좋은 놈, 나쁜 놈, 이상한 놈 (Joheun nom nabbeun nom isanghan nom / The Good The Bad The Weird)

I'm actually glad I just watched Leone's full trilogy before this, because although the characters are pretty clearly (though pretty loosely) based on the titular Good, Bad, and Ugly, scenes are stolen/homaged out of Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More as well. For most of the film, it felt more like the title should have been "The Good, The Bad, The Weird, The Gang, The Other Gang, and the Japanese Army." So many forces were chasing after this one map it got a little Mad, Mad, Mad World-esque. In fact, they play pretty loose with how each group keeps its eyes on the prize, and you just sort of accepted that in this cartoony world the three title characters/heroes were unkillable no matter what happened (the same is true in an Indiana Jones movie; I think this may differentiate action films from action-adventure, and I don't mean this as a complaint). The story is all an action-set-piece delivery system, and it doesn't disappoint in that regard.

The epic chase across the endless desert at the end was ridiculous and fun, and summed up the whole movie perfectly. It was largely impossible to tell who is doing what, exactly, or who is who's main antagonist, but Yoon Tae-goo (the Weird) has the map and is always somehow in the lead. Park Chang-yi (the Bad) looks like Vampire The Masquerade (Jen called it; she's right) and gets hilariously petulant when something gets in his way. And Park Do-won (the Good) is kind of a pretty-boy Korean Clint Eastwood, who apparently just wants to kill this mysterious guy who killed five guys, even though everybody racks up death tolls in the double digits every time a gun is fired. I think I missed something. Anyway he's a bad-ass, too, and likes his rifle.

So it's a mess, but it's interesting to look at the weird culture mash-up on display, and it's entertaining as hell. The only reason the story doesn't collapse under its own circuitous, convoluted weight (mixaphorically speaking) is the same reason that last mega-chase scene worked: it never slows down, and everybody just keeps barreling ahead at a breakneck pace. So long as everything's in motion, you don't have time to stop and think, and the ride stays fun.

The Jacket

This is a curious film. I don't know the actual story of its production (I may look into it after writing this, or I may just leave my assumptions alone), but it feels like one of those movies that barely got made. The story concept is generally strong, but the grandfather-paradox-heavy patness smacks of young screenwriter to me (ahem). The performances are a little uneven but generally good, and the cast is certainly great, but the dialogue and characterizations (particularly motivation) are a little too easy, glib, or unnatural. The photography is a little too flashy, especially when it leans uncomfortably on high-contrast extreme close-ups of the lips or eyes of Adrian Brody, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Kris Kristofferson. For me, the editing consistently drew attention to itself, which as they say defines bad editing ("the invisible art"). But it's not like this is a bad movie, at all. Just a very calculated movie. A very designed, constructed, anti-naturalistic one.

The Jacket reminds me of The Butterfly Effect or The Machinist or maybe a Natali film like Splice or Cube (that's the second time I've been reminded of Cube recently). It's dark, high-concept, stylized in a sort of generic way, and the story never quite gels, never quite earns plausibility, but feels somewhat worth watching anyway. It's a good movie that doesn't seem to have any idea how to be (or maybe any hope of being) a great movie.

Jeux interdits (Forbidden Games)

On the one hand: this was a good film to watch for "research," as I try to think about adult storylines through children's eyes. Especially their strange obsession with death and ritual as a way of exploring the meaning behind things by extracting that meaning. A bit deconstructionist, maybe; simulacra and simulation, all that. Also, and on a more basic, less pedantic level: pretty amazing performances from those two kids. Twenty-two years later the little girl, Brigitte Fossey, would star in Altman's Quintet, something I've been considering watching as research for the other project. These two kids really sold complex emotional scenes that adult actors would have trouble with. Goes to show what a good director can do with the right cast. Gives me hope for (wince) working with children myself.

On the other hand: I'm too much a film geek not to immediately recognize this as a film bridging European realism into French New Wave. (I got that without any pointers, and then looked it up to see that scholars back up this claim. My film teachers would be so proud.) The story has that great subversive social attitude of Renoir's wonderful films (I'm thinking The Grand Illusion, The Human Beast and of course The Rules of the Game) but it's also a deliberate tone-shifter (every time it ought to be sad, it's actually quite funny), with obvious music cues and many scenes not about anything in particular. It's letting style carry it, just a little, and it feels just a little bit punk about the whole thing.

Jackie Brown

Joseph recommended this as a possible target "tone" for my script, striking a precarious balance between humorous and dark. I'm not sure, actually, if that's what I'd call this, though I definitely see his point, and yet in another way this is a perfect film to watch to think about my story: it's about a couple of people, Jackie Brown especially, who feel cornered by a lack of options in life and decide one last big gamble is worth it: either you get away, or you go down fighting.

It's so easy to draw the parallel between this and Out of Sight; not only were they Elmore Leonard adaptations released a year apart, but they also both star Michael Keaton as ATF agent Ray Nicolet (since the tone is so different and the directors so unrelated, I've always found this little tidbit fascinating). But Jackie Brown makes a far more interesting double feature with Soderbergh's The Limey. Both are nostalgic for earlier eras in pop culture -- music and film in particular. The Limey uses 1960s icons and 1960s music in a story about people who've been moved on from since their heydays in the 60s. Jackie Brown does this exact same thing to the 1970s, using 70s icons and 70s music nostalgically to tell a story of people who've been moved on from.

And, man, for all the cool emitted by this film, all the love it has for Pam Grier (and super-charming Robert Forster), damned if this isn't Tarantino's most naturalistic, observational piece. Scenes drag on with endless witty dialogue but everything from the mundane actions to the kinds of conflicts and topics of conversation our characters obsess over -- it all seems more casual, real... by Tarantino's standards, unstylized. I'd love to get my hands on this script and look at how the scenes play out. There is a lot to cull from this for my script, actually. I'll definitely be revisiting this in the near future, which won't be hard. It's always a pleasure.

Jaws

Between screenwriting books, film classes and pop culture I knew at least 80% of the film already, but somehow I'd never actually sat down and watched Jaws before. I was surprised how much it reminded me of John Carpenter's (later, 1980) film The Fog, in its scope and mood. Back when horror films were about a monster (puzzle) that a couple of experts had to find a way to conquer (solve). Back when movies were meant to scare you, not just make you jump.

The shark could absolutely pass for real, by the way.