100 or 10,000?

This has nothing to do with movies, but with blogging.

I originally started blogging in order to publish my writing, which wasn't going to be published any other way.  At the same time, I didn't think anyone would really read my insane ramblings, at least in this life.

So when I created a blog, it was only to speak to one topic.  When I wanted to write on another topic, I created another blog.  Right now I have more than 30 "blogs".  But I don't consider them all REAL blogs.  For me, a real blog has to have at least a hundred posts.  It doesn't matter so much how many people read the thing, because my goal was publishing, not actually being read.  I know, that's weird, but, again, I really didn't think anyone would want to read my blogs.

Sometime last year, Blogger established stats for their blogs, and I started looking.  I was shocked how many people actually read my blog posts.  Some blogs got almost no traction, while others did reasonably well.  Frankly, considering that I didn't expect any readership, that was pretty good.

Then I started a blog on movies.

Frankly, this blog really took off after I posted on the summer art film, Malick's The Tree of Life.  I'm happy so many people read that post because the film was a revelation to me and I'm glad to share my vision of the film to others, especially those who left the film saying "WTF?"

Last week I realized that this blog is nearing 10,000 views.  Not only have none of my other blogs gotten that many views (the others are more theological or deal with poverty topics), none have taken off so quickly.  I only started posting here in March.

Then I found myself in a quandary.  My movie blog only had 91 posts.  So it was on the edge of getting 10,000 views but according to my basic definition, it didn't have enough posts to be considered a "real blog".  So this last week I worked at fixing that problem.

I updated some reviews I wrote earlier, posted those.  That brought me to 99 posts.  Today, this is post 100.  And today, the blog reached 10,000 views.  Thank you for reading my blog.

P.S. What would you like to see more of on this blog?  The movie reviews that are separated into categories, like my recent review of Red Beard?  Analyses of complex films, like the review of Tree of Life? Or would you like to see reviews of more recent films? Perhaps you like the personal stuff like my favorites?  What about discussions of groups of films like my recent three part discussion of thrillers?  Also, I've been thinking about a series on "Basic Films To Watch Before You Become a Film Buff"... any other ideas?  Any films you'd really like me to review?  Comment away!

ER in Early Tokyo

Red Beard



One of the things I love about Akira Kurosawa is his ability to take films that are in completely different situations, and turn them into high drama.  Sure, it’s easy when you are doing a version of Macbeth (Throne of Blood) or King Lear (Ran), but this film is about a medical clinic in a poor area of Edo (which in a later era becomes Tokyo).  Could high drama be found here?  Perhaps the stakes aren’t as high as Ran or even The Seven Samurai, but this film expresses the drama of each human life, even the “small” life.  Red Beard is about the drama of compassion.

Technical—4/5—Nothing spectacular, but pretty sharp film quality for its era.  The script and direction are marvelous, if not exceptional.

Interest—5/5—Every time a story arc ends, there is another that has already started.  It is a powerful drama, filled with a number of laugh-out-loud moments, not least the out-of-context fight at the brothel.



Tension—4/5—At first, it seems pretty light, but as we follow the experiences of the new doctor, we join him as he bit by bit becomes more involved with those in the clinic.  At first, we have a bit of curiosity, then we experience the horror of death, then we appreciate the tragic story of the life of a good man, and then finally we are weeping at the tragedy of a small character.  I think I lost a bit of tension because I’d seen it just a year ago, but give me another year and I’ll be ready to see it again.

Emotional—5/5—Played me like a yo-yo, and I'd go through it all again, just for the enjoyment of the emotional manipulation.



Characters—5/5—This is the final pairing of Kurosawa and Mifune, but Mifune is as brilliant as he ever was.  He plays the title character with that perfect balance of seriousness and willingness to make fun of himself that is so well done.  The character of the girl taken from the brothel is also perfectly played.  I wish that some of the smaller roles were given more room to develop.

Theme—4/5 Compassion over honor.  Pretty basic, but well done.



Ethics—5/5—There are no deep ethical questions brought up here, we are all familiar with the stakes here.  However the rewards of a life of compassion, as dubious as they are, are clearly presented.

Personal—5/5—I hope I’m not boasting, but it is my attempt to be a man like Red Beard and to create a community of help like he did.  And I think that this, more than anything else, is what touches me about this film and makes it my favorite of Kurosawa’s films.


Mifune's doctor is an amazing character, (if one ignores his out-of-the-blue martial arts scene).  He is quiet, gruff and tough on his doctors.  Yet we love him so.  How is it that we want to identify with him so much, even though his lifestyle is so far from most of our own?  It is because, in the end, we all desire to be good.  We don't have to be as good as Mother Teresa, but we want to be seen as compassionate and caring in at least some aspect of our lives.  And Mifune invites us to identify with him.  We can, if only for a couple hours, can be the compassionate hero.

And Your Mother Is an MILF, Too

Y Tu Mama Tambien



I had some trepidation approaching this film.  The brief synopsizes I’d read of the film emphasized how “erotic” it was to such a degree that I wondered if it was almost pornographic.  But it was praised so highly by filmspotters, that I figured I’d give it a chance.

Well, the first scene is pretty explicit, shockingly so.  But it turns out it is a wonderful little coming of age story about two older teenage boys and an older woman who go on a trip to a beach.  Yes, there are a lot of sexual undertones and a couple sex scenes (beyond the first scene).  But the important part of the film is how the woman teaches them to have relationship—not only with women, but with each other.  They gain a full education on what it means to be faithful, to forgive, and to balance responsibility with joy.   This is about character growth, not sex.  Well, not primarily about sex.



Technical—5/5—I loved the camera work here, the unique angles, especially when they were driving and a lot of the shots come from outside.  

Interest—4/5—The earlier scenes which were laying out the boys’ characters were a little dull for me.  But once they went on the trip and their discussions in the car and her deep sorrow—it was all good and I was caught. 

Tension—4/5—Certainly a fair amount of relational tension on occasion, especially in the middle part of the film.




Characters/Emotional—3/5—Look, I believed in the characters.  I did.  But they were so separated from me or the people I knew that I just couldn’t relate.  So the characterization was fine, but the boys still seemed like cartoons of horny, out-to-have-fun teen boys—but I wasn’t one of these boys and I didn’t know them.  Still don’t.  What the woman was doing made sense by the end of the film, but, again, I don’t know if I know of anyone like this.

Theme—4/5—The need to live life to the fullest in relationship.  Pretty well realized.



Ethics—5/5—Actually, there are a lot of ethical questions brought up in this film, all relating to the right and wrong in relationship.  It openly talks about faithfulness, keeping to principle, forgiveness and freedom.  Not what I’d call a textbook film, but the questions brought up were excellent.  The most important thing was the hurt that was expressed when an ethical principle is broken.  These aren’t arbitrary ideas that can be thrown away if you don’t care for them.  And the seriousness with which the boys take relationships become the cornerstone of their maturity.  Excellent.

Personal—1/5—There was nothing I could connect to in the film, which really made it fall flat for me.  That was disappointing.

While there’s a lot of things to like about this film, I couldn’t really connect to the characters, and that leaves it off my top 100 for certain.

A Happy-Go-Lucky Life on the Streets of Helsinki

The Man Without A Past



This is a Finnish film of 2002, about a man who is brutally mugged and so forgets everything about his past, who he is, everything, and then tries to make do amidst the down and out of Helsinki.  Despite the obvious plot devises, this is a subtle and hilarious film.

I placed this film in my top 100 last year partly because of the characterization and partly because of the personal connections to those struggling to make due in an urban context.  For some reason, there were two things I forgot.  First of all, it’s in color.  I don’t know why I thought it was in black and white, but there you have it.  Secondly, it is hilarious.  The humor is sly and quiet, and I’m sure much of the humor I didn’t get the first time around.  All this to say, I enjoyed this film even more this second viewing.




Technical—4/5—It’s fine.  Nothing special, no tricks, no fuss.  Just basic filmmaking.  Nothing more than necessary.

Interest—5/5—I really enjoyed it this time.  I was hesitating seeing it again because I thought it would be too dull for me to watch only about a year or so since I last watched it.  Oh, I was wrong.  It was great, every scene.  It was good to know the end this time as well because it helped me to recognize where it was all heading.  And this time, I could see the quiet joy in almost every scene.  Wonderful.

Tension—3/5—Not much tension, this time around, except when the muggers show up.  

Emotional—3/5—There is some emotion, but it’s hard to feel when the acting is so dry and flat.  It is flat on purpose, and it helps one appreciate even more the obvious happiness that is there.  But we have to put that in, the actors won’t help us a whit.  On the other hand, see what I say under “personal”.




Characters—4/5—Excellent.  Sure the acting is flat, but since everyone does it, it looks like Helsinki is just that way.  I suspect that they are playing it as a Finnish stereotype, but it just adds to the humor and the local color.  The characters themselves are wonderful and funny and clever.  I wish more had been done for Kati Oetenin, because she just seemed sad.  

Theme—3/5—It’s not a strong thematic film.  I’d guess the theme might be, “It will all work out” or “There is a place for everyone” or some other generally uplifting cliché.

Ethics—5/5—I love films that show communities that work well, even in difficult circumstances.  Lars and the Real Girl and Notting Hill are among my favorites for just this quality. In TMWaP, the way they took our hero in and how he was instantly accepted, and the community helped him in quiet, small ways but that brought him life was wonderful to behold.  It is the ideal for my community as well, but that's getting toward...

Personal—5/5—I live and work amidst a community much like this.  Yes, there are struggles and not many resources, but there can also be joy and strength.  This personal connection is probably what really makes me emotional about this film. Not even so much because of these people, but because of the people I know on the streets of Portland and their joys and strengths.  It makes me happy.


This film is really a favorite of mine.  It gets better and more enjoyable with each viewing.  

Synecdoche, Schenectady

The final item my friend Ferris was going to do before he left the movie forum we both participated in was to watch Synecdoche, NY and make a line by line audio commentary on it.  We were supposed to get together and comment together, but it just didn’t happen, which is sad.   Ferris and I are both in our forties and we both could appreciate the considerations of late-life themes in the film and the struggles of the protagonist.  Ferris claimed that he had a specific concept of the theme of the film, which I never heard.  Perhaps it is not too late, but we shall see.

So I watched it on my own and below I give my own thoughts of this film  I have to say that for about two years I was quite enamored of Charlie Kauffman, but this has become less so of late.  I still appreciate his unique approach to storytelling and his themes are significant.  However, as a unit, his films seem a bit whiney.   Certainly, though, Eternal Sunshine is going to make my top 100.  So what about Synecdoche?

Technical—5/5—For a first film, Kauffman did a fine job on this. Especially the creation of the town and the theatre as the town within the town was marvelously done.  The acting was top notch and the script was intellectually fascinating.

Interest—4/5—There is so much going on in this film that it is hard to turn away.  I’ve watched it almost three times and I feel that I would need to watch it three more times to even catch all the main themes.  There are allegorical pieces, like the house on fire, that seems to conflict with the more realistic approach, but that only increases the mystery of the basic question, “What the hell is this film about anyway?”



Tension—2/5—There isn’t really much tension in the script.  It is just one damn event after another, and while they are all connected on the surface, one thing doesn’t really lead to another.  Events come out of nowhere, unexpectedly.  Thus, no tension is really built.  The only tension, again, is the meaning of the film.

Emotional—3/5—While the structure of the film makes it difficult to feel emotionally connected to the events, still Phillip Seymour Hoffman makes an empathetic character.  Kauffman’s script doesn’t make this easy, however.

Characters—4/5—Like Ikiru, this is really a one character film.  It is about Caden’s experience of the second half of his life, and everything we see is from his perspective, and most of the lack of realism is because his perspective is so skewed by his constant vision of death.  Thus, in a sense, the entire film is about character.  But this character is so confused, so horrified by his dismantlement of all that was significant in his life, that it is hard to appreciate this perspective.



Theme—5/5—The whole movie is about theme, really.  It is about one’s life when death is at the forefront of it.  There is much made of a near-death experience that gives one a new perspective on life.  However, this film could show the opposite of that.  What if one becomes so focused on death that life becomes meaningless?  So concerned about guilt and regret and health and powerlessness that life itself is simply a regurgitation of itself?  SNY is the perfect example of how obsession, even on a general positive thing, can be taken out of balance so that it becomes destructive, sucking in not only your life but the lives of those around you.



Ethics—5/5—Caden’s self-focus is so complete in this film that no one else really matters (except, on occasion, Hazel, excellent portrayed by Samantha Morton).  Finally, even he himself doesn’t matter and he allows Dianne Weist to direct every action in his life.  What I don’t know is whether Kauffman is making a sad commentary on Caden’s life—this is what we should avoid—or whether he is saying this is what we all experience.  We will all, eventually, be directed by others to do what we do, we all, at times, obsess on death and we all make errors because of it along the way.  Whichever the case, it is thoughtful and encourages thought.

Personal—3/5—As important as I think SNY is, it doesn’t connect with my life as much as I would think it should.  I am the right age, but perhaps not the right temperament to really see myself as Caden.  Sure, I think about death, although usually in a way looking forward to the break than anything else. 

I think that Synecdoche is an important film about death and life, as important as anything that Bergman has done.  I also think it is a difficult film: it is often unpleasant, often confusing and sometimes seems masturbatory on Kauffman’s part.  It is like a distasteful medicine you take because its good for you, a difficult class in college you take because your major requires it, but there is little pleasure in it, except, perhaps the intellectual pleasure of obtaining a hard-won nugget of knowledge.  It is on the edge of my top 100, but I don't think it will make it this year.


As time goes on, I find Mr. Kauffman's films to be more smart and intellectually satisfying than enjoyable.  But as I keep watching them over and over (and I will) perhaps they will grow on me again. 


I think I still have much more to say about this film.  It isn't like a straight forward narrative, in which a plot outline adequately summarizes it.  Rather, it is a film like A Serious Man or perhaps even Tree of Life, which is conceptually driven, and plot is secondary.  However, it has more details (perhaps) than either of the other two films and so requires even more careful study.  I shall return. 

Philip Marlowe Wins The Day

I frankly have avoided this film for years.  It’s not that I don’t like Bogie—he’s good for the occasional anti-hero.  But I really didn’t care for The Maltese Falcon and that film and this were strongly connected in my mind.  They were both Bogie noir based on classic detective novels of the 30s.   So if I disliked the one, I should dislike the other, right?

Not at all.  The big difference for me comes in the main characters: Sam Spade v. Philip Marlowe.  Frankly, Sam Spade has few redeeming qualities, and I strongly disliked him.  It must be to Bogie’s credit that just as much as I disliked his Sam Spade, I really enjoyed his Philip Marlowe. Marlowe was funny, smart, laughs easily and is much more enjoyable to spend time with.  And he doesn’t consider violence the first resort, especially in dealing with women.  I appreciate that.



Technical—5/5--In all probability, another aspect I really appreciated about The Big Sleep over MF is the direction in general.  Howard Hawks is one of my favorite directors and I love his dialogue-filled, constantly moving films.  This isn’t as frantic as some of his films, but it certainly has his touch.  Having William Faulkner as a writer for this film couldn’t hurt, either.  The script is smart and the dialogue rich.  And, most of all, the film was humorous throughout, which I didn’t expect, although I should have with Hawks at the helm.

Interest—4/5—Although most of the other characters aren’t as interesting as Marlowe, of course Bacall is fantastic and the plot is interesting.  I can’t say that I was as interested in the mystery itself, but it was fun getting there. 

Tension—4/5—There are some real tense moments in there, especially in a couple of the shootouts and in the involvement of Bacall’s sister.

Characters—3/5—It’s difficult to pinpoint my feeling of the characters of this film.  Frankly, few of them were believable.  They were all movie stereotypes (and I recognize that this film helped to create some of these stereotypes) except for Marlowe, who wasn’t really the hard-boiled detective, or perhaps he was but didn’t always act like it.



Emotional—3/5— Because I didn’t buy most of the characters, their dilemmas weren’t very compelling for me.  Certainly I was tense when someone got shot, but overall it didn’t matter. 

Theme—2/5—I didn’t really catch much of a theme here.

Ethics—3/5—I don’t think the movie is encouraging us to think about ethics, other than the illegality of shooting people for financial reasons.  There is a moment in the DA’s office where Marlowe’s style of solving a crime is held against a police procedure.  The main thing seems to be that Marlowe’s style, although he lies, leaves dead bodies around, spends questionable time with women and sets people up to be shot, but he gets the job done (and he has friends in high places).  That seems to be good enough for the DA, so it should be good enough for us?  Hmmmm.


The real ethical question: Should Bacall be smoking?  In public?

Personal—3/5—I related to Marlowe’s easygoing style, although it is not my own, and I did relate to his use of humor to ease tensions.

A good movie, really enjoyable.  One I will probably watch again.  But it wasn’t so enjoyable that I’d put it in my top 100.

The Secret Life of C.C. Baxter

The Apartment



Billy Wilder is an amazing director, not that he wrote and directed such popular movies, but that so many of his movies are seen as classics more than 50-60 years after they were made.  His movies consistently have stellar performances, often better than the stars shine in films apart from his own.   And many of his films regularly make top lists of all time, including Sunset Boulevard, Double Indemnity, and Some Like It Hot, and he stands with Akira Kurosawa, Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorcese as being among the most praised directors of all time.   The Apartment, about C.C. Baxter making his journey from milquetoast to mature man, is one of Wilder’s most popular and highly praised films.

Technical—As Wilder films are opt to be, The Apartment is practically perfect.  A perfectly honed script, fantastic performances by Lemon and MacLaine,  cinematography that may not be the most interesting, but is very functional, especially for a story that exists mostly in offices and apartments.   As if we didn’t know, Wilder knows how to make a film.

Interest—3/5—Here’s my problem with the film, and it is personal, not having to do with the film itself.  I find upward mobility in an office setting to be stifling, even to watch from the outside.  It is great to see the characters grow and become something more than an office flunky, but getting there is so dull for me.  The best thing to watch was the performances.



Tension—3/5—There wasn’t much tension, except for his relation with his neighbors when MacLaine was knocked out in his bed.  The tension of him maintaining his clearly false “tiger” persona in the face of truth coming to haunt him was pretty tense.

Emotional—3/5—Again, the plot didn’t hold a lot of interest for me, so I didn’t feel very much, except for Fran and her dilemma.



Characters—5/5—Like the Big Lebowski, most of the characters didn’t interest me at all, but Lemon and MacLaine were marvelous, possibly giving the best performances of their careers.   Their chemistry rapport were fantastic and I loved the scenes of them together.  When C.C. gets them to play chess, that was great, so real.

Theme—4/5—Love is greater than ambition.   Sure, its cliché, but it’s a believable cliché here.

Ethics—4/5—I love how we are dropped in the middle of C.C.’s dilemma, with little context of how he ended up loaning out his apartment for his boss’ infidelities.  We don’t need to see what a wimp he is, the situation speaks for itself.  Even when he asserts himself, it is clear who has the power.  At the same time, we know that C.C. has no power because he has granted himself no power.  When he stands at the end we can feel the ethical backbone forming.



Personal—1/5—There was really no personal identification with this film, which is not the fault of the film at all.  It just had no real connection with my life.

This is an enjoyable film and I can say that I can see why it is considered a great film.  Actually, by all objective standards, I'd have to say it is a great film.  It is an early and very successful example of dramedry, in the way of Punch Drunk Love and Lost In Translation.  The acting and characterization was top of the line.  But my personal lack of empathy for the characters' situation reduces it in my personal rankings.