Lazitude

Okay, here's the deal.  I originally planned an oh-so-droll movie review here, with some pithy witticisms accompanying some screen grabs, but a)I'm still feeling sluggishly lazy getting back up to speed doing this blog again and b) the nature of today's movie made it difficult to grab screenshots from.  So I'm gonna to what I normally planned to do sans screenshots!

1939

Director: Michael Curtiz

In A Nutshell

I love you!

I hate you!

I hate myself!

I'm the queen, bitch!

Elizabeth SMASH!

I love you!

I hate you!

Vincent Priiiiiiiiiiice!

I love you!

I hate you!

Sucker!

Sucker!

I love you!

I hate you!

I love you!

THWACK!

The End

Ahh! It's Ishiro Honda!

Today marks the 20th Anniversary of the death of director Ishiro Honda.  It's a sobering thought if you sit back and think about it – twenty years without the father of the Japanese Giant Monster Movie.  Objectively I can say (like most people) that Akira Kurosawa was the greatest Japanese film director of all time (in fact, he was probably the best director ever, period) but if I had to be completely honest with myself I would have to say that after quite a bit of reflection that Honda is my favorite Japanese film director of all time... his movies have resonated with me ever since I was a kid and have been responsible for more joy in my life than any of his countrymen, talented as they are.  Today I thought I would just share why I like Honda's movies so much and why you should check them out too.

Of course Ishiro Honda will always be remembered primarily for unleashing on the world that atomic behemoth, the radioactive flame-shooting grey dinosaur Godzilla.  For this alone he deserves to remembered more than he is... especially since the first Godzilla film – which was released in 1954, not even a decade after the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki – is such a serious movie.  There is nothing conditional as to why this should be included in "All-Time-Greatest" lists ("Well, you know, it's cheesy but it's *fun*, man" or "Yeah, the story is crap but the special effects are revolutionary!").  This is just a great film, period, and the reason that it is so great is because the story really isn't about Godzilla per se but about the effect that he has on society and everyday people, and the ramifications of trying to destroy such a threat to society and what methods are acceptable in doing so.  The movie does it with great atmosphere, too.  Everything feels so deadly and somber... there is none of the lightheartedness that permeates the later Godzilla movies (and indeed later kaiju films in general) – here Godzilla is a terrifying, primordial force of destruction and anguish.   Is it perfect?  No, of course not.  Some of the acting later on in the film can be a little overwrought and some of the film comes off as a little crude (it's a Japanese film made in the early fifties).  But by the end of the whole thing you will feel like you have seen something special.

It's a testament to Honda's film craft that he could go from this somber type of film to more light fare, especially in the same film series.  While the first Godzilla movie is deadly serious the ones that followed ended up becoming more geared towards children, but that didn't mean that the quality necessarily went down (at least until the seventies under different directors).  Honda managed to keep things entertaining and well-made for the next decade is a testament to his talent (okay, King Kong vs Godzilla wasn't that great but that's mainly because he let things get a little too silly with that shoddy gorilla suit... ugh).  Mothra vs Godzilla is the highlight of the Sixties Godzilla movies, with the big G still being the bad guy and the story going into fantasy territory with the giant lepidopteran and her twin singing fairies (introduced previously in their own movie, directed by... you guessed it) taking up a good chunk of the run-time.  The best Godzilla film of the Seventies, Terror of Mechagodzilla, was also directed by Honda, and while featuring the star mutant lizard as the hero brought back some of the seriousness of the early days while still being a fun movie.  I recommend both movies in addition to the first highly.

But really I can recommend any Ishiro Honda movie, especially if you have children or just want to relive a little part of your childhood yourself.  In addition to his monster movies (he also gave us Rodan) Honda also made general fantasy and adventure films, like Atragon which is about a flying sub that battles the ancient undersea kingdom of Mu.  That's the kind of movie they need more of these days, especially movies aimed at kids - less product placement and overloading of the senses, and more good, old fashioned adventure.

But the final praise that I think I can give the main is that he was capable of more than just harmless fun – he knew how to put real drama on the screen, and he didn't always need a giant black & white reptile to do it.  I mentioned the horror movie Matango in my first Halloween post a while back, and it is still one of the masterpieces of the genre... not because of the titular mushroom monstrosities but because of the effect that the mushroom monstrosities have on the people in the story... and more importantly the effect that those people have on themselves.  Matango is Honda's most adult film – there are undercurrents of power, hate, lust and primal savagery right beneath the exteriors of all of these island castaways... if the fungal menace didn't start getting them they would kill each other.  It really is Gilligan's Island in Hell... or to say Gilligan's Island in Real Life (Hell, Matango came first... Toho could've sued).

The point is that Ishiro Honda was perhaps the most versatile Japanese director of all... he could do just about anything, from serious drama (his first movies before he did Gojira were simple dramas) to action to horror to science fiction to pure fantasy.  It's no wonder Kurosawa had him as his assistant on Kagemusha and Ran.

So here's to you, Mr. Honda.  Hopefully there are still a lot of people who remember you and cherish your contribution to the moving picture, from children who delight in your fantasies to adults who value your dark drama to the children in all adults who just enjoy a good movie and a little fun.

The Winter Of My Dis-comment?

Last time on Shakespearetember I commented how Kenneth Branagh is the “foremost cinematic Shakespeare interpreter since Laurence Olivier.” Well, this week we have…

Film, 1955 

Director: Figure it out. 

Story 

The eeeeeeevil Richard, Duke of Gloucester, plots and schemes to take the throne of England. This involves killing his brother, his nephews and a lot of other ignorant dolts-er, I mean poor defenseless victims. Yep, that’s basically it. Oh, and some minor theme about complacency and collaboration being the means through which the people allow dictatorships to exist at all, but that’s not important.

What is important is that the crown of England is very *big*.
How do they wear that?

Review 

The sets are cool, the cinematography is cool, Olivier is an acting god, etc. etc. etc. Richard III just might the greatest Shakespeare movie ever, and so on and so on and so on.

What I really want to talk about today is DVD commentaries.

Yes, DVD commentaries. In a post about Olivier’s Richard III, in the middle of a month on this site dedicated to William Shakespeare.


What are DVD commentaries for anyway? Or should I say, movie commentaries, because Criterion (who made the DVD that I have of Olivier’s Richard III and whose commentary track for which I will talk about in a bit, incidentally enough) actually started the trend with their old Laserdisc releases in the 80s and 90s. Do they exist to let the director or actors inform the viewer how the film was made and what went on while they made it? Any behind-the-scenes documentary can do that – and it seems that these “making-of” programs are being shot at the same time as the movies all the time nowadays… it is like the filmmakers are anticipating the DVD releases while making their films.

Ralph Richardson does not approve.

The worst thing is, as I have said, that all modern movies will basically have a commentary track on their DVD or Blu-Ray… even if they don’t deserve one. I remember going into a video rental place (remember those?) a few years ago and watching a bit of what they had playing on the store TVs while I browsed. They were playing the completely unmemorable, throwaway Christmas comedy movie Fred Claus… with the director’s commentary on. So I got to learn all about how the movie was made, and about all of the important directorial decisions that had to be made to ensure the success of the mighty cinematic effort that was… Fred Claus. I stopped browsing after a while and focused on the screens – I became more and more engrossed with the banality of it the more it went on. The breaking point for me was the moment where the director said during a quiet scene, “when I was reading the original script, this is the scene that made me decide to make this movie.” You didn’t decide to make *anything*, moron. You took this movie because you’re a low-level hack director, and the choice from your studio overlords was either this, or Saw XXXVII: Naked Co-Ed Tubeslide Deathtrap Terror, and you took this. Do not try to puff yourself up as a real director. If you are lucky you will eventually amass enough talent and/or sleep enough with the right people to move up the Hollywood ladder enough to make a film that audiences will remember for more than ten minutes after they leave the theatre, but right now you make movies like Fred Claus… WHICH DOES NOT NEED A DIRECTOR’S COMMENTARY!!

Anyways, the point of this diatribe is that most movie commentary tracks are useless and usually highly egocentric for the people making them. The only commentaries I have genuinely loved have been the those for Ghostbusters (the original DVD release had MST3K-style silhouettes ad the bottom of the screen pointing out specific things that the makers were talking about), Evil Dead II (Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell and Robert Tapert riff their own movie and it is hilarious) and… Richard III.

Speaking of Evil Dead II:  Richard about to swallow a soul.

Criterion’s commentary track for their DVD of Richard III is not like most other commentaries, even ones by Criterion. Since the movie is an adaptation of Shakespeare, the commentators are stage director Russell Lees and Dr. John Wilders, who not only taught Shakespeare at a University level but was a member of the board for the Royal Shakespeare Company. As a consequence this has to be the most informative DVD commentary I have ever experienced. Not only in the making of the film (which isn’t gone into that much, actually) or the editorial decisions by Olivier in regards to the play (Olivier massively edited Richard III, moving around whole scenes and lines of dialogue and even cutting out a few characters all in order to make for a better cinematic experience)

Translation: this whole movie, historically, is bullshit.

but in Shakespeare and Shakespearean acting in general. For example, the question I asked in my review for Antony and Cleopatra about how the original play could handle the large load of rapid scene changes was answered on the commentary for this by Mr. Lees (the original Shakespearean stage was very sparse and didn’t have any real scenery to begin with). My greatest lesson though was in verse acting and how it can actually help actors remember their dialogue and how Shakespeare employs it in his plays. In short (because I’m getting too long) this commentary is what a commentary should be, a true learning experience and not just mindless chatter or directorial bloviating and self-aggrandizing. Watch Richard III and then watch it with this commentary track and you will learn something.

 Like how to woo ill-humored women.

Well, that was a lengthy, almost off-topic rant.  Sorry about that, but I just wanted to share a new experience that I had.  You see, this was the third time I watched Olivier's Richard III and I decided to watch it with the commentary this time and I enjoyed it and learned from it so much that I decided to write about that instead of doing a straight-up review.  I will talk about an actual Shakespeare movie next time though, I promise.




Next Week: Fairies!

I'm Back, Bitches

After three months of straight applying and interviewing with no time for anything else – including this blog – I am out of my crappy retail job. I could go on about how shitty my last job was and how much I wanted to murder the management (and some of the customers), etc. but that’s not what this blog is for. Let me just say this and then we will never speak of the subject again: I worked for a chain bookstore and I fully predict that *all* of the physical retail bookstores will go the way of Borders by 2015. They cannot for the life of them figure out how to compete with Amazon and just plod along, hoping to do the same thing that is not working anymore over and over again until they magically succeed (isn’t that the definition of stupidity?) and then punish their minimum-wage employees when their half-brained schemes to make money do nothing.

Anywho, enough about that.  I’m SO glad to be out my old shithole of a retail job (new office job – 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, yay!) that I’m booting up this blog again like I promised last post (when I knew that I was getting my next job). And in celebration I’m ALSO deciding to give this month a theme, AND I’m going to try to post once a week, just like the good old days! And in TRIPLE celebration I’m going to post a review for a movie from Charlton Heston, the Patron Saint of this site!

Verily, thy ask, what doth be mine own blog’s theme o’ th’ month? Why, ‘tis the beloved bard who bringeth drama most rich and language most bonny and fair, loved by all except the teenaged students of our fair tongue in the schools public. Yep, I’m talking about Shakespeare, and no, I’m not going to conduct the entire review like that. This month is Shakespeare September, and we’ll be looking at some movie adaptations of some of the Bard’s plays. And to kick off Shakespearetember we’ll look, as promised, at a movie from everyone’s favorite gun-totin’ monkey punchin’ man’s man as he dons a toga, yells at a lot of people and gropes a lot of boob in 

Film, 1972 

Director: Charlton Heston(!) 

Story 

Mark Antony (guess who?) waffles back and forth between his duty to Rome and his lust, er, love for Egyptian Queen Cleopatra (Hildegard Neil). He yells at a lot of people, acts like a douche and fucks up his life over the course of two-and-a-half hours, then kills himself. Cleopatra acts whiny, crazy and vain for two-and-a-half hours, then kills herself. Don’t look at me like that. I’m not spoiling anything; go pick up a history textbook. And on an anticipatory note: I’m not going to worry about spoiling any other Shakespeare plays this month either, because they have been around for four hundred-plus years and you should know all this already.

Review 

I wasn’t lying when I said that this adaptation of a Shakespeare play was from Charlton Heston, was I? Not only did he star in it, he directed it – and adapted it as well. You know what that means, kiddies.

Charlton Heston Ego Alert!

This movie was Heston’s directorial debut, too (and he only directed two minor movies after this one). Surprisingly it actually holds together as a film and doesn’t fly apart at the seams (although it does drag a little at times). There are a few weird moments though, such as when Antony and Octavian make their truce near the beginning of the story. Heston sets it in a mini Gladiator ampitheatre, and the characters have their dialogue while a pair of duelists put on a private performance. Heston shows the two gladiators trying to kill each other while flashing almost subliminal images of Octavian against a black background. It’s very weird and very clumsy. It’s almost like Heston is saying, “This is what directors do, right? Look, people, I’m directing! I’m being artsy!” Then there’s the image of the fat, sweaty hortator in the galley beating the drums and looking completely dead and soulless that will creep you the fuck out. The writer/actor/director (“Look at me! I’m Laurence Olivier!”) also makes some odd choices when adapting and trimming the play (which you have to do, otherwise you are looking at a four hour plus movie). The oddest choice for me was retaining the character of Iras (a servant of Cleopatra) but only letting her keep about two lines from the play. This also has unfortunate implications as the role is played by the only black performer who’s not an extra in the movie. I guess Heston just wanted her around to show her naked butt (because you know how Chuck loves the sistahs).

Whoa, whoa, we're not filming that kind of movie, Chuck!

Speaking of which, Heston takes the opportunity as Boss Of The Show to indulge in copping as many feels as he can, and not just with the actress playing the other half of the title. Seriously, check this out:

It's good to be the king.

Also, I (and a lot of other people) have noticed that about 75% of the sea battle footage is taken from Cleopatra and Ben-Hur. You can see the ships change from shot to shot. Speaking of Ben-Hur: while watching these scenes I almost expected to see Heston playing Mark Antony up on the top deck then see him rowing down below. Hell, why stop there? We can have a ship crewed with nothing but Charlton Hestons. Actually I would pay money to see that.

The acting in this movie is a mixed bag. Hildegard Neil is adequate if not great as Cleopatra. She gets the petulance and back-stabbery down but ultimately fails to make Cleopatra a sympathetic character (although whether she is supposed to be one in the first place or not is debatable). Oh, speaking of petulance, looking at IMDb, I see that Ms. Neil is married to Brian Blessed, which makes this scene utterly hilarious:

"I LIKE NOT THIS NEWS!  BRING ME SOME OTHER NEWS!"

Heston is typical Heston: doing a good job at ACTING! But reminding you that it is Charlton Heston acting all of the time instead of simply being the character. Actually, Heston seems to want to make Antony an even more unsympathetic character than he is in the play. For example, in the play, Antony has an emissary from Octavian whipped, which is both a breach of diplomatic protocol and an assholish thing to do, even if you are mad at the dude. In the movie, Heston’s Antony beats the guy up a little beforehand – and afterwards too.  Oh, and then he smacks Cleopatra for good measure.

What a dickweed.

The best performances in this movie are from the supporting players. My favorite acting job in this film is from Roger Delgado as the soothsayer. Quietly intense, wise, soft-spoken and spooky, Delgado gives the best performance in the show. But what else do you expect from the Master?

"You will obey me."

Speaking of Doctor Who, Julian Glover is also in this (he’s actually the first character you see on screen) and he is also very good. The other players are great as well, including John Castle as Octavian and Freddie Jones as Pompey.


The thing I liked the most about this movie was the epic-ness of it, the scenery with all of the locations and the sets. The original play Antony and Cleopatra is supposed to be grandiose; there lots of scene changes and some of the scenes only have about three lines of dialogue in them. One has to wonder how they were performed back in the day with the pace of the thing. It’s very appropriate for this play that Heston went the epic route and chose to shoot Antony and Cleopatra as an epic film (even if he does splice in the aforementioned battle footage).

In the end though Antony and Cleopatra is just a middling effort: while the scenery and some of the acting is great, the leads are just not that engaging or believable – I had a hard time believing that this was one of the greatest pairs of lovers in history and not just a pair of squabbling, backstabbing politicians who were just in it together for the sex and power. If Heston had ceded the directing duties to someone better and more experienced this could have been a truly great film. While I do recommend seeing it once for the aforementioned qualities, I think that only the dedicated Shakespeare or Charlton Heston lover needs to have it in their video library.

A Note On The DVD: The DVD of Antony and Cleopatra has the worst audio of any legitimate commercial DVD I have ever heard. There is a very loud hiss present in the movie from beginning to end, and some of the dialogue is very hard to make out – you may want to turn on the subtitles for this one. Also, on a side note I found it odd that there are no production company logos or credits at the beginning of the movie – it’s just straight into the title. This isn’t a bad thing but it makes the whole thing look like one of those old public domain VHS tapes that I would get as a kid, which actually kind of amuses me.


Next Week:  Shakespearetember continues.

Hey, I'm Writin' Here!

It has been a long time since my last post.  I’ve been focusing on looking for a job after quitting my crappy retail job (which in retrospect was a stupid, stupid move), and then my grandmother died at the end of last month. She was my favorite grandparent, and my very good friend to boot. She was the one I could go to and vent at whenever life got me down – she was there to talk to me and sympathize with me, listen to and gently criticize me. She was never judgmental or condescending or unkind. She could be really stubborn though – and I think she had an unhealthy addiction to QVC (I shudder to think about what would have happened had she been let loose on Amazon; thankfully she was never interested in learning about computers). The weird thing about her death is that I have been pretty calm about it all. I didn’t cry when I found out that she was dead and I only came close to tears once during the funeral; the only time I cried my eyes out was when I visited her in the hospital and saw her near the end, barely conscious and hooked up to a ventilator. Maybe I was forlorn to see her in such a state; maybe I could sense her impending death and let my grief out then. I don’t know. I do know that she wasn’t very happy for a few years leading up to her death because it got so difficult and painful to move around and do stuff sometimes(she could not and did not drive, so I got to drive her around some). So maybe I’m not so torn up now that she’s dead because I know that she’s not in pain anymore. Or maybe I’m just numb and the momentousness of her passing hasn’t hit me yet. I don’t know. I do know that my life is going to be very different from now on. I’m going to miss my Nana. So why do I bring this up now when I said in my first post on this site that I wouldn’t write about Real Life in a fluffy blog about movies? Well, in addition to needing the opportunity to get some things off my chest (therapy is expensive), I thought I would do a blog post today (after such a long time) in memory of my recently departed Nana. You see, today I’m going to review her favorite movie.  Here’s to you, Nana, because in your honor today on the Pharonic Fantasy Theatre I’m going to review

Film, 1969

Director: John Schlesinger

You know, it’s funny. Whenever I tell people that this was my grandmother’s favorite movie of all time, they look at me with a funny expression and say, “Oh, my God. Really?” I guess they figure it weird that someone with no predilection towards such things would pick an X rated film as her favorite. Well, first of all I don’t think she was as straitlaced as others thought she was and secondly, Midnight Cowboy isn’t even really an X movie; it’s really an R movie that got rated X unfairly back when it was released. In fact, it got re-rated only a few years later and now says “R” on the back of the DVD box. So there.

In truth, there’s very little material in this film that is truly X worthy. There’s no full frontal nudity or graphic violence (if you want that in a mainstream X-Rated movie, go watch A Clockwork Orange). I would guess that Midnight Cowboy probably got slapped with an X originally because it actually dared to portray homosexual characters in a *gasp* somewhat sympathetic light. The plight of gays in the sixties is actually portrayed very sympathetically here. Most of the supporting homosexual characters in the film are in the closet and very self-loathing. There wasn’t the same degree of tolerance for homosexuals back in 1969 as there is today, and that’s saying something as gays are still discriminated against even in this day and age. John Schlesinger, the Director was actually gay so that might explain a lot of the content of this movie (not just the homosexuality itself but the overall story of two outcasts living outside of normal society). Apparently having a compassionate view towards homosexuals or even just not portraying them as harmful, predatory monsters back in the sixties was too much for the film ratings board.

Oh, yeah and there’s drug use (hey, it’s the 60s).

Every 60s movie is required by Federal Law to have at least one tripping scene.

Oh, a quick diversionary note before I proceed any further: I’m not going to do a standard review with plot synopsis, pictures section, etc. For this little review/essay I’m going to assume that you’ve seen the movie and therefore must warn SPOILERS AHOY!

Okay, back to my rambling.

I can see what my grandmother liked in this movie. It’s a dark but very funny look at a very unorthodox friendship between two very different men. Joe Buck is a *very* naïve but very charismatic and handsome Texan “cowboy” who moves to New York City

while Rico “Ratso” Rizzo is a grimy and crippled conman who is sleazy and dishonest but a hell of a lot smarter than Joe.

Together they manage to survive with little money at the bottom rung of society’s ladder in a city that doesn’t care. Each has his own dream: Joe wants make a living whoring himself to rich, lonely women while Rico wants to move to Florida to …hang out? I don’t know. The goals of the main characters in this movie are vague and rather fantastical, which is one of the points of the whole thing.

And… shit. I realize that I just basically gave a plot synopsis when I said I wouldn’t. Oh well. I lied. I deliberately lied to you. Get over it. Moving on.

"My God, I'm in Black and White.  How did that happen?"

Yes, their goals are rather far-fetched and flimsy. Joe’s whole dream is to be a prostitute – what the hell? Who *chooses* a life like that? “Well, let’s see – looking at all of my job skills and taking into consideration where I am in my life right now and where I want to be, I think I’ll pursue a career in whoring.” Although I guess he does say at various points in the film that “loving” is all he’s ever been good at so…? Rico’s dream is purely hedonistic and lazy: hang out in the Florida sunshine all day and not work. In the end Rico refuses to see a doctor about the ailment afflicting him through the whole picture and dies on the bus on the way down to Florida – his stubborn pursuit of his shallow dream is what kills him. Joe in contrast gives up his goal of “hustling” while stuffing his cowboy outfit in the garbage during a rest stop in Florida and looks to get an honest job; he lives to the end of the movie. So maybe there’s a lesson here about pursuing goals here, eh? Don’t stubbornly pursue hollow dreams. It’ll kill you.

I remember Nana telling me that what she liked the most about Midnight Cowboy was the friendship between the two leads. “Some people see Dustin Hoffman as just exploiting Jon Voight but I saw him as his friend who was trying to help him.” Well, yes and no, Nana. Rico does con Joe in the beginning and uses his talents for his own ends, but Joe needs him for his skills just as much. It is a symbiotic relationship, and one that turns into genuine friendship.

I know it sounds funny, but the relationship between these two characters actually reminds me of the relationship between the two leads from The Producers (made the previous year, in fact). In that movie, Zero Mostel’s washed up Broadway producer character convinces Gene Wilder’s timid accountant character to launch a scheme: produce a sure flop of a musical to make a shitload of money (since then there would be no profits from the sales to give back to the backers. Just watch the movie to see what I mean, it’s hilarious). In the end, Gene Wilder gives a speech about how his relationship with Mostel’s conman has given him actual confidence and his first true friend. The end of Midnight Cowboy kind of reminded me of this – Joe ends up a better person because of his relationship with Rico (although at a horrible price). So I guess you can really say that Midnight Cowboy is the serious version of The Producers.

"I'm telling you, Springtime For Hitler just might work!"

Yes, I just went there.

Well, I’m going to stop now before I ramble to much more. Watching this movie clued me into what kind of person my Nana was. The fact that her favorite movie ever was about the close friendship between two people and the fact that she saw good in that friendship that others would dismiss as exploitative shows me that she was at heart an optimistic woman who saw good in most people.

I’m sorry I wasn’t that coherent. I guess I’ve been sort of knocked off my stride. This probably isn’t the best tribute I could give to my Nana, but oh well. It’s what I have on my mind at the moment and that’s what’s going down   Next time I will hopefully be in a better state of mind and do something a little more upbeat.

Pictured: Something Not Upbeat.

This Week's Lunch Special: Herzog ala Corman

This week on the Kinskipalooza Tour: Klaus loses his marbles, gets all philosophical and murders his wum-mon in:

Woyzeck

Theatrical Film, 1979

Director: Werner Herzog

The Story
Exactly as described above.  Oh, you want more?  OK, although the story itself is very sparse.  Woyzeck is a downtrodden soldier living in …somewhere European (we are never told) in the early Nineteenth Century.  Trying to support his girlfriend/common-law wife Marie and his son by taking odd jobs for his Captain and allowing himself to be medically experimented upon by his Doctor, Woyzeck is a complete mess both physically and psychologically.  All of this plus Marie’s infidelity with a bullying Drum Major leads Woyzeck to… lose his marbles, get all philosophical and murder his wum-mon.  What?  Don’t look at me like that!  I didn’t spoil nuthin'; the ending was spoiled in the film’s trailer!  And on the DVD artwork.

Review

I’m not going to say much on this movie, and not only because I’m very busy at the moment.  The truth is that there isn’t much to say about Woyzeck.  It’s a middling effort from Werner Herzog and not that great of a movie.  It was shot in the space of two weeks right after filming Nosferatu, and it shows.  The scenery in this film is gorgeous (a Herzog trademark) and Kinski does a good job as the tormented title character, but everything fails to gel for me.  The pacing stutters and the film is way too dialogue heavy, and not in a good way.  Characters do nothing most of the time except stand around philosophizing at each other (this is probably the most stereotypically European film I have seen yet from Herzog).  Seeing as this was adapted from a play, this is not a surprise – everything does have a stagey feel.

I don’t hate this movie, and in fact a weak effort from Herzog is better than the best efforts put out by 90% of the other movie directors out there.  It’s just not that compelling.  It’s definitely worth watching once though if for the beautiful photography and Kinski’s acting.  Just don’t expect to come back to it again and again.

Screenshots

Just your typical gorgeous Herzog scenery, just keep moving, keep moving along....

Eva Mattes as Marie:  "What the Hell just happened?"  

You'll be asking yourself the same question throughout this movie.

"My, Major, what big hands you have!"
"The better to grope you with, my dear!"

The doctor drops a cat bomb on Woyzeck.  You know, I wonder if Germany even has an SPCA, because if they do then they must be pissed with Herzog right about now, what between the horse-punching-monkey-chucking of Aguirre, the rat-abuse of Nosferatu and this.  Actually, come to think of it he would probably treat his human actors the same way if he thought he could get away with it.

"Um, look, I like you too, but I think we should try being just friends first."

Woyzeck runs through a field of POPPIES Poppies poppies

The DVD

Woyzeck comes on an infamously bare-bones DVD.  Don't expect any frills.  The picture and sound on this are good enough, but there has obviously been no attempt to clean up anything.  There are no extra features save the theatrical trailer (which, again, spoils the ending) and text info on Herzog and Kinski.  There is no commentary by Herzog, so I guess he didn't think that much of this film, either.

Next Week: Fitzcarraldo