Luis Bunuel - 1960
There is something quite novelistic about this film; it's also excellent, fasinating and clear.
It is quite focussed on the narrative, the many developments (and people do change) that occur. Bunuel uses shots and reverse to coordinate this. Pictorially, I loved the sweating trees and environment of the partly hellish and partly iddylic island, and the focus on the animals. There are a lot of feet and body parts in shot, Bunuel focussing on the passions, again that animalistic side, but also on the draw that bodies have on each other.
This may though be where I most find Bunuel seeing humanity beyond the animal side. Renuncation is key here, who can do it and who can't. The position of the priest is difficult (a huge subject in Bunuel); silly, a bit ineffective, but in a sense a moral arbiter.
It would be wrong to call Bunuel abstract, but I could see how one could do it (saying he's only interested in psychoanalysis). Here he definitively repudiates these claims, making a clear statment of the inequality of race relations; the only hope of an equal relationship in modern society is when the black man has a gun on the white one. There are no dichotomies though, the white man can in a way change, making this oddly optimistic on a personal level, if the society is in no way resolved (as I've said before, surely the only moral position for a social problem film). Desire is constant, the world is in a sense going to hell, but no fatalism; possibility of change amongst the crap.
Showing posts with label Mexico. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mexico. Show all posts
Friday, 29 July 2011
Thursday, 28 July 2011
El Bruto
Luis Bunuel - 1953
Bunuel and animalism here. The direction is a bit closer than usual, with analytical editing, cut-ins more. Still, it's a Bunuel film.
After the opening, and Bunuel is clearly on the peasant's side, we move, remarkably, to have a film from the evictors side, and from the man in the middle. This is real 'everyone has their reasons', but Bunuel takes this further; not only is it terrifying, but he casts his moral gaze on it, and condemns the misery.
The people are animals; when we see the brute and the look to the women, we just know he will continue forward (the estate as an ant nest). The old man chasing after the sweets. Yet their is sympathy as they cling, in the desperate fight to keep living.
As they move forward, they can blunder, kill accidently. There is perhaps a softer touch here than usual, in the sympathy shone.
And yet this film bristles, is harsh, hair stands on the end, it is brutal. The focus on the blood and the nail. The women on the fall, blood in mouth.
There are great touches; the hell of the slughterhouse, swinging meat. And I have never been at once and terrifyed and confused by the ambiguity of the hen at the end; food, present, animal.
Bunuel and animalism here. The direction is a bit closer than usual, with analytical editing, cut-ins more. Still, it's a Bunuel film.
After the opening, and Bunuel is clearly on the peasant's side, we move, remarkably, to have a film from the evictors side, and from the man in the middle. This is real 'everyone has their reasons', but Bunuel takes this further; not only is it terrifying, but he casts his moral gaze on it, and condemns the misery.
The people are animals; when we see the brute and the look to the women, we just know he will continue forward (the estate as an ant nest). The old man chasing after the sweets. Yet their is sympathy as they cling, in the desperate fight to keep living.
As they move forward, they can blunder, kill accidently. There is perhaps a softer touch here than usual, in the sympathy shone.
And yet this film bristles, is harsh, hair stands on the end, it is brutal. The focus on the blood and the nail. The women on the fall, blood in mouth.
There are great touches; the hell of the slughterhouse, swinging meat. And I have never been at once and terrifyed and confused by the ambiguity of the hen at the end; food, present, animal.
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Ascent To Heaven
Luis Bunuel - 1952
This is far from being my favourite Bunuel; in fact it may be my least. Saying that, I wouldn't want to call it a bad film. There just seems to be a sentimentalism, and humdurm elements in the plot and dialogue, that bring it down.
These elements that I found negative actually made me consider Bunuel's art. Yes he looks at people like ants, but compassionately. Fatalism and Bunuel is interesting; his people are driven by naturalistic impulses, wide-eyed bodily madnesses, are bascially unable to stop themselves. They are selfish and sexually driven, always. Yet Bunuel also is angry at this behaviour, never accepts or says 'well, that's the way it is'. Notice here how the adulterous moment is not dwelled on but very quickly pulled away from.
The brilliance of Bunuel, or one of his brilliances, is that every shot looks as thoughwe see something for the first time. A new look, in those longish and spread out compostions, people standing across the frame, of something we thought we knew before. This partly happens from inversions. As the bus is stranded, there is that strange sense that it turns to a family picnic. The political march turns out to be against the politician. Most remarkably, the dream sequence is started by simply a 180' cut, where the sheer whiteness of the headrest, no 'tricks', makes the world anew. The clear 'surrealism' of the dream sequence with the plants, discontinuous locations, and the classic Bunuelean goats everywhere, are really set up by this simple inversion.
Bunuel's world suspends morality in many ways, or rather has traditional morality as crazy. That is, we support the hero imprinting his dead mother's fingerprints. There is no vacuum though, due to the searing gaze I have before mentioned.
There are too many moments in this film that go through the motions, it isn't Bunuelean enough for me, despite some great moments; the quiet power, and inversion, as the little girl is cheerily shown the dead woman's face. Even in probably the Bunuel film, if forced to, I would call my least favourite, it attests to a genius seen nowhere else.
This is far from being my favourite Bunuel; in fact it may be my least. Saying that, I wouldn't want to call it a bad film. There just seems to be a sentimentalism, and humdurm elements in the plot and dialogue, that bring it down.
These elements that I found negative actually made me consider Bunuel's art. Yes he looks at people like ants, but compassionately. Fatalism and Bunuel is interesting; his people are driven by naturalistic impulses, wide-eyed bodily madnesses, are bascially unable to stop themselves. They are selfish and sexually driven, always. Yet Bunuel also is angry at this behaviour, never accepts or says 'well, that's the way it is'. Notice here how the adulterous moment is not dwelled on but very quickly pulled away from.
The brilliance of Bunuel, or one of his brilliances, is that every shot looks as thoughwe see something for the first time. A new look, in those longish and spread out compostions, people standing across the frame, of something we thought we knew before. This partly happens from inversions. As the bus is stranded, there is that strange sense that it turns to a family picnic. The political march turns out to be against the politician. Most remarkably, the dream sequence is started by simply a 180' cut, where the sheer whiteness of the headrest, no 'tricks', makes the world anew. The clear 'surrealism' of the dream sequence with the plants, discontinuous locations, and the classic Bunuelean goats everywhere, are really set up by this simple inversion.
Bunuel's world suspends morality in many ways, or rather has traditional morality as crazy. That is, we support the hero imprinting his dead mother's fingerprints. There is no vacuum though, due to the searing gaze I have before mentioned.
There are too many moments in this film that go through the motions, it isn't Bunuelean enough for me, despite some great moments; the quiet power, and inversion, as the little girl is cheerily shown the dead woman's face. Even in probably the Bunuel film, if forced to, I would call my least favourite, it attests to a genius seen nowhere else.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
The Great Madcap
Luis Bunuel - 1949
What to expect from Bunuel's commerical Mexican pictures? Surely not something this great.
The direction; immediately Bunuel's later style, which some would call 'style-less', is apparent. What it is is unobtrusive tracks and pans that follow one character or another, often moving, dividing up space. It can also cut closer when the move would be too intrusive. It is masterful in its quiet way. The most obvious Bunuelian aspect are the compositions, as they are either dead-on medium shots or pretty long, full body stuff. As the characters are neatly arrayed like this in front of the camera, we have that compassionate study of human ants.
Nearly every line is loaded with a thousand bombs, every movement telling so much. That every line, deeply selfish and often violent for all the cheery delivery, actually makes sense in a kind of way, is perhaps Bunuel's deepest compassion; he doesn't hate these people. Life has just twisted itself that hoping the mother dies is kind of funny. The lines often have clear double meanings (this isn't deciphering, but just layering; it's all clearly there), almost like innuendo.
The story is remarkable. All out for themselves, then dressing up as proles. This is a remarkable first sequence; playing the part of the poor. It is remarkable in how it makes us look at the work, the washing, the house, the life in a fresh way. The absurdity of living in such misery is shown when people are directed to live like that. Seeing the world with new eyes.
Bunuel is way too great a filmmaker to leave us at simple conclusions. The family does start to love the proletarian lifestlye, and this is sincere, but also note how this moves fits perfectly in with the ascetic, perhaps post-1848 protestantism of capitalism. The whole experiment just makes him a tougher boss ('and thank God I didn't wake up, I nearly did!'- the father after the experiment).
It would be easy to list particular sequences as brilliant 'Bunuelist'; the loudspeaker for the first proposal, for example. What I loved is that, despite their having to be romance and explanation and so on, every sequence is not only executed brilliantly but becomes on its own perfectly Bunuelean, that is, true, naturalistic, texture of life, searing. The ice-creams at the engagement. How at the very end, the brie actually misses the car the first time around. This is almost imperceptible, as is my favourite; in the suicide scene, the painter underneath has a look, then gets on with his work. That scene, in fact, as the film tells us (it is pretty self-reflexive; Bunuel is aware of the need for that) that this is the one bit to be taken at face value; the evocation of the suicidal crapness of the frankly shit life of poverty.
The playacting of poverty is sharply criticised, how it can really mean very little. This is surely a selfanalysis by Bunuel, why he stuck to subjects he felt deserved tackling, that is, the bourgois. For all the 'happy poverty' here, what ultimately happens is that the bourgeois march on in that familiar line (Chaplin?), yet all the same there life has been shown as unstable, as rocked. That is Bunuel's striking brilliance.
What to expect from Bunuel's commerical Mexican pictures? Surely not something this great.
The direction; immediately Bunuel's later style, which some would call 'style-less', is apparent. What it is is unobtrusive tracks and pans that follow one character or another, often moving, dividing up space. It can also cut closer when the move would be too intrusive. It is masterful in its quiet way. The most obvious Bunuelian aspect are the compositions, as they are either dead-on medium shots or pretty long, full body stuff. As the characters are neatly arrayed like this in front of the camera, we have that compassionate study of human ants.
Nearly every line is loaded with a thousand bombs, every movement telling so much. That every line, deeply selfish and often violent for all the cheery delivery, actually makes sense in a kind of way, is perhaps Bunuel's deepest compassion; he doesn't hate these people. Life has just twisted itself that hoping the mother dies is kind of funny. The lines often have clear double meanings (this isn't deciphering, but just layering; it's all clearly there), almost like innuendo.
The story is remarkable. All out for themselves, then dressing up as proles. This is a remarkable first sequence; playing the part of the poor. It is remarkable in how it makes us look at the work, the washing, the house, the life in a fresh way. The absurdity of living in such misery is shown when people are directed to live like that. Seeing the world with new eyes.
Bunuel is way too great a filmmaker to leave us at simple conclusions. The family does start to love the proletarian lifestlye, and this is sincere, but also note how this moves fits perfectly in with the ascetic, perhaps post-1848 protestantism of capitalism. The whole experiment just makes him a tougher boss ('and thank God I didn't wake up, I nearly did!'- the father after the experiment).
It would be easy to list particular sequences as brilliant 'Bunuelist'; the loudspeaker for the first proposal, for example. What I loved is that, despite their having to be romance and explanation and so on, every sequence is not only executed brilliantly but becomes on its own perfectly Bunuelean, that is, true, naturalistic, texture of life, searing. The ice-creams at the engagement. How at the very end, the brie actually misses the car the first time around. This is almost imperceptible, as is my favourite; in the suicide scene, the painter underneath has a look, then gets on with his work. That scene, in fact, as the film tells us (it is pretty self-reflexive; Bunuel is aware of the need for that) that this is the one bit to be taken at face value; the evocation of the suicidal crapness of the frankly shit life of poverty.
The playacting of poverty is sharply criticised, how it can really mean very little. This is surely a selfanalysis by Bunuel, why he stuck to subjects he felt deserved tackling, that is, the bourgois. For all the 'happy poverty' here, what ultimately happens is that the bourgeois march on in that familiar line (Chaplin?), yet all the same there life has been shown as unstable, as rocked. That is Bunuel's striking brilliance.
Friday, 7 January 2011
Ano Bisiesto (Leap Year)
Recent work from first time director Michael Rowe
still camera, all in one room (slightly cliched art house)
compostions using backlighting, light to show necessary aspects
sex scenes focus on something else
cool atmosphere, any brightness is grubby (red; changes meaning)
angle of view; shoulder height reduces depth even more (along with setting)
themes of loneliness/ isolation
narrative picks up bite with plot move; clear show of society's needs
analysis of need to transgress to understand
quiet, desperate tragedy
deliberately shocks, but so cool about it, allows objective spectator
slightly cliched at times, formally different of not too innovative
an interesting little piece of work
still camera, all in one room (slightly cliched art house)
compostions using backlighting, light to show necessary aspects
sex scenes focus on something else
cool atmosphere, any brightness is grubby (red; changes meaning)
angle of view; shoulder height reduces depth even more (along with setting)
themes of loneliness/ isolation
narrative picks up bite with plot move; clear show of society's needs
analysis of need to transgress to understand
quiet, desperate tragedy
deliberately shocks, but so cool about it, allows objective spectator
slightly cliched at times, formally different of not too innovative
an interesting little piece of work
Friday, 5 November 2010
El Laberinto Del Fauno (Pan's Labyrinth)
Seen as one of the finest films of, pretty much, the last decade, on rewatching we found it thoroughly excellent. It pretty much loves up to its exalted reputation.
We said most of what we wanted to say talking about 'The Devil's Backbone', which is thematically and visually a very similar film. 'Pan's Labyrinth' really just brings to fruition, even perfection, the elements developed in that film.
Aagain, we have the swooping visuals, the great panopoly of brooding, contrast-ful colours. And importantly we have that great divide of the child and the adult. Done visually, done thematically, done in tone. Here the child's phantasy is dominated even more by the outside world. The key thesis of this, again, very complicated film to analyse is really all about how the adult world will and must impinge upon the the dreams. There is no true escape, it is all just filtered through. The child's imagination cannot be kept seperate; it is conditioned by, destroyed.
The fact that this is a fable rather than a film of subjective identification works in its advantage, as differentiating it from most fare. The character of Ofelia is freed to have a kind of universality, yes she is a symbol, but that is only a criticism through blinkers. The quiet fable character gives this film, in correspondence with the form of Del Toro's direction, a powerful style.
Much to say, but the most important thing is that this is fine, fine, fine work.
We said most of what we wanted to say talking about 'The Devil's Backbone', which is thematically and visually a very similar film. 'Pan's Labyrinth' really just brings to fruition, even perfection, the elements developed in that film.
Aagain, we have the swooping visuals, the great panopoly of brooding, contrast-ful colours. And importantly we have that great divide of the child and the adult. Done visually, done thematically, done in tone. Here the child's phantasy is dominated even more by the outside world. The key thesis of this, again, very complicated film to analyse is really all about how the adult world will and must impinge upon the the dreams. There is no true escape, it is all just filtered through. The child's imagination cannot be kept seperate; it is conditioned by, destroyed.
The fact that this is a fable rather than a film of subjective identification works in its advantage, as differentiating it from most fare. The character of Ofelia is freed to have a kind of universality, yes she is a symbol, but that is only a criticism through blinkers. The quiet fable character gives this film, in correspondence with the form of Del Toro's direction, a powerful style.
Much to say, but the most important thing is that this is fine, fine, fine work.
El Espinazo Del Diablo (The Devil's Backbone)
2001 movie from Benicio Del Toro, recognised as one of the finer directors of his time.
Let's first look at Del Toro's use of the camera. It is big, wide, swooping. It follows everyone, on long, elegant shots. It has fun moving up and down the characters, not so much stroking as covering all the surfaces. This is a camera of omniscience, of onipresence, a rare return in these times of identification. Del Toro wants to create a truly story here. It is a genuine narrative rather than a character study, and gives the film part of its universal, fable like structure. Add to this the use of almost mythic symbols, the bomb and the casual transcendence. And of course the children.
Del Toro is another director who uses colour in a striking manner, yellows and sandblasted wide vistas. He is a man of the landscape, with great historical acuity.
Del Toro has a very hateful character in the film. Is this is perhaps slightly too simplistic, it may also be an interesting use of tropes; it should not be overdone. Of course this is a very political parable, but it should not be read as just 'those evil fascists'; their is an inhumanity in the old doctor also. The better reading is partly of inter-generational hells; the discontinuity of the wretched violence and the children, who seem far away from this, but cannot but encroach.
Del Toro uses many opaque symbols, which are difficult to decipher. The bomb, the wooden leg, amongst others. What Del Toro's overall purpose is remains difficult. Is it a recollection of the war, a witness, or is it related towards the future? Whatever it is, it is a good film. Visually interesting, if not with quite the sharpness to make it excellent.
Let's first look at Del Toro's use of the camera. It is big, wide, swooping. It follows everyone, on long, elegant shots. It has fun moving up and down the characters, not so much stroking as covering all the surfaces. This is a camera of omniscience, of onipresence, a rare return in these times of identification. Del Toro wants to create a truly story here. It is a genuine narrative rather than a character study, and gives the film part of its universal, fable like structure. Add to this the use of almost mythic symbols, the bomb and the casual transcendence. And of course the children.
Del Toro is another director who uses colour in a striking manner, yellows and sandblasted wide vistas. He is a man of the landscape, with great historical acuity.
Del Toro has a very hateful character in the film. Is this is perhaps slightly too simplistic, it may also be an interesting use of tropes; it should not be overdone. Of course this is a very political parable, but it should not be read as just 'those evil fascists'; their is an inhumanity in the old doctor also. The better reading is partly of inter-generational hells; the discontinuity of the wretched violence and the children, who seem far away from this, but cannot but encroach.
Del Toro uses many opaque symbols, which are difficult to decipher. The bomb, the wooden leg, amongst others. What Del Toro's overall purpose is remains difficult. Is it a recollection of the war, a witness, or is it related towards the future? Whatever it is, it is a good film. Visually interesting, if not with quite the sharpness to make it excellent.
Saturday, 18 September 2010
Alamar
This Mexican movie is meditative, beautifully shot, with an understated story of great power.
We follow the young Natan, we have the child's eye view. This allows some stunning shots of objects and the enviroment enlargened, the director wonderfully evokes the way a child experiences the world; weird little shapes, out of context feet (a beautiful moment) and so on. The director lets us dwell on the shots terrifically. It is all done in a most verite style, adding to a feel of documentary in the acting and plot that runs through. Indeed, it may be a documentary.
This could have been a piece of formalist genius of P.O.V. and long static shots had it not been for the fact that the director (quite understandably) chooses to show us some of the wonders he has filmed outside of the child's perspective. The images are always terrific, but this perhaps loses the narrative thread slightly; a minor problem, but one that moves this from being a disciplined masterwork to being a terrifically shot and calming joy.
And what a place he does choose to indulge on; these long static shots, the lifestlye that is presented as so iddylic. The 'story' in the background is all a couple of tiny suggestions that flower in the viewers mind. If you want a tough analysis of why the child is so, what the people's struggles are like, look elsewhere. O.K., it's hagiography, but of the finest subject. Not that we neglect the people; the fathers and children relation through a few hints develops, with little conflict but a lot of tactile understanding.
A real pleasure to sit through, pleasure is the word here. Highly reccommende for that.
We follow the young Natan, we have the child's eye view. This allows some stunning shots of objects and the enviroment enlargened, the director wonderfully evokes the way a child experiences the world; weird little shapes, out of context feet (a beautiful moment) and so on. The director lets us dwell on the shots terrifically. It is all done in a most verite style, adding to a feel of documentary in the acting and plot that runs through. Indeed, it may be a documentary.
This could have been a piece of formalist genius of P.O.V. and long static shots had it not been for the fact that the director (quite understandably) chooses to show us some of the wonders he has filmed outside of the child's perspective. The images are always terrific, but this perhaps loses the narrative thread slightly; a minor problem, but one that moves this from being a disciplined masterwork to being a terrifically shot and calming joy.
And what a place he does choose to indulge on; these long static shots, the lifestlye that is presented as so iddylic. The 'story' in the background is all a couple of tiny suggestions that flower in the viewers mind. If you want a tough analysis of why the child is so, what the people's struggles are like, look elsewhere. O.K., it's hagiography, but of the finest subject. Not that we neglect the people; the fathers and children relation through a few hints develops, with little conflict but a lot of tactile understanding.
A real pleasure to sit through, pleasure is the word here. Highly reccommende for that.
Monday, 19 July 2010
Amores Perros
This mega-popular Inarittu blockbuster, from 2000, is a sharpish slice of narrative with some well, at speed, drawn characters and a good momentum too it. It is also filmed well enough, and we can't deny that we're happy to have seen it, even if it does seem at the end just the teeniest bit inconsequential.
The rapid cuts and grainy film are actually rather deceptive; Inarittu often opts to linger on faces, even if on the surface the camera appears to be a constant source of movement. The film quality adds a realist element, in a slightly hoary manner but effectively enough. No performances sag, and Gael Garcia Bernal has a certain magnetism that make his latter fame understandable.
This is a film about the sotry, the connections. The themes behind these are of loss and fetishism. The question for this film is; is it about the stories, or is it about the wider human condition? Adopting the latter is rather a denial of the undoubted impact of particularly the first strand; though it may be better to read the latter two that way. The use of dogs as a kind of fetish is well made, and the connections do help universality. Perhaps, however, this is in an odd way a drawback, as we have too much of a wide-angled view; perhaps we would rather less repition, more individuality? That would remove the heart of the film though, and make it weirdly disconnected. A difficult one.
So, a fun bit of filmaking, the stories don't quite straddle the univeral/subjective balance (or move towards a kind of dialectical unity), but they are decent enough. Worth a look.
The rapid cuts and grainy film are actually rather deceptive; Inarittu often opts to linger on faces, even if on the surface the camera appears to be a constant source of movement. The film quality adds a realist element, in a slightly hoary manner but effectively enough. No performances sag, and Gael Garcia Bernal has a certain magnetism that make his latter fame understandable.
This is a film about the sotry, the connections. The themes behind these are of loss and fetishism. The question for this film is; is it about the stories, or is it about the wider human condition? Adopting the latter is rather a denial of the undoubted impact of particularly the first strand; though it may be better to read the latter two that way. The use of dogs as a kind of fetish is well made, and the connections do help universality. Perhaps, however, this is in an odd way a drawback, as we have too much of a wide-angled view; perhaps we would rather less repition, more individuality? That would remove the heart of the film though, and make it weirdly disconnected. A difficult one.
So, a fun bit of filmaking, the stories don't quite straddle the univeral/subjective balance (or move towards a kind of dialectical unity), but they are decent enough. Worth a look.
Saturday, 6 February 2010
Sin Nombre
This film is about a very interesting story, a very interesting issue and a very interesting state of life: that of central American immigrants making the journey to the United States, not entirely officially.
The film though, frankly, could be set in any situation. The actual contingencies of the train journey through Mexico and the reaching of the Texas border seem like a pretty generic backdrop to any road movie (as this kind-of-counts as). This is not a political film at all, and really focusses on the action and the characters caught up in it, the Mexican gang culture far more primary than any specific analyses of Spanish-language illegal immigrant culture. This is a little of a shame, there's an important film to be made about this subject; this general comment though shouldn't really be a criticism of the film itself, though the thought does stick in the mind.
What we have is a very sub-City of God portrait of gang culture. This is a bit cruel, it is fitting and there are some shocking realist scenes of violence. We never though felt truly part of the action, never quite got a sense of the suffocating atmosphere and visceral horror and macabre thrill of gang violence. Where the film is more succesful is in having a look at the characters caught in these spirals; they are nicely drawn, more than ciphers. The family, and the leading girl, are also competently put together.
For all this, not exacly subtle, characterisation, the jist of the film is really in the chasing of gangsters, and the love affair brewing in the centre of this. The story is handled just fine, the action, though never exactly gripping, is not overlong and generally chigs along nicely. There isn't much more to it really; it isn't particulalry well shot or profoundly handled, just a pretty standard chase.
This is an unremarkable film transported, seemingly almost accidently, into a fascinating and underused context. More films on this subject, e ask for, but there's no need to make too many like this.
The film though, frankly, could be set in any situation. The actual contingencies of the train journey through Mexico and the reaching of the Texas border seem like a pretty generic backdrop to any road movie (as this kind-of-counts as). This is not a political film at all, and really focusses on the action and the characters caught up in it, the Mexican gang culture far more primary than any specific analyses of Spanish-language illegal immigrant culture. This is a little of a shame, there's an important film to be made about this subject; this general comment though shouldn't really be a criticism of the film itself, though the thought does stick in the mind.
What we have is a very sub-City of God portrait of gang culture. This is a bit cruel, it is fitting and there are some shocking realist scenes of violence. We never though felt truly part of the action, never quite got a sense of the suffocating atmosphere and visceral horror and macabre thrill of gang violence. Where the film is more succesful is in having a look at the characters caught in these spirals; they are nicely drawn, more than ciphers. The family, and the leading girl, are also competently put together.
For all this, not exacly subtle, characterisation, the jist of the film is really in the chasing of gangsters, and the love affair brewing in the centre of this. The story is handled just fine, the action, though never exactly gripping, is not overlong and generally chigs along nicely. There isn't much more to it really; it isn't particulalry well shot or profoundly handled, just a pretty standard chase.
This is an unremarkable film transported, seemingly almost accidently, into a fascinating and underused context. More films on this subject, e ask for, but there's no need to make too many like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)