"Perfume" thoughts by Andy

What a strange film! What an intriguing character. The idea that you can be obsessed enough about something beautiful to kill, but not to love, is a concept I haven't seen dealt with in other movies. I thought his acting was fabulous and creepy as hell.

I think one of the things that makes the character so creepy is that he didn't actually need to kill to do his work, but he was so motivated by the need to create and capture scent that he couldn't handle any delay in getting it. It was easier for him to just kill a woman, do his work, and dump the body, than to try and convince her to let him do his work. He tried once with the prostitute, but he didn't have the social skills to convince her to do it. He could have been totally non-threatening, but he didn't care to be so. He didn't get joy out of killing, at it was completely unnecessary to him, but it was the easiest way.

comments by Andy

Chop Shop - comments by Andy

So we're keeping this going, even though I'm pretty sure that Jason and I are the only two people that look at this blog (if I'm wrong, feel free to comment so I know). Frankly, it's one of my creative outlets, and even though I'm not a great writer, I need it.

"Chop Shop" was wonderfully heartbreaking. It's one of those stories where you knew something terrible was going to happen, and you were constantly bracing yourself for that bad thing to happen. I thought for sure that the money he and his sister was saving was going to be stolen. I'm not sure that his luck was much worse.

It also explained a lot about breeding criminal culture. I wish it would have ended up a little better though. It didn't leave me feeling great about humanity or America.

Chop Shop Is a Slice of Life — but That’s All

by Jason Pyles

“Chop Shop” can be used to illustrate an important distinction, or at least a clarification, in viewer tastes. Many moviegoers (myself previously included) believe they want to see realism in their motion picture entertainment, but that’s not quite accurate.

Few people lead lives like those found in movies. For the most part, realism reflects the average, everyday life of the common man or woman. It’s that same basic monotony — “the old grind” — that each of us faces daily.

That’s realism, and that’s not really what we’re interested in seeing when we go to the movies, because we live it every day for ourselves. What we want are fictitious stories where extraordinary events happen to ordinary people who must rise to the occasion to overcome them ... or not. We want this dramatic narrative, but we want it depicted realistically — at least I do. So what I truly want to see is realistic fiction, not realism.

Akin to Italian neorealism and neorealism in general, “Chop Shop” gives us slice-of-life reality but without the high-intensity dramatic conflicts. We, as observers, are given fly-on-the-wall perspective that we might peer into the ordinary lives of other ordinary people, much like ourselves. We take a brief break from our struggles for a while to witness somebody else’s.

“Chop Shop” delivers true realism — and it’s intriguingly believable — but not overly entertaining. I kept waiting (and hoping) for a gun to enter the film and for someone to get shot. Not that I like to see people get hurt, but I kept hoping for some more out-of-the-ordinary drama.

“Chop Shop” is impressive in its execution and delivery. Indeed, it calls back to the Lumiere brothers’ early “actualities,” like “The Arrival of the Mail Train” (1896), where we’re given moments of life, recorded in time, like moving photographs or “motion pictures.” But like those films, after a while “Chop Shop” wears thin and holds little water with such a shallow story that lacks dramatic conflict.

Primer and Wonder Woman

by Jason Pyles

I must also confess, like Andy, to falling asleep during "Primer." But after discussing it later with my wife, I just keep coming back to one question: Though many of the film's aspects are difficult to understand, above all, I can't seem to get a clear grasp on why there would be a second version of a time-traveling individual, namely, his present self and his past self.

Allow me to think out loud here: If I were to travel back in time in order to see my favorite toy, a Wonder Woman doll — which is no longer with me in the present — it would, in fact, be found in that visit to the past, circa 1981 or so. Now, since matter does not cease to exist, in present-day 2010, presumably, that Wonder Woman doll must surely still exist, somewhere, and in some form.

Our dumb dog chewed it up only a few days after I got that doll for Christmas, so my parents threw it away. That doll exists in some garbage dump somewhere, deep underground. And since she was made of plastic, which is basically eternal, that plastic doll lies beneath the Earth. So, there's a doll in 2010, and there's a doll in 1981. But there was always just one doll of mine. If I went back to 1981, then that doll would not exist in the dump yet, in that era, until that very same piece of matter is sent there from my parents.

If I hold the plastic dumped doll from 2010 in my hand when I travel back to 1981, what would happen then? On Christmas morning, 1981, the doll existed in its pre-dog-chewed form. But if I'm holding the dirty, futuristic version in my hand, then I suppose there might be two Wonder Woman dolls before me during that time traveler's moment. Therefore, perhaps I can understand a little better how there would be duplicate versions of the time-traveler himself.

And accordingly, then, am I to understand that if time-traveling Jason from 2010 goes back to 1981 and gets little Jason from that era, and then we both travel to 1994 to see me graduate from high school, then I would have three Jasons present, right? Maybe. Just maybe.

"Primer," obviously, is an excellent think-piece of the cinema. It does seem to be the most accurate time-travel film I've seen.

"Primer" comments by Andy

As I have said before, I fall asleep during movies. I fell asleep during "Primer," even though the movie is a very efficient 80 minutes. Bad choice. I only dozed off for a few minutes, but they were critical minutes.

I had no clue what happened. Today I ran the film again from that last place I remember understanding what was going on. Turns out I would have still been confused, even if I had stayed awake. I paid attention, I listened to the dialog well, and at the end, I still had to check wikipedia to understand what the hell happened.

Thank goodness for wikipedia. But it begs the question, can a film be great if I have to check wikipedia afterword to understand it?

The answer is no, at least in my opinion, but "Primer" sure came close. Yes, I was very confused at the end, but wow it was an intense movie. My wife said she was totally lost, but her heart was pounding just the same.

The acting was superb, and the only reason I didn't like the low production values was that I couldn't quite hear the complex dialogue, and you really really really need to hear the dialogue. So what I would change, and what would make it much less confusing, is to add a scene or voiceover that gives a little bit of context and information about how the time traveling began to spin out of control. It wouldn't need to be much.

"Primer" is supposed to be the most accurate filmic portrayal of time travel, and from the movies I've seen, I totally agree. Time travel is scary, messy, and ultimately results in a dynamic (and thus an effective absence of) history and future. I don't think we humans are capable of accurately understanding, describing, or portraying what time travel actually is, but I think "Primer" has gotten the closest to it.

As a separate issue, I really liked the complex dialogue (but I wish the audio was better). I read that the director intentionally left it complex rather than dumbing it down for us. Yes, much of it went over my head, but I think the complex dialogue was nicely juxtaposed with a very complicated plot and concept.

Good film. I feel smarter for having watch "Primer."

comments by Andy

"Five Obstructions" comments by Andy

Um....I thought I was becoming more mature in my movie tastes. I considered myself to be growing and learning, much the result of the movies we've been watching for this blog. I guess I'm not as far along as I thought. I didn't really get why we needed "Five Obstructions."

I get that it was a short film that Jorgen Leith did many years ago and that Lars von Trier obviously loves. I'm just not arty enough to understand why Jorgen needed to do it again with different constraints.

I think that's what I'm struggling with in my movie-going maturity - can I appreciate art films with no plot???? I don't know. This had interesting parts, I guess, but on the whole I didn't enjoy it, nor did I appreciate it's artines. It's beyond the line for me. I needed to watch a good big-budget mainstream movie just to get back to center.

But I'm still interested in a challenge, and I'm in no means swearing off odd films...

thoughts by Andy

"The Five Obstructions"

by Jason Pyles

In keeping with the spirit of this unusual documentary, I’ll place an obstruction on my review and limit myself to 500 words or fewer to hone my craft.

For those who are unfamiliar and therefore unprepared, “The Five Obstructions” documents a contest between two gifted filmmakers, Lars von Trier, and his mentor, Jorgen Leth.

The latter made a 13-minute, experimental film in 1967 called “The Perfect Human.” Von Trier apparently has always loved Leth’s film and has watched it numerous times. But von Trier wanted to challenge Leth to remake five variations of his movie, with each new attempt having some sort of handicapping stipulation(s) inhibiting the filmmaker. In fact, the obstructions often are multi-faceted.

I won’t list the obstructions here, because learning of the new requirements is part of the fun. I will say that many of them are technical with regard to filmmaking itself, but not all. Intriguingly, von Trier tries to delve uncomfortably deep into his mentor’s psyche, seemingly wanting to punish him but “for his own good.” (Why is this is not surprising coming from the maker of “Dogville,” “Dancer in the Dark” and “Antichrist”?)

It is a wonder that Leth agreed to entertain von Trier’s bizarre challenge, which takes a couple of years to play out, and involves location-scouting, casting, etc. But what is most endearing about “The Five Obstructions” is Leth’s sincere determination not only to hurdle over each obstruction, but also to make a film that excels in spite of it. Watching the seasoned filmmaker work out these cinematic puzzles is what makes this film worth watching.

Still, “The Five Obstructions” is the kind of art film — much like “The Perfect Human” — that leaves moviegoers with a distaste for art films, in general. Indeed, I suspect that only those viewers who are filmmakers or film art scholars, or both, would truly enjoy this documentary. I’d wager that most people I know would shut it off because of its “weirdness.” As for objectionable content, this unrated film would probably be rated R (though the original 1967 version of “The Perfect Human” would be approximately PG).

A note for those who plan to watch this on DVD: I have three exercises for you that I think will enhance your enjoyment and appreciation of the film:

1.) Before watching the documentary, go to the DVD’s “Extras” and watch the original version of “The Perfect Human.” It is interspersed throughout the feature film, but I personally wish I had seen it first in order to gain my bearings.

2.) Watch the documentary next.

3.) Watch the U.S. trailer and observe how a trailer can be effectively cut together to make a film seem like it has widespread marketing appeal. The Danish trailer wasn’t nearly as appealing to my American sensibilities.

By the way, my favorite new versions are the results of Obstruction 1 and Obstruction 4.

Word count total: 497