The Clones of Josef K: "The Double" Review

In the book 'Kafka Goes to the Movies', an author investigates journal entries and letters, written by Franz Kafka himself - the tortured soul behind 'Metamorphosis' and 'The Trial' - to piece together his thoughts and feelings regarding the new form of entertainment: cinema. Someone who wrote such nightmarish prose, filled with anxiety upon anxiety, would surely have a perspective more critical than that of the masses. Would he even be able to enjoy watching this parlor trick?

Actually, yes. Yes he was.

According to the book, he wrote about his time watching moving pictures - some as simple as a young woman looking pretty - with *shock* joy. And it's joy at something superficial, too. Amazing. If Kafka could time travel, would he be stuffing his face with popcorn, laughing at Michael Bay robot testicle jokes?

It's scary to think of, but might be easily explained with, ironically, Kafkaesque logic. At least, I hope it can.

Review: "Hot Cakes"

Cross posted from InvadeNola, where this will be appearing on June 16:

On the first episode of the #TeamNOLAFilmpodcast, we discussed the need for a real investment in local filmmakers and their projects. We have so many out of town productions coming IN to the area which is great, but not enough local projects coming OUT. Do producers need a good example of what New Orleans talent can make?

"I have been waiting all morning for a man with half a heart."

Marty, fresh out of prison, visits his regular post jail release diner.  His body language says he's yearning for a calmer future, but the scars on his face suggest something different; something deeper. Two other ex cons see this as well, and soon the three men are conversing over plates of pancakes. But there is more to their encounter than just short stacks...

Described as a sort of neo noir / urban western, "Hot Cakes" has a surreal nature to it; at times like Lynch, other times like Aronofsky. The appropriately timed music, the cryptic at times dialogue, the interesting framing (there is a Knight suit behind Marty in some shots) and even the setting - which comes off like a purgatory type meeting place for these characters - all makes the audience ask "what's this all leading to?" and "what does this all mean?".

Well, what DOES it all mean? What IS it leading to? A fortune teller in the diner is drawn to Marty, and makes a startling prediction for him; will it turn out to be correct? Will Marty be forced into a compromising position? His new friends certainly wish to pull him back into his harsh past. Will they succeed? The film's aesthetic gives everything - including eating breakfast - a sense of impending doom. And by the time the end credits roll, this sense still lingers; things just don't look good for Marty, in OR out of the diner. Is he in trouble no matter what? I absolutely loved this.

"No one should ever come here. I had teeth when I came here."

My only complaint is that it ended. I would like to see what the director Jo Custer could do with a feature length script. She's an example of the kind of local talent who deserve a shot. For Hollywood South to move forward, out of town producers bringing projects to the area need to make a meaningful investment in local filmmakers. Is an example of good local work needed? I just provided one.

4/5 *'s

Why Did Roger Ebert Spoil "Super"?

SPOILER ALERT: I reveal a spoiler originally spoiled elsewhere.

For film buffs, the decision to read a spoiler can be a difficult temptation to overcome. With high ticket prices for movies, and even higher anticipation for popular movies, spoilers can provide certain audience members with the insight they need to decide whether or not they'll be catching a flick. But for most moviegoers, having a film's ending revealed unsolicited can ruin their theatre experience. Knowing this, reviewers do their best to avoid making any startling revelations.
Image by rexb via Flickr

In his review of "Super", Roger Ebert let slip the fate of the character played by Ellen Page. In the first two paragraphs. Filmmaker James Gunn immediately took to twitter, and started hashtag jokes at Ebert's expense. While a spoiler notice has since been attached to the review, I wonder - why did Ebert write the spoiler in the first place?

Personally, I disagree with his take on the movie. At the end of the review, He writes "'Super is a film ending in narrative anarchy, exercising a destructive impulse to no greater purpose than to mess with us." To me, this is a positive and is what makes the film great - it being emotionally intense and challenging (a nice way of saying that it "fucks" with you). Ebert is no stranger to emotionally challenging films, but maybe this one scene went too far in his mind. 

Image via Wikipedia

Ellen Page, as an actress, is easy to fall in love with. I can't say that I've disliked any of her performances, whether they're in low budgets like "Hard Candy" or big budgets like "Inception". And, judging from his reviews, I'd say that Ebert feels the same way. I think that when He witnessed what happened to Libby (Ellen Page) in "Super", He felt offended - how could they do such a thing to such an actress? He practically expresses this with SPOILER "when Ellen Page of 'Juno' stars in a movie, we don't much expect to see her brains dripping." END SPOILER This reminds me of the dust up He had with "Kick Ass" (another "real world" super hero flick) - how could they put that little girl in such extreme action scenes?

I don't want to suggest that He always disregards an entire movie because of one scene, but I have seen this happen before. I once showed "Storytelling" to two young women, and I'm convinced that if they hadn't witnessed a large black man having forceful sex with a little white woman, they would've liked the film more. I wonder if Ebert's thoughts on "Super" might change a little if that scene were excised or re-written. Seriously, that one scene could make all the difference (kind of a compliment to the film, that one scene could make such an impression).  

Of course, Ebert's revelation didn't completely ruin the movie, nor did it ruin my opinion of him. Personally, I usually agree with him maybe 80% of the time (though I'm not sure how to accurately determine that). In this one case of disagreement, I find something to agree with - Ellen Page is wonderful, and seeing her in such a sequence is a shock.

Should critic's be so chivalrous in their reviews? Spoiling a movie in an effort to warn others? I dunno. That's a topic for a blogger more articulate and better disciplined that myself. Certainly, some audiences don't mind knowing a little extra about what they're gonna spend their money on. Just be sure to attach a notice BEFORE posting the review. Might save yourself from a nasty hashtag or two.