, he doesn't disappoint. I have no idea how I will go about finding any of his other films, or indeed which films of his I would pursue if I did. What I can say is that I have a new director to add to my list of auteurs I admire. There is definitely an interesting quality to his work, and a lot of stuff to be said simply analysing his movies. It is nice to be able to add a foreign name to that list, and one from the silent era at that. If Battleship Potempkin and Strike were anything to go on, I'm open to seeing more of Sergei Eisenstein.

2014 Blindspot Challenge: White Hunter, Black Heart

I'll be honest right off the bad, and say that I had mixed feelings about this one. It's a bit hard to judge one way or the other and I'm not sure I went out fully understanding what Eastwood was going for. It's one of those films where the good things are really good, but it can be difficult overcome some of the problems. It's compelling enough story-wise but it has some issues that I felt got in the way. We'll get into those in more detail later, but first I'll go over the basic premise.

John Huston Wilson (Clint Eastwood) is a reknowned movie director who takes on a new project titled The African Queen Trader. He makes a deal with screenwriter Pete Verrill (Jeff Fahey) to develop this idea. He even manages to get actors Katherine Hepburn Kay Gibson (Marisa Berenson) and Humphrey Bogart Phil Duncan (Richard Vanstone) to star as the leads. Wilson makes a deal with his producer Paul Landers (George Dzundza), insisting that the entire picture must be shot on location in Africa, but it seems he has something else on his mind. He has a strange interest in embarking on a safari and killing an elephant. His interest becomes an obsession as it interferes with the production of the film, much to the frustration of the cast and crew.

Yeah, you can tell pretty quickly where I started to feel a bit confused about what Eastwood was going for. The whole thing is just a thinly-disguised account of the production difficulties faced by John Huston's The African Queen. The movie doesn't even try to be subtle about what it is really depicting, even going as far as to have Wilson and Verrill reading out parts of the script almost exactly as they appear in Huston's movie. What puzzled me was that it didn't seem to be intended as a straight dramatization with all the attempts to cover up the fact that it was based on real events, but the general lack of subtlety didn't really make it work as a fictionalized account.

I think it would have made more sense if Eastwood had either opted to tell it as a true story with the original names or make a completely fictional narrative that drew inspiration from the production of The African Queen. White Hunter, Black Heart seems to be somewhere in the middle, and so I'm not entirely sure what Eastwood was going for. I don't know the full story behind its production so it may be possible that for whatever reason Clint was unable to use the actual names of the people involved, but then it makes it a bit jarring when it is so blatantly obvious who they are supposed to be based on.

The other thing that puzzled me was the ending. I don't normally mind open endings but this one seemed a bit too abrupt for me. I was actually surprised when the ending happened, and found myself wondering "is that really it?" I'll give it credit for not being too slow but I honestly felt like there should have been something more there. I don't know what, but it just felt like the movie ended way too soon. I don't normally say this, but there really should have been more movie after that final scene.

That said, White Hunter, Black Heart isn't all a bad movie and does have some redeeming qualities. As somewhat confusingly unsubtle as the plot is, it moves along at a solid pace. Every scene is just about the right length. It never gets too painfully slow or confusingly fast. Because of this I found the story still managed to keep me interested on some level and willing to see what happened next. There's also lots of great scenery and a variety of different environments for the characters to experience.

The whole cast also does a very good job in their performances, and their interactions are always solid. Clint even does manage to add a certain bit of emotional depth to his character, and Wilson does have a compelling relationship with Verrill, though more interesting is his connection with Kivu (Boy Mathias Chuma), an African hunter with whom he develops a close friendship. Considering the 1950's timeframe (I think, they didn't specify an exact year) I thought it was a neat touch to include an interracial friendship in this kind of story.

Ultimately, with this film I guess it's a matter of taste. It's hard to make a judgement call on this one. The stuff that's good is really good, but it's also hard to get over some of the problems. I'm still not sure I fully understand what Clint intended with the movie, and  the fact that it is so jarringly unsubtle about what events inspired it but doesn't seem to want to fully acknowledge them makes it even stranger. I feel like it might have worked better if the movie had been more fictional in nature, or didn't pretend it wasn't inspired by something that really happened. I'd say you should check it out, then maybe you can decide for yourself.

This was my final entry for Ryan McNeil's Blind Spot Series of 2014. I may have joined in late, having started my own list in June, but it's been fun participating. Even with only seven movies on my list, it's given me the chance to watch a number of movies I've been putting off. Already I've got my list for 2015 with an even greater selection, and I plan to start as soon as January rolls around. I'm looking forward to another year of this action, and hopefully I can see all twelve movies this time round.

2015 Blindspot Challenge Final List

Last summer I decided to take part in Ryan McNeil's Blindspot Challenge. Basically the way it works is simple, you compile a list of those films you haven't seen but really should and narrow it down to twelve. Different people may have different methods of precisely how to narrow down their selection, most of the films I picked for last year's list were one I already owned that had put off watching, other people may have other ways of choosing their films. Once you have your list, the idea is that you watch one movie each month and then simply write your thoughts about it.

However, while it was a great oppurtunity to finally see some movies I'd been putting off, my choices were a bit limited. Since I started late in June I only had seven movies instead of the usual twelve. All of them were American (though Blue is the Warmest Color was considered as an option, but ultimately dropped due to issues of availability) and only stretched as far back as 1960 with Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. This time round, I am able to do the full twelve movies which allows for more variety.

I hoped to increase the range of choices to cover a longer period of time, since I go from the past decade to as far back as 1925. I also hoped to add a bit more national diversity as well. I started with a list of 29 that went up to somewhere closer to forty (and a few of them are still included as backup choices in case something goes wrong) but I've successfully cut it down to twelve. This certainly was not easy and there were several that were a bit painful to cut but I did it.

I want to thank everyone who commented on my preliminary list with their recommendations. Your feedback was very helpful and I apologize if one of your suggestions didn't make it onto the final list. However, even if your favorite didn't make the cut, keep in mind that does not in any way mean you'll never see me writing about it. It just means that if I do it will probably be a separate article.

Now, after the excitement I build up with my preliminary list, you are all probably very excited to find out which films made the final cut. Well, here is my final list, or at least what I hope to be my final list (because of what happened with The Birds this year, I've selected a handful of "backup films" in case something goes wrong with one of these movies). I have a separate page in which I'll put the links so that they will be easier to find, but I wanted to make this post to ensure that everybody sees it. Let me know of what you think of my choices in the comments below.

Strike (1925)

Modern Times (1936)

Ninotchka (1939)

Back to Bataan (1945)

The Killing (1956)

One, Two, Three (1961)

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Life is Beautiful (1997)

Fight Club (1999)

Gangs of New York (2002)

Kill Bill (2003)

Atonement (2007)

November 2014 Blindspot Challenge: Notes on a Scandal

This was an interesting case, as I went into this movie with almost no idea of what to expect beyond a vague idea of the basic premise. I'd never even heard of this film until last December after I had just finished one of my exams. A few cinema studies students got together and organized a film trivia night and invited the rest of us to attend. It was pretty straight forward, and frankly the limited range of questions was a tad bit disappointing. Among the various prizes they had a selection of DVD's, and certain participants of the event were called up to the table and allowed to pick out two to take with them. 

By the time I was finally called up, most of the DVD's had been taken. The first one I ended up taking was Never Let Me Go (a very emotional science fiction film), the second was a bit harder to choose. I was faced with either Bend it Like Beckham or Notes on a Scandal. I chose Notes on a Scandal, despite having no idea what it was about. It ended up in my drawer for some time, even long after I finally saw Never Let Me Go. Naturally when I decided to assemble my own list for Ryan McNeil's Blindspot Challenge it seemed like perfect material and it turned out to be a pretty tense movie.

Barbara Covette (Judi Dench) is an elderly and very cynical schoolteacher who leads a lonely life. Meanwhile Sheba Hart (Cate Blanchett) is a young and beautiful art teacher who is married to an older man and struggles to cope with the strain of her children. Hart gets in over her head when she gets roped into an affair with student Steven Connolly (Andrew Simpson) which she has trouble breaking up. Barbara seizes an opportunity when she secretly catches them in the act. Barbara proceeds to begin essentially blackmailing Hart to do whatever she wants, systematically attempting to destroy her life. The persistent conflict between these two drives most of the film.

Judi Dench is despicable in her performance, but manages to convey her character in such a way that you are simultaneously intimidated and curious about her enigmatic nature. It is also an interesting decision on the part of the filmmakers to have much of the film be shown from her perspective. The fact that we actually hear her inner thoughts as she coldly writes down her feelings about the situation at hand in her diary makes her all the more frightening as an antagonist. From the moment we first meet her it's clear she's not a pleasant individual, but she's also believable.

Meanwhile, by contrast, Cate Blanchett makes the perfect foil as the likable if eccentric art teacher. She makes her anxieties about her family clear but at the same time you can tell she cares about them. Her son Ben (Max Lewis) has Down's Syndrome and she obviously has trouble accommodating it but also goes out of her way to try and do her best for him. Even with her affair she constantly makes it clear that she is ashamed of it, something helped by the fact that the student in question is a twisted, perverted human being who has her in his grip just as firmly as Barbara.

The supporting cast is also very good. Bill Nighy also appears as Hart's husband, in which he is also quite likable. The relationship between the two of them feels very real and you can easily find yourself wanting to see the two of them make things work. Their kids also seem like real kids, and it is not hard to see where Hart's mix of emotions comes from, and of course Andrew Simpson is appropriately easy to despise as the perverted teenager who sets everything in motion. At the core, however, the story is really about the interactions between Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett, and those are arguably the best parts.

It's kinda sad that I hadn't found out about this movie sooner, and even if I had seen previews for it back in 2006 I probably would have dismissed it as being dull and boring or not something that would have interested me. It really is a very good movie with possibly one of Judi Dench's best performances. It's a tense little thriller with some very compelling characters who play of of each other brilliantly and a conflict that will keep you going with no idea of where you'll end up. It is definitely worth it's 92 minute running time and I would suggest giving it a watch.

2015 Blindspot Challenge Preliminary List

Last summer I decided to take part in Ryan McNeil's Blindspot Challenge. Because I started late I was working with a much smaller list of movies (seven instead of the usual twelve) and I managed to see all but one (The Birds, which I had to replace at the last minute with Re-Animator). However, while it was a great oppurtunity to finally see some movies I'd been putting off, my choices were a bit limited. All of them were American (though Blue is the Warmest Color was considered as an option, but ultimately dropped due to issues of availability) and only stretched as far back as 1960.

This time round, I've decided to try and look at a wider range of films. I've incorporated some foreign movies as well as some much older ones going back as far as I can. To assemble this list I have used a variety of criteria including personal recommendations, subject matter that interests me, availability, and sometimes the reputation certain movies hold and an interest in seeing what all the fuss is about. Unfortunately I had a few too many candidates. My solution is to create a preliminary list and gradually reduce it to twelve films for next year. Somewhere around the end of December or start of January I should have my final list.

There is no specific criteria by which I plan to eliminate some of my possible choices. The biggest thing will probably be availability. Films that prove harder to find (at least the hard to find ones I don't already own) will be less likely to make the final cut. Other factors may include costs, timing (whether it fits into any specific month) or even just my own personal confidence about the movie in question.

I'm posting this early so that I can receive feedback from readers. Right now I can't guarantee any one of these movies making it onto the final list. For all I know, perhaps the list I ultimately publish somewhere around New Years will have none of these options and an entirely unrelated list of twelve movies instead (though even then, it doesn't mean I won't ever write about any of these films separately). Still, feel free to let me know what you think of my potential candidates and if there are any you would like to see me review. It might just help me make some decisions when the time comes.

Strike (1925)

Christopher Strong (1933)

Modern Times (1936)

Lost Horizon (1937)

Stagecoach (1939)

Ninotchka (1939)

Back to Bataan (1945)

Seven Samurai (1954)

White Christmas (1954)

Diabolique (1955)

The Killing (1956)

Touch of Evil (1958)

One, Two, Three (1961)

In the Heat of the Night (1967)

Planet of the Apes (1968)

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

Being there (1979)

Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears (1979)

Schindler's List (1993)

Life is Beautiful (1997)

Jackie Brown (1997)

Fight Club (1999)

Gangs of New York (2002)

Kill Bill (2003)

Atonement (2007)

Django Unchained (2012)

Blue is the Warmest Color (2013)

12 Years a Slave (2013)