Saturday, December 31, 2022

Side Effects

 Steven Soderburgh's Side Effects is an overwrought neo-Noir with a complicated and silly plot.  Criminal enterprises that take years to develop and involve staging near-suicides and infiltrating mental hospitals and jails as inmates no less always beg this question:  why don't the protagonists just get a job and earn money in the conventional way as opposed to engaging in these sorts of risky, time-consuming, and difficult criminal maneuvers.  For a heist film to work, there has to be some indication that the value of the ill-gotten gains exceeds the ordeal required to steal them -- if this ordeal involves crashing cars into walls at high-speed, criminal prosecution, and incarceration in a madhouse, one might argue that the loot isn't worth the effort to snatch it.  Side Effects, although skillfully made, also founders on a central bit of completely implausible business -- the shrink treating the heroine who is alleged to have killed her husband while "sleepwalking" becomes the woman's expert witness in her criminal trial and, then, somehow ends up as her guardian when she is acquitted by reason on insanity.  This makes no sense -- the psychiatrist is obviously the central witness in the case since he prescribed for her the medication from which the homicidal side-effects arose.  Obviously, every professional boundary is violated by these proceedings, particularly since there are threats to sue the doctor for medical malpractice and, when his partners at his clinic toss him out for conflicts of interest, of course, they are exactly right that this guy's behavior is not only wildly implausible but completely unethical.  Not that the doc's partners are particularly righteous themselves -- we see them gloating about attending professional conferences in Maui at the expense of Big Pharma and, then, using their patients as test subjects for new drugs on the basis of lucrative consulting fees.  Although ostensibly set in the here and now, the movie shows antediluvian practices in the pharmaceutical industry that have been outlawed for years.  (My wife, who is a psycho-therapist used to collect gratuity promotional pens distributed by Pharma representatives; she had one of the much-sought penis-shaped pens used to promote Viagra.  But her pen-collecting came to an abrupt end when new guidelines were announced that health care providers weren't even allowed to receive writing instruments from Pharma companies.)  

There's no way to write about Side Effects without spoilers and, so, if you are interested in watching this movie, a film in which much of its interest arises from various incredible twists and turns, don't read the rest of this note.  Emily (Rooney Mara) is married to the handsome Martin (Tatum Channing).  Martin was once a high-roller on Wall Street who is now serving time in prison for insider trading -- that is, SEC violations.  When he is released, Emily slips into a deep depression and sees Dr. Banks (Jude Law) for her illness -- she has attempted suicide by driving her car into a parking ramp wall.  Banks prescribes her various anti-depressants none of which work.  He sees her previous therapist, played with fine malice by Catherine Zeta-Jones.  This therapist suggests that Banks put Emily on a new drug, something called Abilify (or a name approximately similar).  Unfortunately, a side-effect of Abilify is sleepwalking.  In a somnambulant fit, Emily knifes her husband to death and, then, claims to have no memory of the crime.  Charged with murder, somehow Dr. Banks acts as Emily's expert witness in Court and she is acquitted by reason of insanity -- in other words, the sleepwalking defense is successful.  This isn't the end of Emily's problems -- she's sent to a snake-pit hospital for the criminally insane.  The trial was high-profile and adverse publicity causes the value of equities in the company manufacturing Abilify to crash; simultaneously, stock in other firms making competitor anti-depressants soars.  This summarizes the first half of the movie.  The second part of Side Effects demonstrates that everything is a hoax and that Emily's travails are part of an elaborate criminal scheme to manipulate the stock market and earn money by illegal insider trading.  Poor Dr. Banks, who has been pilloried for his treatment of Emily, suspects that something is awry and uncovers the criminal scheme.  However, this criminal enterprise is so complicated and bafflingly perverse that it's not clear whether Banks has gone mad, suffering from some sort of paranoia, or is simply a heroic truth-teller.  (To the movie's credit, and due to its completely implausible plot, the viewer thinks Banks is completely crazy for most of the part of the film involving the convoluted explanation for Emily's murder of her stockbroker husband.)  It turns out that Emily and the therapist played Catherine Zeta-Jones are involved in a torrid lesbian affair.  The therapist trains Emily in how to pretend to be depressed.  Emily, who has apparently acquired stockbroker expertise, teaches the therapist how to engage in insider trading.  Emily murders her husband in order to accuse Abilify of causing her somnambulist homicide.  This causes the stock market to react so that the crooked, lesbian therapist can make enormous profits by investing in the  shares of the competitor companies.  Banks, finally, figures this out and takes a (sort of) ghastly revenge on Emily -- he commits her to a mad-house and prescribes her Thorazine and Depakote, turning her into a stumbling zombie with alopecia.  I don't recall what vengeance is wreaked upon the wicked therapist.  

This is the sort of movie that has not one but two deadly femme fatales (Mara and Zeta-Jones), the typical somewhat dimwitted and lecherous fall-guy (Law) integral to film noir, and a plot that sets back the interests of lesbians and people suffering from depression about twenty years -- that is, if anyone saw this picture, which, apparently, no one did.  It's shot in sickly jaundiced yellows and greens, featuring melancholy-looking urban landscapes. (The film is also deliriously unfair to Big Pharma although its hard to sympathize with that industry -- they're bad but not for the reasons shown in the film.) Performances are all good, but the plot is so contrived as to be completely unbelievable.  The movie was released in 2012, revived on Netflix, and was subsidized in part by the Louisiana Film Board -- this seems odd since the movie takes place entirely on Manhattan and in Westchester County.  But, in  retrospect, there's one gaudy flashback showing the stockbroker's wife at a garden party in some lush bright surroundings -- the feds come and arrest the stockbroker for SEC violations; this flashback probably was shot in Louisiana to justify the tax credit or subsidy as the case may be.  



Friday, December 30, 2022

The Volcano: Rescue from Whakaari

 The Volcano:  Rescue from Whakaari (2022, Rory Kennedy) is a morbid little documentary about people injured in the eruption of a New Zealand volcano.  The film is short, about 80 minutes.  No one would wish it any longer.  In large part, the movie is about trauma, serious burns, and, although the images are not particularly horrific, the film is disturbing and too unpleasant to be entertaining.  The Volcano is, more or less, pointless.  Netflix is a great open maw requiring constant infusions of content and Kennedy's movie is a place-holder -- it serves a purpose that, no doubt, Netflix understands with audience research calibrated down to fifty decimal points.  If you're tired or lazy and just want to rest your eyes on the TV for a hour or so of thoughtless diversion, a film like this (not requiring much in the way of audience commitment) will fit the bill.  It's companionable in a gruesome sort of way, not intellectually challenging, and you won't be outraged by anything you see -- the film doesn't traffic in indignation like most cable documentaries.  But Volcano is too grim for me to recommend it.

45 kilometers off the coast of New Zealand's north island, there's a stump of rock poking out of the ocean -- this is the stratovolcano of Whakaari ("White Island").  The volcano is like Aetna -- it is constantly leaking steam and fumes in a picturesque plume over a half-circle of cliffs that rise over a vitriol-green acid lake.  Before the lethal eruption, you could book excursions to the island -- tourists were shipped over to the island on tour-boats (and you could travel there by helicopter as well).  Once on the island, the tourists were led through a stinking, hellish landscape to a vantage overlooking the acid lake.  Visits lasted about 45 minutes walking to and from the overlook; the boat ride was ninety minutes one way.  The film assembles a group of witnesses who provide accounts of the events in which they were injured.  Several of them are visibly, and badly, scarred by their burns.  The movie is formulaic -- we meet the disparate group of people who will be caught up in the eruption and learn some background about the volcano.  There's a heavily tattooed Maori guy who provides perspective on the volcano's role in the local indigenous culture.  Some people are shown only by photographs and not interviewed -- this, of course, induces a guessing game in which the viewers try to figure out which of the visitors to the island will survive and which will die.  Two tour-boats land on the island and there are about 40 to 45 people on Whakaari when it erupts.  (There's also a helicopter with several visitors although the number of people associated with the flight to the volcanic island was never clear to me.)  One group of tourists have already embarked from the badly eroded concrete pier on the island, returning to the mainland, when the blast occurs.  The other group of tourists are near the acid lake.  The people on the boat aren't injured.  Their vessel returns to pick up the horribly scalded survivors who have somehow made their way down to the pier.  Some number of people too injured to make the trek to the sea remain staggering around on the lip of the acid lake.  The helicopter pilot outruns the pyroclastic cloud of steam and ash and saves himself by diving into the ocean and remaining underwater as long as possible -- he isn't injured.  The boats rush back to the harbor with their cargo of dead, dying, and severely injured tourists.  A fixed wing airplane circles the island looking for survivors.  Some  disabled people are seen on the ridge over the lake.  Two helicopter operators, defying orders from governmental authorities to stay off the island, land and try to pick up some victims.  It's not clear that anyone that they air-lift off the island survives due to their ghastly injuries.  The movie ends with some shots of the burn victims undergoing rehabilitation and therapy.  The tourists have been parboiled -- they are said to look like "boiled chickens" -- and, of course, most of them die in the hospital.  The film centers on a married couple, cooked together on their  honeymoon, and a young man too tough to die who was scalded on the ridge overlooking the lake -- his sister and parents all perished on the island.

Mercifully, Kennedy doesn't have too much relevant footage.  There's some blurry and chaotic cell-phone pictures shot on boats returning from Whakaari.  A few seconds show the eruption from the vantage of the tourists, but not surprisingly, we see white smoke, the landscape underfoot while someone is running, and, then, a reddish blur with the sounds of people screaming and moaning.  (There is a lot of screaming in this movie.)  Without much in the way of impressive footage, the film shows us picturesque shots of the volcano before it erupted, ominous drone imagery, and, then, wild hand-held sequences that look like something out of a Gaspar Noe picture -- everything canted, blurred, and trembling.  About half of the film is interview footage.  The movie purports to celebrate the courage of the rescuers -- they seem about as traumatized as the victims and have a characteristic "thousand yard stare."  The helicopter rescue, undertaken in defiance of government orders, seems to have been largely futile -- the people rescued all died.  Obviously, no one knew that the volcano wasn't about to erupt again and, so, the rescue showed desperate, if reckless, courage.  The mutilated burn victims are happy to be alive, but their lives are, more or less, ruined.  The Americans seem to think that there should be some tort liability for the catastrophe but arguments to this effect are very muted.  There's really no one and nothing to blame but human curiosity (people wanting to see a volcano up close and personal) and Mother Nature.  The island is now closed to visitors.

This sort of thing is necessarily gripping but not enlightening.  There's a good rendition of "How Great Thou Art" in Maori over the closing titles and, if you watch this thing, stick around for the credits and the song.  Rory Kennedy is the eleventh, and youngest, daughter of Robert Kennedy and the film is competently, if unimaginatively, directed.  When Jamal Kashoggi was tortured and dismembered by Saudi assassins, there was intercepted audio documenting the victim's suffering.  Donald Trump refused to listen to this audio, remarking that he didn't know Arabic, wouldn't have understood the words on the tape, and didn't want to listen to "suffering" in any event.  This was one of the few utterances by the former president with which I agreed.  Why do you want to immerse yourself  in horrible suffering? 

Tuesday, December 27, 2022

Croupier

Croupier (Mike Hodges, 1998) revolves so pervasively around its eponymous central character, Jack Manfred, that it's jarring when we see him asleep in a scene near the end of the picture.  The film is rooted in the central character's perspective to the extent that when his eyes are shut, we reflexively feel that our eyes should be shut too.  Someone shakes Jack awake and we feel the gesture as a sort of violation.  There's no outside, as it were, to Jack's story -- we're embedded in his consciousness and, so, when the movie falters from his point of view, it seems as if things are going wrong.  And, indeed, in its last fifteen minutes. the film does go awry.  However, the picture is written with razor-sharp dialogue and, for most of its length, is gripping and highly effective.  Croupier is a neo-noir, complete with a heist plot, and, like Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard (as well as other examples of the genre), the ultra-tough and stoic nature of the film is amplified by the croupier's voice-over narrative -- utterances that are world-weary and completely, unremittingly cynical.  Twice, the croupier quotes Hemingway:  something to the effect that the world breaks everyone but that some, once mended, are stronger in the broken places.  When these words are spoken, another character, the rotten and nihilistic Matt, replies: "He killed himself, didn't he?"  When the Hemingway aphorism is cited late in the film, the croupier completes the quotation to the effect that "life breaks everyone" and, even, the courageous are ruined in the end.  This is the world of film noir, best characterized by the words:  "We're all fucked."  

Croupier is only as persuasive as the performance given by Clive Owen as Jack Manfred, the titular character.  Owen is very good, embodying an odd combination of laconic stoicism and, rather, febrile obsession:  he sees himself as the pivot of the vast roulette wheel that is the world.  He is the unmoved mover who delights in seeing the ruin of everyone revolving around him.  Jack doesn't gamble and, in fact, despises as "losers" ("good customers" in casino parlance) the people who frequent the games over which he presides.  He is a control freak, intensely focused on preserving himself from pollution by the "cess-pit" (as one character describes the casino) in which he is surrounded.  Jack wants to be a writer and is struggling to compose a novel, a book that gradually becomes an account or narration of the movie that we are seeing.  He's wildly successful -- at the end of the movie, the novel is a bestseller although Jack steadfastly evades fame; he doesn't want to be associated with the the book, a depiction of sordid events in the casino where he is employed, and has published the book anonymously.  His boss at the Casino is shown reading the book although vanity, I think, prevents him from seeing that the novel portrays the business that he manages -- "after all," the voice-over tells us, "casinos are all alike."  In the old physiology of the humors, there was a personality type described as the "saturnine".  Clive Owens embodies the saturnine; he casts a cold, indifferent gimlet eye on the people around him.  Although he doesn't lift a finger, more or less, to impress the females with whom he associates, his personal charisma is such that he has three beautiful  women who dote upon him -- but he seems to have sex with them rather reluctantly; sex signifies some lack of control and some surrender of personal autonomy, things that he abhors.  It's not an accident that, when the film ends, his girlfriend is a former S&M dominatrix:  her dispassionate and icy disposition mirrors his own.  During the course of the film, Jack is central in just about every shot -- the camera goes where he goes.  His chilly sensibility controls the film.  Clive Owen is perfectly cast, moving in some scenes with incredible grace and skill (he's a master card-shark) and, at other times, stalking about like a zombie.  Jack wears a black bowler hat and, for his work at the casino, has dyed his hair black as well -- the film takes place around Christmas with  the climactic heist on Christmas Eve and so it's cold and Jack wears a long coat.  There is something rabbinical about his appearance; he looks like some kind of emaciated Talmudic scholar as he goes about the streets of London.

Croupier's plot is complex and involves various, puzzling dead-ends.  The movie's narrative seems derived from something much longer and more intricate -- the film is only 92 minutes long and, simply put, there is too much plot loaded onto the rather slender framework of the movie.  An example is the hero's romantic entanglements -- there are three women with whom he is involved and this seems somewhat excessive, particularly since the hero appears (except in one scene) to be indifferent to sex, as well as so emotionally reticent as to be essentially uncommunicative.  The overlapping love affairs, involving women who seem unrealistically willing to tolerate their rivals, comprise an important part of the film, but it isn't always clear what is going on.  This is because the narrative doesn't really have the leisure to develop these aspects of the story.  Another example is a strange scene in which Jack looks at the corpse of one of his girlfriends; he's shown the body by a police detective who, then, blurts out that he was in love with the dead woman.  This police detective plays no other part in the movie and this revelation seems like a fragment from a much larger, more novelistic picture that possesses far more content than the picture that we are seeing. (The film was written by Paul Mayersberg and its original to the movie -- but it feels like many scenes have been eliminated.)  In summary, Jack is about thirty, an aspiring novelist told to ghost-write a celebrity book about soccer --  in this film, the publishing industry is regarded as corrupt to a degree equal to the casino business.  Jack has no money; he sells a car given to him by his casually amoral, wheeler-dealer father who is working at a casino in Sun City, that is, in the Republic of South Africa (where Jack was born, "in a casino" as he says).  Jack's father encourages him to apply for a job at a London casino.  Jack is fantastically skilled with cards and chips and, of course, easily gets the job. (The scenes of Jack's indoctrination at the casino are the best in the movie because they reveal fascinating details about the gambling business.)  Jack's girlfriend is a former police detective who has left the force (why? under a shadow?) and now works as a store-walker busting people for shoplifting.  Jack says that she is his "conscience".  She disapproves of Jack's new work as a casino croupier and says that she preferred him with blonde hair and as an aspiring novelist.  At the casino, Jack encounters Matt, who is a crooked employee, and Bella, the former dominatrix -- both of whom are also croupiers.  A beautiful woman gambles at the roulette wheel and clearly knows how casinos operate -- "Bright woman:  she knows the rule of gold," the voiceover informs us.  This woman, Yani, is from South Africa herself and, as it turns out, wants to enlist Jack in a scheme to steal money from the casino -- this is the heist plot; the film is so full of material that the heist is not really developed; things happen but we can't tell how the heist is engineered or implemented, although it involves poor Jack taking a beating.  Jack is opposed to stealing from the casino but, in the end, Yani tells him that she is the victim of extortion and will be severely beaten or, even, killed by her "creditors" if she can't recruit Jack, as the "inside man" for the heist.  Jack is fundamentally noble and so he decides to rescue Yani from her plight by joining in her criminal scheme. (Yani is a version of a character-type fundamental to film noir, the lethal, scheming femme fatale.)  She parades around totally nude in front of him, contrives a way to sleep with him, and, then, pays him 10,000 pounds for his role in the plot.  Jack says that he never gambles but, in fact, the heist is a huge risk and we hear the hero, in the voice-over, calculating odds on the various aspects of the conspiracy -- he has violated his rule about gambling:  obviously the heist is a dangerous wager.  At this point, the plot goes off the rails.  Jack's girlfriend, the former police detective, is mysteriously killed -- we see her corpse but it's not explained how she died or if this is some kind of retaliation for Jack's role in the crime.  The heist is staged in a way that doesn't communicate to us what is going on.  After the heist, Jack goes to a Greek restaurant where casino-people gather to party -- it's like a perpetual orgy in this restaurant.  Jack encounters a beautiful black woman who says she is a "white witch" -- a very strange utterance.  She drives him home and almost runs over a woman who is jaywalking, perhaps, an echo of what happened to Jack's store-detective girlfriend.  The "white witch" accuses Jack of not trusting woman drivers.  I have absolutely no idea what this scene means or why it is included in the movie and the character of the witch disappears as quickly as she appears in the film.  The ending is rather perfunctory with a twist that reveals that Jack's general paranoia about things is well warranted.  Jack has made a fortune on his bestselling book, marketed "through a lawyer", and returns to the casino where he delights in watching people lose their money.  His girlfriend is now Bella, the ex-dominatrix.  Three-quarters of the movie is clinically clear and lucid.  The last 15 minutes is botched and very hard to interpret -- it's as if rafts of  important information have been concealed from us.

Croupier is very entertaining and contains some superb dialogue and it is well-acted throughout.  The casino milieu is fascinating and very plausibly developed.  The movie appears to be an international production and closing credits reveal the film was shot mostly in Germany (studio work) with street footage made in London and, finally, a few phone calls to South Africa also filmed in that country.  This seems weirdly gratuitous -- all of the film could have been made in any urban center; there's no scene-setting that requires shooting in either London or at Sun City, South Africa.  It's my speculation that the producers earned tax credits and subsidies from shooting in the various places where the movie was made and that this explains the globe-trotting aspects of the movie's making.    

   

  

Sunday, December 18, 2022

Bardo : False Chronicles of a Handful of Truths

In Bardo, False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths (Netflix 2022), Silverio Gama is a Latino filmmaker who directs "docu-fictions" -- these seem to be serious motion picture essay, something on the order of documentaries by Werner Herzog.  Gama has won the Alethea Award ("Alethea" is Greek for Truth) from the American Society of Journalists.  But before attending the Los Angeles ceremony in which the award will be bestowed upon him, Gama returns to his native Mexico City where his success in El Norte is feverishly (if also enviously) celebrated -- it seems that acclaim in Mexico is parasitic on success in the United States.  Most of the picture takes place in Mexico where Gama endures a series of encounters that epitomize the relationship between the United States and Mexico.  The movie is episodic after the manner of Fellini's La Dolce Vita and 8 1/2 dissecting the spiritual malaise and melancholy of a Mexican intellectual who has made his home in Los Angelus (and raised his family) in the United States.  (We learn that he's been in the United States under a type 0 1 visa for either 15 or 20 years, both durations are stated in the film -- characteristically, the movie is very precise about immigration status.)  In one scene, a smarmy Mexican talk-show host accuses Gama of making a film that is "pretentious and oneiric" -- and, then, proceeds to describe the very film that we are watching.  Some critics have seized upon these words to claim that Bardo is self-aggrandizing with respect to its director, the famed Alejandro Gonzalez Inarittu, and "self-indulgent" as well.  This may be true but is not necessarily a valid or, even, coherent criticism.  After all, James Joyce's Finnegans Wake and, even, Ulysses are arguably nakedly autobiographical, pretentious and self-indulgent.  But these books are also strange idiosyncratic masterpieces and, I think, the same can be said for Inarittu's fantastically complex and surreal Bardo.  Simply put, the film is one of the best of this year or any year and well worth the study required to come to terms with his highy allusive and intellectually complex film.  Always beware of critics who claim that a work of art is "self-indulgent" -- in many instances, this just means that the reviewer is unwilling to put in the labor required to interpret a difficult and ambiguous art-work.

Joyce's Finnegans Wake is the literary antecedent to this film, an epic dreamscape that is an allegory of Ireland and its tragic history -- so, similarly, Bardo is a long and vastly ambitious phantasmagoria intended to illuminate the vexed relationship between the United States and its southern neighbor.  Some might think that the subject is too personal or beneath their attention -- that it is, perhaps, too remote from the concerns of citizens of the United States.  But this condescending view is folly; the United States and Mexico are joined at the hip and what happens south of the Border echoes loudly in the North. (In one scene is Bardo, a name that sounds like "border", a Mexican inmate and cartel member says that Mexico is holding hostage fifty million American junkies.)  After all, the infamous Donald Trump came to power largely on the basis of rhetoric about the Border and the "beautiful wall" he was going to build in that place.  And, as I write, the administration of Joe Biden, the current U.S. president, is teetering on the edge of a political abyss that will arise when Trump era immigration regulations are lifted and Latinos in the amount of 15,000 a day are poised to swarm across our border.  Therefore, Inarittu's epic, although difficult and, perhaps, pretentious, should commend itself to the attention of Netflix viewers in the United States -- we ignore this sort of artistic analysis, the embodiment of complex intellectual cross-currents in the Mexican-American narrative, at our peril.  

There's no way to write about Bardo without spoilers and, so, my dear readers, you are duly warned that I am about to unravel the narrative knot that drives the grotesque and dream-like imagery in the film.  The title Bardo is literal.  The film's protagonist, Silverio Gama, is trapped in a limbo between life and death, the so-called Bardo imagined in Tibetan Buddhism (and recently made famous by George Saunders' remarkable novel Lincoln in the Bardo.)   Early in the picture, we hear someone on Mexican TV pontificating about a man who went into a comatose state on an LA subway and was ignored by other passengers -- this event is said to signify the savage indifference to human suffering in the land of money-grubbing and rapacious gringos.  At the end of the movie, we realize that the victim in this rather opportunistically interpreted anecdote is the film's hero, Gama.  As in Finnegans Wake, Bardo is the "false chronicle" (because all chronicles are false in one way or another) of visions experienced by the protagonist in his comatose state -- the giant Finnegan, HCE (Here Comes Everyone!) is likewise dreaming at his wake.  Within these weird and often spectacular visions, Gama encounters a "handful of truths" about his complicated intellectual and spiritual fate as a Mexican transplanted to Los Angeles and as an Angeleno returning after many years to his native country.  The framework for the system of dream images, most of which re-occur in different forms and rhyme with one another, is the phantasmagoria of the hero's coma, a structure revealed only in the last ten minutes of this long film -- it clocks in at over two hours and forty minutes.  As the viewer watches the film, it's obvious that the imagery is visionary or hallucinated -- the reason for this, however, is only established at the end of the movie.  For instance, the film begins with an apparently realistic image of a man's shadow preceding him as he walks across an immense featureless desert lit by the raking light of either dawn or sunset -- we can't tell whether this is a beginning (dawn) or some kind of end (sunset).  This uncertainty rhymes with a scene near the end of the movie in which the characters are walking across another similarly desolate desert -- they can't tell whether they are marching north to the border with the United States or going south into the heart of Mexico.  The man's shadow begins to run, then, takes flight and skims over the sagebrush and, at last, is metamorphosed into a soaring bird.  But the bird drops to earth not once but three times and, after each fall, rises to fly again.  (We are reminded that one of Inarittu's best films was about a caped superhero called the Birdman -- Birdman or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance, featuring Michael Keaton as the tormented actor who in playing the role of the Marvel or DC superhero has somehow been transmuted into a mythical monster-battling status, was shot in one ostensibly continuous sequence and seems in many ways, including its title, a warm-up exercise for the even more ambitious and visionary Bardo).  The image of the shadow transmuted from man to bird reoccurs at the end of the film -- it's a flight and an immigration that can't end except in death.  Furthermore, the opening and concluding shots in the film chime with a moment in Inarittu's city of dreadful night, the megalopolis in the vale of Mexico, when Hernan Cortes and the hero debate Mexican identity atop a pyramid of Aztec corpses, a scene that ends by revealing that the sequence is part of the movie, the camera pulling back to reveal Klieg lights and scaffolding and disgruntled extras who seem to be changing Suba Pelayo Suba -- that is, Rise up, Pelayo, Rise up, the name of a wildly popular Mexican game show in the seventies. If you look this TV show up on the Internet, you will see that it's emblem was the host climbing what looks like a greased pole (there are many pole-like artifacts lurking around the corners of some of the shots).  The idea of climbing relates to ascending north to the United States to make a fortune that can then be imported back into Mexico.  And, of course, the image of rising also represents the bird of prey aloft over the desert, that is, the eagle that drops to murder the serpent on the heart-shaped nopal fruit emblazoned on the Mexican flag.  Networks of imagery of this sort characterize the movie and nothing that we see occurs only once -- often events take place twice or even three times:  once realistically and once (or twice) refracted through the prism of dream.  An example is the hero's final trip on the LA metro.  He has bought two axolotl salamanders from a store that sells pet fish and, for some reason, is riding on the Metro when plastic bag bursts.  The breaking of the bag has various meanings -- it represents the bursting of the amniotic sac, the cerebral hemorrhage that ultimately kills Gama, and the fish-out-of-water experience that Mexican immigrants experience in the United States (and, conversely, that Gama experienced upon his return to Mexico City).  This event occurs once realistically with the fish falling on the grimy Metro floor and flopping around helplessly as well as in a symbolic or dream representation in which the subway car fills with fluid so that the hero, like the axolotl, flops around in the water, paddling here and there to find the salamanders that have swam away.  The axolotl, like the more prosaic chihuahua dog (Yo quiero Taco Bell) also manifesting from time to time symbolizes Mexican identity.  In Mexico, there's a famous book by Roger Bartra that asserts that Mexicans are like the axolotl salamander -- the creature is completely bizarre, never achieving maturity, but living to an old age as a perpetual larva (and for a good measure the little white feathery-gilled salamanders can regenerate missing tails and limbs and eyes and even parts of their brain).  The Aztecs both ate and worshipped these fantastical beasts and modern Mexican intellectuals have used them as a metaphor for the Mexican people living as eternal, if robust, larvae under the oppression of the North.  The figure of the axolotl is reiterated throughout the movie -- Gama's son Lorenzo tells us that he smuggled three pet axolotl from Mexico City to LA when he was moved to the United States by his father at six years of age.  The salamanders died, of course, but the little boy hid them under his bed until they began to rot -- to him, they signified his friends in Mexico City.  Later, the boy put them in the freezer and, whenever his mother cooked seafood, was terrified that they were eating his salamander pets.  The axolotl, a creature that never matures, is symbolically linked to Mateo, Gama's first-son who is variously described as still-born or dying after only 30 hours.  Again, we see two versions of the sea-burial of Mateo.  In one version, the tiny infant is removed from a blue silken case -- he is perfectly formed and rests in the palm of his father's hand.  Gama puts the baby on the sand on a beach at Cabo San Lucas and the infant comes to life and scrambles into the water like a baby sea-turtle.  In another shot, the family (Silverio, his wife Lucia, his daughter from Boston, Camila and his son, Lorenzo) stand hip-deep in the water as Mateo's mother, Lucia, pours the whiff of his ashes into the sea.  When Mateo is born, someone says he doesn't want to live in this "fucked-up" world and the doctor obligingly shoves  him back into Lucia's womb.  A few shots later, Lucia comes from the delivery room and sees her husband, Silverio, in the strange, claustrophobic hospital corridor -- it's narrow and constricted as the birth canal.  (As a Mexican intellectual, Silverio is like Mateo, not fully or successfully born.)  When she touches Silverio, we see that Lucia is trailing behind her an umbilical cord (the kid has been stuffed back into her uterus) that is about 30 yards long -- the umbilicus represents the connection between Silverio and Mexico, a nurturing lifeline that hasn't been completely severed.  In the middle of the movie, when Silverio is trying to perform cunnilingus on Lucia, poor Mateo's head pops and blocks his access.  Lucia tells Silverio to just shove the baby back inside her.  The film is full of enigmatic or visionary sequences of this sort and, from the outset, we know that there's no grounding in mundane reality here -- repeatedly, people tell Silverio to speak out loud:  they can somehow hear his thoughts but his lips aren't moving.  (This is due, I think, to his comatose state).  As in 8 1/2, Silverio meets his dead father who, at last, tells him that he respects his son -- when he was a boy, everyone called the very European-looking Silverio "darky" to signify that his complexion seemed more indigenous than Spanish.  Silverio shrinks to a three-foot tall Hobbit in the scenes with his commanding father (the better referent may be Kafka's "The Judgement" with its cowering miniature son and giant dying father).  The ghost of Silverio's father (see Hamlet) tells the protagonist that he should drink success, swish it around n his mouth, and, then, spit it out lest "it poison you."  This dialogue occurs in the rest room of the California night club in Mexico City where there is a frenzied party celebrating Gama's fame in the United States.  Everyone dances to sprightly cumbio music and, then, to a strangely impoverished version of David Bowie's "Let's Dance" -- it's just Bowie's voice without the accompaniment.  (In this film, even the soundtrack is oneiric, a weird combination of fanfares, martial drum cadences, and polka-band music mixed with Mexican pop songs.  Inarittu, who writes music, composed most of the sound track -- he's also credited with the script and editing the film.)  People appear and mysteriously vanish; enemies engage in long harangues denouncing Gama as a fraud and a charlatan -- he suffers from so-called "Imposter Syndrome", that is, the sense, that his success is all the result of deception and he will soon be discovered to be a fraud.  When Gama denounces an old friend Luis who has invited him to appear on his talk show but only for the purpose of humiliating him as a gringo-loving traitor, he forbids the man from replying and Luis' lips become magically sealed.  This rhymes with dream appearance on Luis's talk show, Let's Suppose, in which Luis demands that Gama justify himself and his unpatriotic immigration to the United States, a calumny that Silverio is unable to answer -- he remains mysteriously silent.  There are a number of staggering set-pieces.  In a mysteriously deserted downtown Mexico City (it's the ancient sector of the medieval-looking streets near the Zocalo), Silverio wanders through the gloom.  In the window of high-fashion store, he sees a huge tarantula crawling on an expensive gown.  Gradually, the streets fill with people.  Then, a woman falls to the ground -- people thinks she's dead and, more or less, just step over her body.  But the woman isn't dead, only paralyzed (like Silvio in his coma) and says that she's "just missing".  Gradually, the streets are strewn with hundreds of people fallen to the pavement.  These paralyzed "missing" people have, at least, three meanings:  they represent the Mexicans who have left their country for the United States, they signify the "vanished", murdered by the repressive State security forces or the drug cartels, and they remind me of a moment in Mexico City when I was hiking to the Metro station with a young friend enrolled at that time at Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM); as we were walking a man just pitched to the ground among the pedestrians hurrying to and from their trains -- my friend, who is compassionate fellow, counseled me not to even look at the fallen figure because, of course, it could be some kind of pickpocketer's stunt and no good could come from this encounter.  Silverio steps over the bodies and comes to the Zocalo.  A ridge of stony outcropping occupies half of the square -- this is the petrified giant corpse of Centeotl, the Aztec maize god slain by the Spaniards.  Gama sees an enormous pyramid of corpses stacked in the center of the plaza.  (Pyramids appear from time to time in the movie -- Lorenzo's aquarium houses axolotls swimming around in front of toy pyramid shaped like the structure at Teotihuacan.)  Laboriously, he climbs to the top of the pyramid where Henan Cortes, the conquistador, is smoking a cigarette.  Cortes and Silverio debate Mexican identity -- Mexicans tend to detest Cortes; indeed Diego Rivera in his great mural cycle at the Government Palace adjacent to the Zocalo shows the conquistador as horribly deformed.  But Mexican rage at Cortes is patricidal -- after all, as Cortes tells Gama, he is the father of all of the post-conquest Mexicans.  Cortes says that a small rabble of armored conquistadors was able to topple the mighty Aztec empire because "you all hated and betrayed one another."  Silverio has been called a traitor to Mexico, in fact, he's been likened to the infamous Malinche, Cortes' indigenous mistress who betrayed her people by collaborating, politically and sexually, with the Spaniards.  When Cortes drops his cigarette, it burns one of the naked extras heaped up to represent the dead Indians.  The man protests and the camera backs away to show us that the entire sequence is encapsulated within a movie set with lights and a crane for the camera and craft personnel at the foot of the pyramid of corpses.  I'm intending to give you some flavor for this unique movie and to annotate some of its more obscure features.  Everything about the film is subtly (or not so subtly) visionary and fantastic.  In one scene, the hero steps out of his strange house, a place with rooms arranged as in Mexico around some sort of central void -- the house is full of odd nooks and crannies and pitch black rooms and it's an interior landscape that is a labyrinth in which the dying Silverio is trapped.  We see that the house is located somewhere in Los Angeles.  But when Silverio steps out of the structure we are in a verdant sub-tropical landscape with ancient oaks and yew trees arching over a wide dirt boulevard -- apparently, I think, somewhere in Oaxaca.  Later, rooms in the house fill up with sand in an image that derives from Tarkovsky and, I think, Inarrittu signifies the homage by having Silverio step outside into a naked desert where a single, fragile-looking tree (like the tree in the Russian's The Sacrifice) stands against the barren horizon.  

The film is handsomely shot and brilliantly edited and, despite its phantasmagoric structure, the picture is coherent.  Many of the scenes involve very lengthy tracking shots through mazes of corridors (for instance at Luis' TV studio) and much of the film seems devised according to techniques first developed in Birdman, although ultimately indebted to the famous Copacabana scene in Scorsese's Goodfellas.  About half of the movie is shot through distorting fish-eye lenses that seem to wrap landscapes around the central protagonist -- the images make thematic the centrality of Gama's dying consciousness to everything that happens in the movie.

In Bardo, Amazon buys Baja California.  Silverio is trying, without success to finagle, an interview with the American president.  At the Chapultapec Citadel, he meets an American ambassador and the two men trade nationalistic insults.  We see the battle between the Mexican cadets (los Ninos Heroes as they are called in Mexico, martyrs who perished battling the Gringos).  Silverio says "Only Mexicans could change this disgraceful defeat into a mythic victory."  Later, when Silverio and his family get into a fight with a Latino customs and border official at LAX, the supervisor calls for assistance and the characters are swarmed with "boy-heroes" who perished in the defeat at Chapultapec in the Mexican-American War.  At the party at the California night club, one of Gama's brothers brushes his finger across Silverio's lips -- "You've got a little piece of shit on your lip from kissing Gringo asses," the brother says in a  jocular way, as if this is the most natural thing in the world.   

Saturday, December 17, 2022

Emily the Criminal

 Emily the Criminal is a vehicle for Aubrey Plaza, one of the more interesting actors to emerge from the crucible of talent that was the TV show Parks and Recreation.  (Nick Offerman and Chris Platt are also alumni of the show.)  In Parks and Recreation, Aubrey Plaza played April Ludgate, a sullen, pouting Goth girl who seemed to regard every aspect of her work (and her interactions with fellow employees in the Parks and Rec department) as a personal affront.  She plays a more grown-up, sinister variation on this disgruntled character in Emily the Criminal, a 2022 Netflix movie (directed by John Patton Ford).  Plaza is hardwired into the Zeitgeist as I write in December 2022 -- she has just impressed critics with her performance in HBO's The White Lotus (Season 2).

Emily the Criminal is a small, somewhat nondescript but compelling, parable.  The title character is first shown to us in close-up, sullenly evading questions in a job interview.  (She seems to have dropped out of college and has a felony assault on her record).  When Emily perceives that the interviewer knows the answers to the questions that he is posing so as to trick her into lying, she curses him and stalks outs of his office. (This scene wins us over to Emily's side in the film's first three minutes.)  It seems that she is seeking better employment than the part-time catering job that we see her doing -- she rushes around the city with trays of hot food, apparently for something less than minimum wage.  A co-worker suggests that she earn a quick $200 as a "dummy shopper".  She goes to meeting with about a dozen other underemployed people who are recruited by a Lebanese criminal named Youcef.  After warning his recruits that they are being retained to commit crimes, Youcef hands out bogus credit cards to those who are game for the scam.  Emily uses a fake credit card to buy a big-screen TV that she delivers to Youcef.  He is impressed by her nonchalance and aplomb and offers her a more lucrative gig.  For a $2000 fee, Emily uses a "black" no-limits credit card, also fake of course, to buy a car.  The transaction goes awry and the Lebanese thugs who are selling the car (presumably stolen) try to beat-up Emily.  She fights back with Pepper Spray and, then, escapes with the car evading the Armenians who pursue her in a high-speed chase.  Bloody and dazed, she delivers the car to Youcef, denouncing him for putting her in danger -- "if it was so simple, why didn't you do it yourself?" she asks Youcef and his partner Khalil. Youcef tends to her wounds and encourages her to use a dozen or so fake credit cards to buy other goods.  Emily, perhaps, not surprisingly, is a whiz at crime and she makes a lot of money for Youcef.  But she is taking too much time off her catering job and her boss fires her.  When she protests, he says that she's just an "independent contractor" and,  if she doesn't like being fired, she can see her "union steward" -- of course, there is no union and no steward and the film's political implications are pretty clear:  a fundamentally unfair work place drives people to crime.  Emily also is encouraged to apply for a job at the advertising agency where her glamorous and successful friend works -- both young women hail from Newark, New Jersey, although the movie is set in LA.  While Emily is babysitting her glamorous friend's dog (she is on "shoot" in Portugal), some other small-time criminals, tipped off the heroine's moonlighting as a thief, beat her up, take her money, and, as an additional insult, dog-nap the dachshund that she is watching for her friend.  This last indignity pushes Emily over the edge.  She takes a taser, walks up to the pick-up where her assailants are gloating about robbing her, and mercilessly electrocutes the thug.  She throws his girlfriend on the pavement and uses a box-cutter to threaten to cut her throat.  The girl surrenders the money and Emily takes the dog back to her grubby apartment leaving the two would-be robbers disabled and sprawling on the asphalt.  Emily falls deeper and deeper into penny-ante property crimes but, suddenly, a way out of poverty offers itself -- she interviews with her glamorous friend's boss at the ad agency, an elegant attractive bitch played by Gina Gershon.  The boss, who hails from Hoboken, offers her an unpaid internship for six months which Emily rejects with profane indignation.  By this time, the heroine is sleeping with Youcef.  Youcef, who plays the role of an Arab-speaking Fagin in this Dickensian plot, gets into a quarrel with his cousin, Khalil.  Emily and Youcef plan to rob Khalil, but he beats them to the punch, stealing all of Youcef's ill-gotten money.  Youcef has qualms about the situation and seems to accept the loss as one of the fortunes of war.  Not Emily.  With Youcef, she raids Khalil's townhouse, tasing his bodyguards into unconsciousness, and savagely beating Khalil.  She forces Khalil to surrender his fortune in stolen money.  In the havoc, Youcef has been severely injured, stabbed in the thigh and he is bleeding out.  Emily calls for an ambulance, says good bye to her unconscious boyfriend, and flees with Khalil's stash of cash.  We next see her in some seaside resort town in Mexico, apparently, well-heeled and recruiting poor gig-economy workers for a "dummy shopper" scheme.  

The movie's point is questionable:  Emily is forced into criminality by an economy that has no reasonable jobs for her to perform.  But the movie is fair-minded and not as simplistic as this summary would suggest.  At the outset, we learn that Emily has a history of violent crime.  And, in fact, it seems that she has a  vocation for felonies.  It's not clear, accordingly, whether her poor economic prospects are the cause of her descent into crime or whether she is somehow predisposed to such activities -- she turns out to be a very skillful and aggressive criminal.  At one point, Youcef takes Emily to meet his mother, a profane old woman who seems a little shady herself.  The old woman tells Emily that her whole life is ahead of her and that, in the proper circumstances, she could be "Emily the mother" or Emily the teacher."  It doesn't exactly occur to her that Emily's best and highest vocation is to be "Emily the Criminal".  

Emily the Criminal is shot efficiently, with an invisible style -- it's classic new Hollywood in the way that scenes are set up and managed, lots of closeups and jerky handheld camera, everything scrupulously realistic.  Some of the robberies are very suspenseful.  The movie succeeds because of its star -- Aubrey Plaza is alternatively vulnerable and viciously aggressive:  the film uses the time-honored gimmick of getting the audience to identify with its criminal protagonist.  There's a nasty guilty pleasure in watching Emily savage her enemies -- we're on her side even when she's engaging in torture.  The politically "woke" elements of the script are window-dressing but they are convincing -- if people want  you to work for free, what's a girl to do?

Friday, December 16, 2022

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot

 Michael Cimino directed Thunderbolt and Lightfoot in 1974 at the start of his career as a film-maker.  Cimino died in 2016, twenty years after releasing (straight to video) his last film, Suncatcher with Woody Harrelson. Of course, he was famous for The Deer Hunter and, then, even more infamous for the debacle of Heaven's Gate.  His personal journey was as bizarre and peculiar as his filmography.  Thunderbolt and Lightfoot was produced by Clint Eastwood's Malpaso Company and stars the actor -- this was the movie that propelled Cimino to the industry status that allowed him to make The Deer Hunter with Robert de Niro, Merrill Streep, and Christopher Walken.  The Deer Hunter remains a controversial movie, certainly one of the strangest war pictures ever made and, viewed in retrospect, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is also a very unusual movie and one that seems to include harbingers of events to come with respect to Cimino's own personal transformation.  

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is divided into two parts.  The first part is a on-the-road buddy movie, a bit like an American version of Wim Wenders -- a seasoned career criminal (Thunderbolt played by Eastwood) travels around Montana with an admiring, if wildly erratic and irresponsible, younger man (Lightfoot acted by Jeff Bridges).  Thunderbolt doesn't need the distraction of tending Lightfoot who idolizes him.  But he can't quite shake the younger man and they remain together until the second part of the plot kicks in, about half-way through the movie.  Around its midpoint, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot becomes a heist movie, with the principal characters conspiring to steal money from the Montana Armored Car Company.  This heist involves elaborate planning, careful down-to-the-second timing, and is implemented by way of an armor piercing cannon used to blast open a vault.  (The advertising for the film is unashamedly phallic -- it features Eastwood grinning at the camera with the long barrel of the gun emerging from below his body.)  The second half of the picture is fairly conventional and ends with the destruction of everyone in the movie except Eastwood's Thunderbolt.  Poor Lightfoot, who has sustained a brain injury, dies riding through the majestic mountains of Montana in a Cadillac purchased by Thunderbolt -- Lightfoot fumbles with a cigar and, then, passes out:  elements of  his demise remind me of the death of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy.  In the first half of the movie, Thunderbolt is pursued across the great plains and the high mountains by "Red" Leary (George Kennedy) and a sidekick driver, Goody.  These two crooks are chasing Thunderbolt (who has concealed his identity by becoming a preacher) in an attempt to recover money from a previous heist that Eastwood's character has stolen from them.  When "Red" Leary shoots up a church service officiated by Thunderbolt, Lightfoot, who has stolen a car, picks  him up and inadvertently saves the film's hero from Leary's revenge.  Later, Leary and Thunderbolt are reconciled and work together to engineer the climactic heist in the last part of the movie.  The film is only marginally plausible -- how has Thunderbolt managed to become a preacher? -- and contains comic sequences, some of which are meanspirited.  The movie is moderately entertaining and contains lots of excellent landscape footage of the Rocky Mountains in Montana -- there are car chases on mountain passes and lots of scenes of cars carooming off embankments and speeding down sheer hillsides.  At one point, the movie ventures into Hell's Canyon and the two buddies escape Red's pursuit by hitching a ride on a mail- boat that plies the waters of the gorge delivering the post to the folks living in the remote and rocky terrain.  It's not clear to me how the hero manages to get and assemble an armor-piercing cannon and the movie's construction is more than a little haphazard -- Cimino seems to have conceived of certain set-pieces and, then, manhandled the plot into providing occasions for those scenes.  For instance, one of the principals is mauled to death by a savage dog, a pretty gratuitous scene that isn't exactly believable but that which must have amused Cimino to stage.  The film's widescreen is state of the art for 1974 -- characters are deployed in a somewhat camp manner, posing against picturesque backgrounds and there are a lot of big close-ups and jittery, stuttering handheld camera work.  

The movie is very gay, homo-erotic:  men kiss each other on the lips (as a joke, of course) and the attractive, girlish Jeff Bridges spends about a quarter of the movie in drag -- he wears s short dress and is much cuter than any of the actual women in  the film.  (The women in the movie are either stacked temptresses, a bit like cartoon figures by Robert Crumb, prostitutes, or horny teenagers yearning to get laid.)  I don't know to what extent audiences in 1974 would have been hip to the gay subtext in this film.  But it's all become increasingly clear that Cimino's somewhat idiosyncratic sexuality is on display in this movie.  For the last twenty years of his life, Cimino seems to have labored to transform himself into a pants-suited and attractive older woman --  nearing the end of his life, he looked like a somewhat shady version of a Southern California female  realtor dressed a bit like Hilary Clinton.  (He called himself "Nikki" although he denied being homosexual or, even, transgender up to the end of his life.) The oblique love scenes with Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges at a motel or the climax, with Bridges in drag cuddling up to Eastwood so that they can plausibly attend a drive-in movie together, are a pretty overt indication of what was to occur in Cimino's life 35 years later.  In retrospect, Cimino's movies all seem to be strongly colored by personal obsession -- Christopher Walken has a strangely feminine aspect in The Deer Hunter and the megalomaniacal content of Heaven's Gate is the product of a uniquely ruminative imagination that couldn't be economically channeled into more commercially viable enterprises.  Cimino wanted to make genre films (a buddy movie, a war movie, a Western) but he got diverted into some very weird and personal channels, subject matter that undercuts the audiences' genre expectations.  It's for this reason that the weird Thunderbolt and Lightfoot is worth watching today.  



Monday, December 12, 2022

One Week (Buster Keaton)

In the October 20, 2022 issue of The New York Review of Books, an esteemed critic, Geoffrey O'Brien, praises a short two-reel comedy written and directed by Buster Keaton.  The 1920 picture is called "One Week" and O'Brien's praise is lavish -- he says that the movie is so good that you could watch it forever.  Of course, this extravagant opinion triggered my interest in seeing the film.  Often, the best thing that a review accomplishes is encouraging the reader to seek out, and experience, the artwork reviewed.  I was only vaguely aware that Buster Keaton produced two-reelers, although, of course, this should have been obvious to me -- all silent film comedians worked in this form.  Keaton is famous for his full-length productions, movies such as The General and Sherlock Jr. and, until the advent of You-Tube, his two-reelers were difficult to see.  Repertory houses didn't program them and many videos and DVDs featuring these pictures reproduced the films in badly degraded and half illegible prints.  But the movie is readily available on You-Tube in a clear print (there's even a colorized version that looks a bit like a faded early 20th century post-card) with a good score.  And, so, if you want to watch the movie forever, as O'Brien recommends, you can do so.  Of course, the movie is a masterpiece but also profoundly alien to modern sensibilities -- these old two-reel comedies have something of the mystery and enigma about them of archaic Greek sculpture:  they're awe-inspiring with a faint mocking smile, but the pictures emerge from an imagination that we can't really comprehend any longer -- they are epics about geometry, gravity, the implacable relationship between things.  Because such films are often fantastically realistic in their locations, filmed, it seems, on vacant lots and anonymous commercial streets in Los Angeles' nondescript suburbs, these pictures have a hyper-reality about them -- unlike most Hollywood feature films of the era, these movie's simultaneously document material existence in the first few years after the Great War while also subverting and undercutting that reality by showing that it is erected on a base of raw, impoverished chaos.  About a minute into "One Week," there's a shot of a man waiting for a newly married couple in an open sedan.  For some reason, the shot reaches out through the screen and grabs you by the throat:  this is exactly the way people and their possessions looked one-hundred and two years ago and the effect is revelatory, even, visionary.  

Buster Keaton and his new bride (neither are named) emerge from a church.  The preacher stands sternly at the top of the stairs while a crowd of onlookers throws rice.  The rice somehow turns to shoes -- how and why this happens is not clear.  The onlookers vanish after this opening shot.  Old two-reel comedies are lonely, with streets often as desolate and dreamy as the lanes you see in paintings by de Chirico.  The malicious driver of the sedan, apparently the film's villain, transports the couple across the bleak and empty town.  At one point, just to stage a spectacular stunt, the couple depart the sedan blithely stepping into an adjacent vehicle that is speeding down the road.  Buster gets caught between the two vehicles and, just as he is spread-eagled in the air with a foot on each running board, a motorcycle zips between the cars and carries him several hundred feet down the road before crashing.  It's an astonishing stunt, although I assume it was accomplished by substituting a mannequin for Keaton, although, if this is the case, the shot is so seamless and the stunt appears to be implemented so effortlessly that it takes your breath away.  Keaton and his bride have purchased a pre-fab house that comes in boxes.  The villain mislabels the boxes turning 1 to 4 and 3 to 8.  This results in a home that is towering with huge empty rooms and a totally non-Euclidean facade -- there are no right angles and doors open into empty space and windows serve as skylights on the shingled roof.  The structure is extremely flimsy and has some of the characteristics of buildings in cartoons of the era -- it's has balloon-like walls and ceilings that are soft and springy and the home isn't really rooted in the earth but sits on a platform that is like a turntable.  Keaton navigates a bunch of perilous gags involving ladders and collapsing walls as he builds the house.  When he tries to hang a chandelier on the ground floor, the ceiling drops down like a heavily burdened trampoline and, then, releases, propelling someone on the second floor up through the roof so that his head shows in hole punched through the shingles.  Keaton has to put a chimney on the house's strangely angled roof and this leads to some more dangerous-looking gags.  A huge burly guy carries a piano to the site strutting around jauntily with the instrument on his shoulder.  Of course, the piano ends of squashing Keaton and, later, when it is hoisted into the living room more chaos ensues.  There's a home-warming party.  It begins to rain and the sieve-like roof admits torrents of water into the house.  The wind begins to blow and the house spins on its foundation, rotating rapidly -- Keaton tries to stop the house from spinning and this vain effort yields another set of hair-raising stunts as he clambers on the huge structure as it rotates.  Ultimately, everyone gets thrown out of the house, exiting through the windows and doors.  No one gets hurt, although people take horrific falls, and everyone seems to accept the home's obvious and grotesque defects with equanimity -- for instance, it has its kitchen sink and kitchen shelves on the outside of the structure.  The  house is fantastically flimsy and its walls and doors are continuously falling off or being dismantled.  It turns out that the home has been built on the wrong lot (66 not 99 -- the sign was upside down.)  Keaton tries to use his car to drag the building to the nearby lot, but this simply results in the destruction of his car.  He uses what seems to be beer kegs as wheels and begins to push the ungainly, towering structure across a barren strip of land that is crisscrossed with railroad tracks.  A brutish locomotive appears and threatens to run over the house stalled on the tracks.  There's a siding invisible to the camera next to the house and the locomotive roars past leaving the rickety structure unscathed.  Just as Buster and his perky long-suffering wife are uttering a sigh of relief, a locomotive enters the frame from the other direction and reduces the home to a heap of rubble and lathe.  Keaton puts up a For Sale sign next to the heap of wreckage and, then, as an afterthought leaves the instructions for building the home tucked into the sign.  

The little movie is about 20 minutes long but conceived on an epic scale.  It's one of Keaton's first films after striking out on his own (he was earlier a protegee of Fatty Arbuckle).  The picture is full of dangerous-looking stunts and ends with a spectacular train wreck.  (Of course, the last feature film that Keaton directed and controlled, The General, ends with a large-scale train wreck.)  I don't find Keaton's movies particularly funny but they are massively impressive and ingenious and have an immanent quality that gives them a particularly grave solemnity -- it's all Newtonian mechanics, acceleration, deceleration, the force of gravity, F = m (a).  In one scene, Keaton's wife is taking a bath and drops some soap on the floor -- to reach it, she will have to expose her breasts to the camera.  She leans forward to reach for the soap and someone puts the palm of his hand over the camera to protect her modesty.  There is an iconic image in the movie:  a locomotive is aimed like a projectile at the camera and roars forward; Keaton is riding on the cowcatcher and, after riding a few hundred yards, the huge iron machine stops only a few feet short of the lens dragging the actor into a big close-up -- here the peril is to the camera and it's a startling image.  


 

Sunday, December 11, 2022

Pinocchio (Netflix 2022)

Guillermo del Toro's stop-action version of Pinocchio is clearly a labor of love and it looks great.  The stop-motion animation is almost too flawlessly executed -- the animated figures move with absolute realism and they are posed against spectacular backgrounds.  (I like the more halting herky-jerky stop-motion that reveals itself as a conjuror's trick, not this completely smooth and perfectly executed simulacram of real motion.)  The  film's story is rather tediously developed but the plot makes sense and has a clearly defined narrative arc.  But the movie is completely unengaging:  it has the mysterious effect of being brilliantly made and, yet, almost totally uninteresting.  How has del Toro and his co-director, Mark Gustafson achieved this curious effect?  The answer, I think, lies in the very visual inventiveness that characterizes the movie.  Del Toro, of course, is a famous horror film director and his roots lie in the Mexican baroque and grotesque.  As a  result, all of the figures in the movie are monstrous, fantastic beings that are more akin to elaborate chitinous insects than human beings or mammals; the viewer has no one or thing with which to identify.  It's hard to develop any empathy with characters that are conceived, more or less, an inexpressive arachnids.  The best example of del Toro's destructive over-imagining of these figures is the film's narrator, Sebastian J. Cricket.  (Presumably, the "J" stands for "Jiminy".)  In the Disney version of this story, the cricket is a cute and comical side-kick for the wooden puppet-boy.  In del Toro's version,  the cricket isn't cute and, in fact, is horrific -- a black roach-like figure with staring white screens for eyes.  The thing doesn't look like a cricket and, certainly, isn't endearing.  Rather, the character is a monster, like all the other figures in the movie.  You can't warm to this glaring robotic-like bug and the same defect applies to Pinocchio himself.  In del Toro's conception, Geppetto has hewn the puppet out of a block of wood in a drunken and grief-stricken rage.  The wooden boy is raw-looking splintery figure missing one ear that moves like a crippled spider.  The creature has tiny immobile eyes and a schematic face that is both scary and tragic.  But Pinocchio isn't built to express anything like an emotion -- he's gruesome-looking wooden effigy that prances around but can't smile or wink or show any trace of human feeling.  Accordingly, this monster's appearance dissuades the audience from any investment in the notion that the creature wants to be a "real boy" -- how would this be possible since Pinocchio doesn't even remotely resemble a human being?  This defect (or better put, perverse design) is evident in all of the monsters inhabiting this film.  Geppetto and his adversary, Count Volpe, look like carved wooden mannequins -- they are beautifully designed but inexpressive.  Volpe's horribly abused sidekick, an organ-grinder's monkey with an emaciated torso and mutilated eye, is similarly hideous and scary-looking.  Volpe has upswept wings of hair carved into stiff horns and, also, is monstrous.  Every creature in the film is gruesome or disgusting.  Periodically, Pinocchio dies and, before being resurrected, is carried by ebony pallbearer rabbits who make the monstrous hare in Donnie Darko look cute and cuddly -- they are skeletal with mask-like heads and either lug black caskets about or play cards, loudly insulting one another.  The pallbearer rabbits are supposed to be amusing, but they're just scary.  The card games are designed to have a sort of grim Bowery boys conviviality -- but it doesn't work because of their terrifying appearance.  Similarly, the whale that swallow Geppetto is battleship-like submarine with a fearsome frowning brow -- the thing is modeled on the form of the dolphins that lurk around the corners of Baroque maps.  The inside of the creature, where Geppetto has to spend half of the film, is a nasty cavern full of bile and mucous waterfalls.  The creature's blowhole, through which the prisoners escape, is a pulsing, slimy red sphincter.  Pinocchio is brought to life by a bizarre angel that seems to be a cross between a praying mantis and a skeletal girl.  In the kingdom of death to which Pinocchio periodically reverts, there is a crouching sphinx, a chimera comprised of all sorts of creatures, including insects and serpents -- this monster, like her sister, the life-bestowing angel has blank eyes like TV screens tuned to no channel at all, a froth of white static in the middle of the monster's face.

Del Toro's movie is set during the Fascist era in Italy.  (The picture bears a close resemblance to the director's Pan's Labyrinth, a movie that critics loved but that I thought was overwrought to the point of delirium and too brutally sad to be entertaining.)  Geppetto loses his rather cloying and sentimentally conceived human son, Carlo, in a bombing raid -- a bomb lands on the poor kid while he is working with his father to install a gruesome bleeding Christ on a cross.  (We see Geppetto calling for more blood to smear on the wooden figure's head and torso -- this is a profoundly Mexican image in the film.)  Geppetto plants a pine tree next to his dead son's grave and becomes an embittered drunk.  Years pass and the pine grows to be an estimable tree and, then, in a drunken spasm of rage, Geppetto cuts down the memorial pine and, while completely intoxicated, hacks the thing into a vague effigy of a boy.  Falling asleep on a bed of broken whiskey bottles, Geppetto awakes to find that a monster-angel has turned the ill-made wooden puppet into a living being.  Geppetto doesn't much like the monster he has inadvertently made and it doesn't seem remotely human to him.  The monster is abducted by the vicious and abusive Count Volpe with his mutilated monkey.  Pinocchio sings and dances his way across Italy -- the film starts in the Alps and ends up in Catania in Sicily.  There he puts on a show for Mussolini in which insults Il Duce with the result that he is shot dead and has to be resurrected.  The puppet then ends up with Podesta, a haggard black shirt fascist who specializes in training little boys to be warrior-killers -- there's some gruesome violence when Podesta pits his own son against the wooden monster in a war game, staged for some reason, in a bronze castle. Pinocchio escapes Podesta only to be kidnaped again by Volpe.  Volpe ends up trying to burn Pinocchio at the stake but the puppet escapes, rescues Geppetto from the belly of the whale, however, at the cost of his life -- he's blown to splinters by a floating sea-mine.  (The world is at war again.)  The sphinx of death says that if Pinocchio choses to become a real boy, he will be mortal and have to die.  (This is like the "little mermaid" in Hans Christian Andersen's story who gives up 300 years of joy in the sea to become a mortal human who will, nonetheless, revert to sea-foam at the end of the story -- that is, before Andersen cheats to contrive an implausible happy ending.) Pinocchio choses mortality over remaining a puppet forever -- but this doesn't improve his appearance and he remains a rudely whittled and hacked hunk of wood.  But the plot here loses it's way.  Rather than dying, poor Pinocchio lives a long time -- outliving poor, mourning Geppetto and, even, the cricket.  (He puts the dead cricket in a matchbox and carries it around with him in a cubby-hole in his wooden chest.)  The story is narrated by the authorial cricket which begs the question of who is telling the tale after the insect dies.  Like the wandering Jew or Cain, Pinocchio trudges through the fallen world, alone and, apparently, unable to die.  The moral of the story is stated:  "What happens happens and, then, we are gone" -- it sounds like a Mexican proverb.  This grim and brutal stuff is accompanied by maudlin, cloying songs that sound like they were rejected from the most recent Disney movie.  I have no idea what the filmmakers were thinking when they made this picture:  it's far too grim and gloomy for children (Geppetto makes Pinocchio in a drunken fit) and, yet, adults aren't likely to warm to this melancholy either.  The movie is brilliantly designed but, fundamentally, depressing and, sorry to say, boring.  

  

Saturday, December 10, 2022

Il Buco

 When I watch TV, my dog sits on the couch and drowses.  Dogs generally don't care much forTV and ignore it -- in this and other respects they are superior to humans.  (Their eyes aren't adapted to see color on a screen and the sound must be distorted in some way to cause them to pay no attention to it.)  I was surprised, therefore, when my dog perked up her ears and, even, scrutinized the TV set during the Italian film Il Buco.  In the movie, an old shepherd calls to his cattle (and donkey) by making a raspy barking sound and, then , following that noise with three or four higher-pitched yips.  Apparently, that call is precisely engineered for animal ears because my old dog immediately went on the alert and, indeed, looked around the room nervously for the source of the sound.  This incident encapsulates, in an elliptical way, the strange, oblique fascination exercised by Michelangelo Frammartino's 2021 film.

Il Buco (it means I think the mouth of a cave as well as a human mouth) doesn't have much a plot.  Rather, the film is a poetic exploration of a situation.  In 1961, a group of spelunkers from northern Italy, a "Grotto" as caving clubs are called from Milan  and its suburbs, traveled to the far southernmost tip of Italy in Calabria to explore a very deep and dangerous cavern.  The film presents this expedition in a fairly straightforward if highly lyrical manner.  The cave exploration is intercut with a simple and reticent plot (more of a theme almost musically developed) about the death of an elderly shepherd in the mountains near the cave's dark and ruinous-looking sinkhole shaft.  The two aspects of the film -- cave exploration and death in the woods -- don't intersect.  In fact, I can't recall any shots that link the two themes in the movie except that the old man's perch, high on the mountain,from which he overlooks his cattle, seems to also provide a vista onto the pit-opening to the cave. Both thematic movements, as it were, proceed in simple chronological form:  after a sort of prelude establishing the Calabrian landscape and a local village, we see the old man watching his cattle, eating with fellow shepherds at stable-like cabin beside a steep barren hillside, and, then, after a day or two suffering some kind of paralyzing illness, perhaps, a cerebral hemorrhage from which he ultimately dies.  A doctor is summoned to the remote stable were he rests supine and motionless.  No one can do anything and he succumbs.  His comrades wrap him in a blanket and carry him through the mist toward the village far below in a mountain valley.  The cave explorers arrive at a train station next to the sea and the rotating beacon of a lighthouse.  They travel in a sort of green bus-like military vehicle, a kind of army surplus lorry, up to the village, a pueblo of white houses packed into a crevasse between two mountains with a church and tiny, fissure-like alleys that, after dark, look like passages in a cave.  The cave explorers (about ten of them) spend the night in the town, sleeping in the church's sacristy among strange reliquary objects and images of prostrate saints (one of them is possibly Jesus dismounted from his cross).  The cavers, then, proceed up the mountain road, through a gorgeous landscape to the mouth of the cave.  (Along the way, they pass a mountain stream in which women are washing laundry -- it seems to be a very primitive enclave in Italy.)  They pitch tents next to the abyss, climb down into the cave, and, after several nights, reach its bottom, a nondescript hole 687 meters below the surface.  The spelunkers are mapping the cave and we see the product of their work, a big diagram of the abyss ending in a small pouch shaped cavity almost 2000 feet below the surface.  Mist obscures the screen when the film scans the mountains.  Some final titles explain that the cave was mapped in 1961 to be the third deepest in the world.  The movie is dedicated to the Milanese cave explorers.

Il Buco is transcendentally beautiful and the landscapes that it depicts, including the wet shafts and abysses in the cave, are remarkable.  It's possible for a film to be extremely beautiful without being expressive and, in fact, Frammartino goes to great lengths to film actions and landscapes so as to abstract from them any drama.  The images, particularly of the cave exploration, are deliberately prosaic and inexpressive.  Frammartino positions his camera so far away from the action, even when he is confined by the cave, as to make the faces and, even, the deeds of the explorers unintelligible. His cave adventurers are anonymous figures in hard hats equipped with flaring carbide lamps -- the lamps have an open flame -- and the men look like personages in a Brueghel engraving, small identical figures in pot-shaped hats.  There is no attempt to characterize or personalize the cave explorers who remain ciphers throughout the movie.  There are, I think, four or five close-ups of the old man, the shepherd of the hills, who dies in the stable.  He is handsome and photogenic, an old wrinkled and heavily weathered codger -- a sort of standard movie version of an Italian peasant, although undoubtedly authentic in this film.  Frammartino films in long takes and, almost always, uses the same formulaic shots -- we always see the meadow with the abyss from the same exact angle, an aerial perspective with tiny cattle grazing the meadow and, even, smaller people traipsing back and forth to the sinkhole.  Similarly, the village is always filmed from a fixed vantage establishing shot.  The old man surveys the valley where the cattle are grazing from a strange eyrie, standing up against a steep hillside next to a wooded lane where his burro is tethered below him.  Frammartino's habitual use of the same camera angles for his establishing shots is complicated by the fact that he shows these places in different weather and under different conditions of light, often at dawn in the fog, or in the gloaming at sunset.  The dramatic changes in sunlight and natural conditions imparts a sense of inevitability and solemnity to the spectacular landscape photography.  The shots in the cave have a similar formulaic quality -- they differ according to how far or near the carbide head-lamps are located.  Sometimes, the cave is completely black except for a tiny sliver of faintly orangish light.  Other times, we can see the cave's horrifying shafts and its tight passageways with almost clinical clarity.  Frammartino's mise-en-scene meticulously assembles details and, then, carefully deploys them -- for instance, we see a red speck on the meadow near the sinkhole; this turns out to be red inflatable boat that is used to paddle across a deep stygian pool at the bottom of one the cavern's shafts.  Sometimes, the very remote, indifferent, and Olympian imagery is quite moving -- for instance, when the old man finally dies, we see someone emerge from the distant stable to speak to a shadowy figure sitting outsider.  The man coming from the inside of the stable moves with a sense of purpose that suggests ominous urgency and the fellow outside hurries after him into the structure.  Meanwhile, a fat and contented pig roots in the dirt next to the cabin.  The viewer knows exactly what has happened, albeit from clues that are so reticent and subtle that they can't really be described.

The movie begins with the people in the village gathered outside of a tavern in one of the town's tiny slot-canyon-like streets.  The people are watching a TV show featuring Europe's tallest building, a skyscraper in Milan that is 24 or 26 stories tall.  The black and white images on the screen show an exterior elevator lifting window-cleaners up the side of the building and the images survey the sleek, sophisticated businessmen and -women in the glass tower.  The upward motion in the film's overture is paralleled, of course, with the downward descent into the abyss in the body of the movie.  There are peculiar visual rhymes -- the old man lying on a pallet in the stable as he dies rhymes with the weird corpse-like wooden effigies in the sacristy of the village church and these images, in turn, correlate to shots of the cave-explorers exhausted and sleeping in their pup tents.  (In one case, a big horse sticks his nose into one of the tents).  These sorts of matching images compel the viewer to interpret the film in lyrical or poetic terms.  The big map of the cave that the camera scans in the last image seems to mirror the shape of Italy -- it's a long narrow and vertical appendage as drawn and seems to suggest that Milan is at the top of the drawing (where the sun shines) and that the gloomy subterranean chamber at the bottom of the cave represents, backwqard poverty-stricken Calabria.  (My presumption is that the people who made this film would deny these meanings although they are pretty clear from the visual imagery and the leg and boot-like shape of the abyss.)  The film literally ends in a cul-de-sac, a kind of dead end, and this matches the fate of the old shepherd who also come a dead-end.  Further, the film suggests that a dying man is a sort of abyss -- the picture cuts from the statuesque, even sculptural mouth of the cave, to an extreme close-up of the old peasant's mouth.  Death is a sort of black hole that we can, perhaps, explore but not exactly understand.  The use of shots taken at different times of day from the same vantage suggests powerfully a fully imagined landscape, a real place that we can navigate, although the component parts of the landscape don't ever quite add up --  for instance, the stable is pushed up against a steep, cliff-like hill, but reverse shots of the place don't seem to match:  there seems to be more space behind the building than we see when the shot shows us the place from its front.  Similarly, the images of the meadow showing an odd pattern of patch-like bare spots doesn't really correlate to what we can see of the abyss.  At the heart of this landscape, there's a strange disconnectedness that seems intentionally -- it 's as if there are spaces between the mosaic of shots that can't quite be filled in.  

The only close-ups in the cave show us scraps of an illustrated magazine, Epoca, that are lit on fire and cast into the abyss -- we see, for instance, a half-burned page featuring John Kennedy lying on a muddy shelf of flowstone deep in the cave.  (The photography in the cave is probably an incredible technical feat considering the conditions of light and space in which the footage was shot.) At the end of the movie, when mist engulfs the shot, we hear the old man's barks and yips, the sounds that so fascinated my dog at the beginning of the movie.   

 

Tuesday, December 6, 2022

Ancient Apocalypse

 Ancient Apocalypse (2022) is an eight show series, purportedly about archaeology but devoted to arguing the crackpot theories of its presenter, an Englishman named Graham Hancock.  The show's episodes are short, about 25 minutes, and the series is attractively photographed, but the premise is hogwash and the Hancock's arguments are deeply dishonest.  This sort of thing might be mildly amusing if it weren't presented with the trappings of scientific argument.  Probably, people will believe Hancock's theories are plausible and many will likely accept his argument that academic archaeologists are engaged in a conspiracy to conceal the truth.  Of course, it doesn't really matter -- Hancock is perpetrating a fraud about something that supposedly happened 12,000 years ago and, therefore, his deceit isn't exactly relevant:  he isn't a charlatan promoting ideas about election fraud or health care.  But it's the tone of his series that concerns me:  first, it's "fake news" (he claims to be an investigative reporter) promoted with no concern for the truth -- this is always pernicious even though he's lying about events supposed to have happened in the Younger Dryas, a geological period of environmental catastrophes that occurred after the last Ice Age; in the law, there is an idea that if  you will intentionally lie about one thing, you will lie about everything else too and Hancock's brutish disregard for the facts is concerning.  (I'm not going to enter into the controversy -- pronounced in this show "cuntroe - versee" -- about Hancock's apparent racism:  the wise tutors that Hancock posits as the culture-heroes of Younger Dryas are all apparently White with blonde hair and blue eyes:  this is what critics who have read Hancock's screeds assert -- of course, I don't know what's in his wretched books.)  Second, Hancock epitomizes conspiracy theory -- you can't promote an idiosyncratic concept without contriving a whole cast of villainous opponents seeking to conceal the truth.  Conventional archaeologists serve the "straw man" role here as bigoted, close-minded fools who have conspired to ignore evidence that is unmistakably right before their eyes.  (As the show progresses, conventional geologists also incur Hancock's ire -- they are also supposed to be in league with the pernicious archaeological institutions.)  In fact, everyone who opposes Hancock's nutty ideas is a conspirator against the truth and, frankly, I don't know how many leaps it would take this guy to reach the idea that arithmetic is a lie and that the Elders of the Protocols of Zion are behind the cabal to conceal the our actual prehistory.  (In fairness -- and I don't pretend to be even-handed here -- there's an aspect of conspiracy theory in a book that I admire on this general topic, Wengrow and Graber's The Beginning of Everything, an infinitely better presentation of some of Hancock's propositions..  Those writers, proceeding from an anarchist viewpoint, also vehemently denounce "conventional" archaeological models for the development of urban societies with their concomitant socio-economic inequality.)

I won't address most of Hancock's problematic assertions.  His overarching theory is that there was an ancient culture that was technologically advanced and very wise existing around the end of the last Ice Age.  This culture has left no traces -- at least as far as academic archaeologists are concerned; the paucity of evidence for this presumed superior culture is due to the manifold calamities of the Younger Dryas:  volcanoes, floods, glaciers, and comets striking the earth (sky-serpents is how Hancock characterizes these lethal projectiles).  The few survivors of the apocalypse traveled around the world teaching the savages agriculture and how to build pyramids -- hence the existence of pyramids in various disparate places (Egypt, Mexico, and, surprisingly, Vanatu and Indonesia).  For some unknown reason, institutional archaeology has conspired to conceal the traces of these wise elders from the public.  Hancock never supplies a motive for this cabal -- every archaeologist that I've ever encountered, of course, would give his or her left testicle to discover signs of a lost civilization and, so, the entire conspiratorial premise makes no sense.  But if the truth is hidden, then, someone must be hiding it.  Hancock's approach is to present impressive drone footage of colossal megalithic monuments -- indeed, the world is full of these things dating from Gobekli Tepi (9000 BC) through Stonehenge and the monuments at Malta (5000 BC).  Hancock visits a monument and interviews one of its archaeological caretakers.  The interviews are cynically manipulated.  From my interaction with archaeologists, I've learned that these scientists are extremely reticent about making interpretations of artifacts that are thousands of years old.  The easiest response to get out of an archaeologist is "We don't yet know what this means."  In fact, this is the default position of professional archaeologists:  here's an object, look at it carefully, see if it similar to other objects, and, then, state that the meaning of the  object is  presently unknown.  Hancock gets his interview subjects to admit that they don't know certain things -- that is, who first built on this site or why or, even, when.  Then, he immediately cuts to himself filling in the gaps in knowledge to which the unfortunate archaeologist has just admitted.  The point is that the professional archaeologists don't know the truth (or know it and are concealing it); Hancock takes admissions as to what is unknown and, then, fills in the blank spaces with his own speculation.  This makes the hapless subjects of Hancock's interviews appear to be agreeing with him, although, of course, it is no such thing.

Let me provide an example:  Hancock devotes an episode to "secret subterranean cities" in Turkey.  I know something about this first-hand because I've actually visited one of these places and crawled around in its claustrophobic bowels.  Hancock focuses on Derinkulu and a sister underground city, Kaymakli.  First, he lies about the discovery of the underground labyrinth of tunnels and chambers.  He claims someone discovered the tunnels while remodeling a building in 1963. This is untrue.  The locals knew about the underground chambers but just had sealed up their openings.  (This is due to certain morbid aspects of Turkish history -- the tunnels and buried rooms were largely associated with Turkey's Greek-speaking Christians.  But in 1923, in a spasm of ethnic cleansing, Turkey expelled its Greek population -- while Greece booted-out its Turks.  Therefore, Turkish sites associated with the Greeks were simply shut down, abandoned, and the well-known underground refuges were closed.  The Turks are, by and large, a highly xenophobic and chauvinistic group and, so, they really had no use for anything associated with the lost Greek towns -- that is, until tourists began to arrive and it became lucrative in these dusty and remote Cappadocian villages, to open up the underground cities for the inspection of foreigners.)  Hancock likes drama and he can't resist the notion of someone stumbling onto a epoch-shaking discovery, but, of course, none of this is true.  Hancock, then, gets a Turkish archaeologist who has studied these bunkers to say that he doesn't know exactly when they were first created.  Talking to the camera or the side of the camera -- the show features irritating profile shots of Hancock pontificating, apparently, to spiff up the visuals -- the presenter tells us that probably the cities carved into the soft  pyroclastic tufa were dug around the era of the Younger Dryas, a proposition for which there is zero actual evidence at all.  (The archaeologist says that he doesn't know exactly when the refuges were dug -- that is, he can't tell you that they were created on Tuesday afternoon, March 14, 922 BC.  But, of course, he knows generally that the tunnels date back to about 900 BC, that Herodotus mentions them about 400 BC in his Histories and that later people added to the complex, making the spider-holes deeper and longer and, further, installing all sorts of infrastructure -- for instance, air shafts and wells and even stables.  Indeed, the Greeks were adding to the underground bunkers up to 1923 when they were unceremoniously thrown out of the country.  Hancock's claims that the bunkers date to 9000 BC is based on these arguments:  the oldest layers of the tunnels, closest to ground, have chisel marks that seem to suggest the use of stone tools -- of course, this flies in the face of the idea that lithic tool use would be inconsistent with a mentor sophisticate civilization.  And what is the real proof that the stone chisels were used?  Hancock shows us some hand-axes dating to about 50,000 years ago but he provides no convincing evidence on this subject.  Hancock's other proofs are even more ludicrous -- the site is 300 miles from Gobekli Tepe (so what?), the badlands in Cappadocia with phallic-looking naturally occurring fairy columns look like some carved rocks at an ancient site (circa 9000 BC) near Gobekli Tepe -- again, so what?  A blocked off tunnel in Kaymakli, another series of bunkers of this sort five miles away, is speculated to run underground to Derinkulu -- this is sheer, naked surmise.  Obviously, a five mile tunnel hacked through the tufa would be evidence of profound technological sophistication -- again, completely contradicting the assertion that the upper (oldest) levels were carved with Paleolithic hand axes.  The Turkish archaeologist can't tell you when exactly the complex was made and, therefore, it could have been carved nine-thousand years ago.  Without asking my mother, I can't say the exact hour of my birth -- therefore, I could be nine-thousand years old myself.  Hancock intercuts images of the creepy, narrow passages and tiny tomb-likechambers of the underground town with whirling dervishes.  The dervishes are supposed to supply some aura of mystery and the sacred to the claustrophobic holes in the ground -- Hancock doesn't bother to tell us that the Sufi dervishes are a Muslim sect that dates back to about 700 AD.   It seems that Hancock wants us to believe that the passageways and tunnels were refuges built to protect the local dervishes from the flood and fire and meteor bombardment of the Younger Dryas.  Clearly, the places are, in fact, conceived as bolt-holes -- that is, hiding places for local people besieged by invading armies.  The history of Anatolia is a melancholy parade of massacres and invasions -- after all, the place is land-bridge between Asia and Europe.  The Assyrians slaughtered Parthians here, the Ottoman's murdered Greeks and Armenians -- there were invasions by the Persians and Mongols and Tamerlane's armies; about every forty years, another invader appeared on the scene to persecute the people living here and this continued until the expulsion of the Greeks in 1923 (and may continue even now with respect to the Kurds).  The sites are full of huge millstones that can be rolled across openings in the tunnels to choke-off access.  This suggests that the places were primarily defensive.  (Hancock bizarrely claims that the huge half-ton millstones were used for "privacy" and as fire-walls.)  The presenter doesn't want to admit that the underground cities are refuges into which people would flee in times of invasion -- although there is copious documentary evidence to this effect.  Instead, he wants these nasty underground tubes and cisterns to have been the habitations of his imaginary ancient tutors to mankind.  I've been in one of these places and I can tell you that if the subterranean holes and tubes are the work of wise elders, these people were extremely primitive, apparently very small (some of passages are only a foot or two wide), skinny dwarfs inured to living in squalid conditions.  (If there were 20,000 people crammed into one of these places, something that is theoretically possible, I don't want to imagine what the place smelled like -- I would guess that most people would prefer to take their chances with the barbarian hordes.  Of course, as is the case with much archaeology, there's a residue of really bizarre excess to places like this -- they are too big, too elaborate, too complex for their supposed purposed as temporary hiding places.  The pyramids in Giza are likewise way too large for any rational intended purpose.  (This is true of almost all ancient monuments, structures that are tributes to an eccentric aspect of human activity that once we start doing something we don't typically stop when the job is done but continue with the project for the sheer fun of it.  Why is the mound at Cahokia so tall?  What is the pyramid at Cholula so vast? We don't exactly know, although it's my theory that people often have too much time on their hands and spend it writing sonnets or novels, solving differential equations or building vast labyrinthine structures when a simple hut or trench would do.)  

Ancient Apocalypse is bearable if you watch it without the sound.  I'm likely not going to ever see the citadel in Indonesia at Gunung Padang nor am I ever going to wander the maze of tunnels in Puebla under the pyramid at Cholula; I doubt that I will ever visit Gobekli Tepe or the megalithic temples on Malta.  (I have seen the Serpent Mound, an extraordinary site in Ohio - and, indeed, very mysterious from an archaeological perspective.  The authorities in Ohio, apparently concerned about fall-out from Hancock's racist theories prevented him from venturing on the site -- no worries, his drones thoroughly explore the place from the air.)  It's interesting to see these places and rummage around in their guts with Hancock.  But I recommend that you don't trouble yourself with his narration.