Kill Bill Vol. 1 +2 (2003 + 2004, Quentin Tarrantino)

IF I had seen these movies before,   I have completely forgotten about them. However, I have a faint memory that I might have seen the Japanese prequel to this film.
This is one film that comes in two parts and together it took away four hours of my collected life time. Four hours that are gone and will never return; time that I could have used to view something more edifying.
Tarrantino has his moments, sure. I think he is best with words. There is some verbal showdown, e.g. in Django Unchained that is  quite sparkling. This set of movies, however, is action-oriented. And therefore it has limits. I mean, how many times do you want to see splattering brains or oozing intestines. How many times is shooting and slashing interesting?
Of course, the genre puts limits. If you make a martial arts film, there will be fighting. It is a slashing ballet - one woman against a horde of crazy fighters. And other more or less imaginative ways how to put someone from life to death.
The intellectuals have noticed that Tarrantino plays with genres. Yes, he uses different styles. Indeed he does, and it is nice -- but it's still a tiresome plot we are dealing with. He is wrapping his material art in different papers. No matter how many times you unwrap it, there is still the same rotten content in it.
Quotations from B productions? Maybe, what is the use of this kind hiding Easter eggs? Yes, it can be tickling for movie buffs to find them again, but this is hardly a  quality in its own right.
Virtuosity - yes, but without a point.
So
Kill Bill Vol. 1 3/10
Kill Bill Vol. 2 4/10 -- for a script with somewhat more dialogue

The White Balloon ( 1995, Jafar Panahi بادکنک سفيد)

It showed that this was the right selection to view on a New Year's Eve; a film which is a countdown to the New Year. OK, it's the Persian New Year, but nevertheless.
I liked Taxi Tehran so much that I wanted to see more by this director. Taxi Tehran showed an overflow of irony and creativity. These same qualities we find again in his first feature film, but also an immense distress.
The film focuses around little Razieh, who wants to buy a chubby goldfish for the Noorooz celebrations. Now, I didn't know this before, but in Persian culture these fishes are a symbol for life. The skinny fishes at home are not enough for her. Thus Razieh is targeting for the plenitude of life. Her brother is going to help her and he talks their mother into letting her buy a fish, Happily she runs a way with a 500 toman bill. Although this doesn't sound much, it still was a substantial amount of money, as director Jafar Panahi declared in an interview.
Roaming on the street, Razieh becomes interested in the performance of snake charmers. She was told that this was unsuitable for her, but she also wants to know why it is not suitable for her. She manages to get rid of the money and get it back from the snake charmers. On the way to the fish shop she loses the money again. A friendly elderly lady helps her to find the money again, but it is now lost in a cellar duct. Her brother has been looking for her and together they try to acquire the bill again. At this point the tiny plot is overshadowed by a rich collection of supporting actors: a tailor who owns the shop next to the duct, the owner of the closed shop, a soldier who hasn't the money to buy a bus ticket to go home -- and a Hazara boy from Afghanistan, selling balloons. We saw this boy in the beginning when Razieh had disappeared from her mother. Then he had many balloons, now only a few are left.
Together they manage to get the bill out of the duct; the children run happily away, the seller remains with the white balloon, alone.
This film has been called heart-warming and life-confirming. Is it really like that? In Umberto D., one of the most touching dramas of Italian neo-realism, a living being whose life is even more miserable than the life of the eponymous main-character, helps him to return to life. That was solidarity among the outcasts. What do we have here? Selfishness! The two kids may be lower-middle class, and they use the Afghani seller for their purpose. Razieh's brother even thought that taking away things from him was OK, while he still has scruples to steal from a blind chewing-gum seller.
I have been told that the supporting characters were carefully cast from different parts of society: the tailor a Turk, the old lady a Polish refugee from the Gulag, the soldier and the fish seller from other parts. The snake charmers certainly also from abroad. What is the bottom line then? Maybe that a society needs all segments, if it is supposed to work as a society? It's a guess. However, it still seems to me that this film has an unhappy ending.
Busy viewers might think that the plot is moving too slowly. This is not Fast and Furious, but a chance to meet ordinary citizens from Iran. Panahi used only amateur actors and he has a unique talent to evoke the best of their performing abilities. They act naturally and this is quite amazing. Aida Mohammadkhani, the actor of Razieh is awesome: within seconds she changes from close to tears to happiness. It seems a pity that she didn't become a professional actress. The story is told from her perspective. We never see a general view from a grown-up perspective, but always close-ups that might confirm to the height of the girl. Especially in the beginning I sensed a certain impatience - until the film, so to speak, found its direction.
Unfortunately there are also cultural references that I cannot decode. E.g. Razieh once says that her father has two professions, but they don't elaborate on that any further. And there may be other allusions which I simply didn't catch. Likewise the foreign viewer has no chance to hear the different accents used by the characters, but none of these diminished the pleasure it was to see this film.
9,5/10

In Bruges (2008, Martin McDonagh)

So, I am not forgetting my Blog; only forgetting which films I have seen and forgetting t write about them some minor notes. - So, as long as I write some trivial thoughts about nothing, nothing is going to happen. But if I wrote something controversial, some data spider or crawler might pick it up and publish it. Spiders don't leave comments, but they count nevertheless as page views.
So In Bruges -- place of Die tote Stadt, Bruges la morte. That's the place where to send two hired killers, so that they can escape the police. Who would go to Bruges without outer pressure?
Bruges is a strange place indeed with a dwarf as star in a dreamlike movie production, local drug dealers who occasionally rob tourists and a Russian arms supplier. And of course the moral code of hired killers never to harm a child.
All is mixed up into a blend of comedy and noir crime drana. The film lives also by convincing performances by Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson.
This is for those who also like literature; the dialogue is brilliant and the plot has several twists and turns that give additional spice.
Started this entry several weeks ago and left it as draft -- so much to do, so much still to watch. At leasr I will remember now that I watched this some time ago.
8/10

Robert und Bertram (1939, Hans H. Zerlett)

Es ist immer noch das Jahr 2015, eine Woche noch. Und das 21. Jahrhundert ist bislang beinah wie im Flug an mir vorübergezogen. Im 21. Jahrhundert herrscht immer noch fast unbegrenzter Zugang zur Information. Es ist nunmehr gleichgültig, ob wir in der Nähe eines großartigen Archivs leben oder nicht. Das Internetz ist Klassenzimmer, Hör- und Lesesaal und auch Kino.
Das Konzept "Vorbehaltsfilm" wirkt in diesem Sinn als nicht nur unzeitgemäß, sondern auch sinnlos. Ich hatte eher in diesem Jahr die Schlagerklamotte gleichen Namens mit Willy Millowitsch und Vico Toriani gesehen und dabei habe ich gesehen, dass dies auch ein Nazifilm ist, ein antisemitisches Machwerk aus dem Jahre 1939. Ich hatte auch gelesen, dass dieser Film unter Verschluss gehalten wird und öfentlich nicht aufgeführt werden darf. Wie gesagt, eine sinnlose Maßnahme, denn dieser Film ist auf Youtube sowieso zugänglich.
Was ist also los mit diesem Film? Ist es ein subtiles Hetzstück oder sinnfreie Unterhaltung?
Zunächst: die Vorlage ist eine "Posse mit Gesängen und Tänzen in vier Abtheilungen" von Gustav Räder. Auch dieses Stück ist zugänglich, danke Google Books! Vor 20 Jahren wären diese "gesammelten komischen Theaterstücke" sicherlich nur vor Ort an einer großen Bibliothek zugänglich gewesen, aber in diesen Zeit ist es egal, wo man wohnt. Ich habe das Stück durchgeblättert, denn ich wollte wissen, ob das antisemitische bereits im Original vorhanden ist. Ja, ist es. Bei Räder ist Ipelmeyer ein ungebildeter Emporkömmling, etwa wie in Jacques Offenbachs Operette Monsieur Choufleuri restera chez lui. Es wäre vielleicht aufschlußreich zu wissen, wie dies von den Zeitgenossen rezipiert wurde. War der neureiche Jude ein Klischee in der volkstümlichen Literatur? Ob es wohl bereits eine solche Untersuchung gibt?
Nun ja, zurück zum Nazi-Lustspiel, dem einzigen antisemitischen Lustspiel aus der Zeit des NS-Regimes. Im Jahr 1939 war die jüdische Bevölkerung weitgehend ausgegrenzt, von der Ideologie erfolgreich als der Andere stilisiert worden, als Blutaussauger am Volkskörper. Dies war dem Zeit- und Volksgenossen seit 1933 eingeimpft worden. Das Manuskript braucht also dieses Klischee nicht weiter zu verbalisieren, da es sich als allgemein bekannt vorausgesetzt werden kann. Die Kristallnacht hatte sich vor weniger als einem Jahr nach der Erstaufführung dieses Films zugetragen. Ich denke, was uns heute als belanglos erscheint, muss dem damals zeitgenössischen Publikum als Affirmation vorgekommen sein. Vermutlich hat der Film damals eine eingehendere Wirkung gehabt, eben weil er sich als harmloses Lustspiel ohne Agitation gibt.
Allerdings ist Robert und Bertram auch ambivalent, denn die lustigen Vagabunden, sind arbeitsscheues Gesindel, kaum positive Helden der Nazi-Ideologie. Während sie hier entfliehen und schließlich an der Himmelspforte anklopfen, da ihnen auf Erden sowieso keine Gerechtigkeit widerfahren kann, werden sie bei Räder verhaftet und unter Jubel des Volkes abgeführt. Sie werden in diesem Film also nicht dem RAD zugeführt, sondern entziehen sich der Einverleibung in den gesunden Volkskörper. Wie ist nun das zu verstehen? Die Vagabunden sind eine Art Till Eulenspiegel, die durch Narreteien die Ordnung in Frage stellen, aber nie grundsätzlich ändern wollen, hier und da pieksen und als Hofnarren ein Ventil zum Luftablassen sind. Es ist auch erstaunlich, dass dem Juden Ipelmeyer sein widerrechtlich erschlichener Schmuck wieder ersetzt wird. Nicht wie bei Wagner "was ein Dieb stahl, das stiehlst du dem Dieb", sondern eine Wiederherstellung des status quo ante, wobei bloß das Schicksal so korrigiert wird, das ein Happy End möglich ist: Lenchen (bei Räder Rösel) kriegt ihren (deutschen) Michel - also auch hier ein Rückzug ins Private, keine innere Emigration, sondern ein possenhafter Rückblick, wie es denn vor hundert war.
Der einzige Zeitpunkt ist sehr indirekt: beim Durchblättern eine Zeitung wundern sich die beiden Vagabunden über die Zustände in der Welt des Jahres 1839 und stellen dann fest, dass in hundert Jahren alles ganz anders sein wird. In der Tat.
Natürlich dient der Film auf seine Weise der NS-Propaganda. Ich kann mir allerdings nur schwer vorstellen, dass er heute immer noch seine giftige Wirkung entfalten kann. Einige Dialoge sind nett, nicht geschliffen, aber doch hübsch. Als Film funktioniert ist er robustes Handwerk, nicht subtil, aber dann doch nett gemacht.
4/10

Code Blue (2011, Urszula Antoniak)

The world of Urszula Antoniak is more gaga than that of Lars von Trier or Michael Haneke together.
The movie is about Marian, a nurse, who seemingly is devoted to her job, but she is an angel of death and not devoted to nursing her terminally ill patients. No emotions whatsoever.
Her private life is a corresponding waste land until she gets a crush on her neighbor. One evening she remarks that also he is observing a rape under their windows listlessly. Their erotic encounter at last is however far from being romantic.
Sex and Death have been combined often enough. Maybe Antoniak chooses this combination for shocking purposes, but sorry, if you don't have a story to tell, shocking details won't save your films. Antoniak is biting more than she can chew, or at least she doesn't chew long enough.
Antoniak introduces the theme of crime and forgiving when talking to an old lady, but she does not explore that direction further. This could have added a decisive feature to the character of the nurse. We could have been able to look behind her facade, but this remains undeveloped.
Likewise the introduction of SM and perversion remains largely undeveloped. Marian seems to think that submission is still better than no physical contact. But why is she lonely? Her solitude is bordering perversion. Is she a sociopath? Is she anorectic? What in general is wrong with her? And is the character as such credible. Hey, this is 21st century. If you are looking for intimacy, perversion, kinky stuff or what else, there is a forum for everything. You don't have to smell the crotch of strangers in the bus or walk to a park and look for the condom a rapist has left there... in short; the private life of Marian is not developed sufficiently and thus this movie is less than satisfying.
There is some good cinematography,although the metaphorical use of day versus night is less than groundbreaking. Close focus on the characters, surroundings are faded out.
2/10