No One Knows About Persian Cats (2009)

Synopsis: Iranian musicians Negar and Ashkan look for band members to play at a London concert - and the visas that allow them to leave Tehran to do so (from IMDB).

Watched: Rented from Google Play (1/16/16)

Review: Sometimes there are films that I love from an emotional standpoint.  I hold them in high regard because they speak to me personally.  Then there are films that I love for their political message.  These films can be difficult and I can disagree with their artistry but I love them for the potency of their message. 'No One Knows About Persian Cats' falls into the second category for me.       
 Filmed in seventeen days without license or permission from the Iranian government the film has little time for plot, characterization, or camera trickery.  But the film's spontaneity and honesty only add to its emotional backbone.  All music produced in Iran needs to be approved by the government.  Anything the government deems "morally offensive" can not only be banned, but participants can be jailed or in some cases even flogged.  All of the musicians we meet in the film are part of the underground music scene in Iran.  Many have been already spent time in jail.  They perform in cow sheds, in construction zones, or in hand built shacks to avoid being reported on by neighbors. 

'Persian Cats' doesn't tell you how to feel about these realities.  There is no suspenseful soundtrack, no finger wagging villain, no five minute heartfelt monologue condemning totalitarianism.  In all honesty this took some adjustment (that sounds awful doesn't it?).  Be it a difference in western film making or the fact that I haven't recently watched a new wave film; I personally expected a more stylistic open rebellion, and more artifice.  But 'Persian Cats' is a reminder to me that film isn't always about how things should be, but about how things are. 
               

Steve Jobs (2015)

Synopsis: 'Steve Jobs' takes us behind the scenes of the digital revolution, to paint a portrait of the man at its epicenter. The story unfolds backstage at three iconic product launches, ending in 1998 with the unveiling of the iMac. (From IMDB)

Watched: Capitol Theatre (1/9/16)

Review: I was determined to hate this film.  I hate movies centered on assholes (white cis male assholes to be more specific but that’s an entirely different email), I’m sick of hearing about Steve Jobs, I am skeptical of the quality of any film with Seth Rogan in it, and Michael Fassbender scares me (his presents exudes a kind of violence).  But I really, really liked this film, and this is me coming to terms with it.

I would start by arguing that it’s not really a film at all, but more like a play crafted for film.  From its structure: the story broken into three acts all based around product launches and everyone who’s relevant to the story will expound there.  To the fact that the story is entirely dialogue driven and visual language, the crux of narrative film, is largely absent (there are some stylistic choices I’ll talk about later).  It’s also a biopic that has little use for realism (even by biopic standards) so it never feels formulaic.  No wonder ‘Jobs' has been having a hard time gaining an audience, oddball dialog driven movies are generally frowned upon.  Unless your dialog happens to be really fucking good.  

Anyone who’s seen the ‘West Wing’ knows what you’re getting into with an Aaron Sorkin script.  It’s heady, self-referential, and loaded with wit.  Nobody really talks like that in real life but I kinda wish they did; and this film's script is no exception.  I loved it because characters talk about the technical aspects of the Apple II (nerd alert!), this is a script that treats you like you're smart.  It doesn’t talk down to you…unlike Steve Jobs.   

Which brings me to characterization.  Steve Jobs is an asshole but he’s not an antihero and I don’t feel like your suppose to condone his behavior.  Jobs however never has that epiphany about his behavior either.  There’s something oddly satisfying and ultimately more human about that to me.

Visually speaking ‘Jobs’ is filmed in 16mm, 35mm, and digitally, with obvious change overs (meant to reflect the technologies of the 70s, 80s, and late 90s). It's a nice touch.  

I find it funny that this movie, more than any other film I've watched lately seems so subjective.  Everything that I found enjoyable in this film could be a death knell for someone else.  And at the end of the day that's alright.  If it call to you go see it.

Clockwork Orange (1971)

Synopsis: In future Britain, charismatic delinquent Alex DeLarge is jailed and volunteers for an experimental aversion therapy developed by the government in an effort to solve society's crime problem - but not all goes according to plan. (from IMDB)

Watched: Netflix (on 12/31/15 since removed)

Review: I firmly believe ‘A Clockwork Orange’ has gained status as a classic film not on merit but because it is the work of master auteur Stanley Kubrick. All of Kubrick's hallmarks are present his eye for composition, his use of cutting edge techniques (it is the first film to make use of Dolby sound), and of course the Kubrick grimace. But ‘A Clockwork Orange’ is missing the cerebral and philosophical musings that made films like ‘2001: a Space Odyssey’ so great. This is a shame considering the subject matter.

I have a fascination with violence on film. Why filmmakers show what they show, how violence is a reflection of changing societal norms and mores, and violence’s relationship to power or lack of it. To me ‘A Clockwork Orange’ had more in common with a grindhouse production than with the art house standards Kubrick is known for.

Throughout the film we follow foibles of man-child and chav Alex DeLarge. A character imbued with all the privileges of race and class he is our guide to this future society. If Alex is our everyman regarding institutional vs individual violence he’s most certainly an unsympathetic one, and this is not taking into account his crimes.

Alex DeLarge is a rapist and murderer who feels no remorse and takes great pleasure in his behavior. Throughout the film we are meant empathise with Alex’s plight. I did not. In fact I felt this did more to glorify his crimes. Something that I found detestable as the crimes themselves.

I know this review has been scathing but there were some things I did enjoy. I loved the use of language in the film. Called Nadsat and taken from the novel it is a combination of Russian and English slang. And the score by Wendy Carlos is very fitting. But neither were enough to save this film for me.

Watch it if you must, but bring along your Ludovico eye grippers. As you may need some help getting through this one.