Change Your Image
NikolicJovan
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Atlanta (2016)
A slice of life already seen and studied
It would be fair to say that I am into movies and TV for almost 30 years now.
Basically, all motives and ideas "Atlanta" is playing with has already been seen. We have a lot of TV shows which deals with racism, low-class people struggle, non-functional family. Some of the viewers are mentioning "absurdism" which Atlanta deals with: I would say it's nothing comparing to Twin Peaks absurdism, for example. And many other shows. I like first season cinematography, I've expected further character building, but I didn't get anything.
It is repetitive (in a non-creative way), plain (in a shallow way), way to ostensive for my taste, kinda nihilistic (in a poor, non-philosophical manner). I won't talk about what could have been done differently, I respect Glover's decisions but the show is for other kind of viewers.
Twist of Faith (2004)
Review
While most of the comments I've read and even when talking with friend, I noticed that all of them was concerned with completely opposite of what I think is important. With sexual abuse. And while "Twist of Faith" undeniably deals with post traumatic state after sexual abuse, it is much more.
The story follows Tony Comes, a firefighter from Toledo (Ohio), in his struggles and attempts to recuperate from years of sexual abuse by local Catholic priest, Dennis Gray. There are a lot of shocking moments but I think that most shocking occurred at the very beginning of documentary. Priest Dennis Gray was interrogated by state attorney at the court, and I think that it would be best to just quote both questions and answers:
St. attorney: And what did you do after graduating from high school?
D. Gray: I went into seminary – St. Gregory, Cincinnati.
St. attorney: Why did you decide to go into the seminary?
D. Gray: I decided that it would be a good life if I was a priest.
One could contemplate for years about religion and it seems that our capacities for being able to trust and actually dedicate our lives to Faith are endless. Yet, what scared me greatly. It's not that I was living in Disneyland before this documentary film, but the level of banality that answer contained was above my "expectations". Instead of almost life-long thinking, dedicating yourself to learning and reconsideration of such a decision, Dennis Gray just "wanted good life". And while most of audience perceived D. Gray as "evil" I just consider him as a plain, simple organism only trying to satisfy his basic animal instincts, like most of people.
Mlad i zdrav kao ruza (1971)
Review
At the time of it's release, Josip Broz Tito and other members of political elite kept society in dark. Yet, it is amazing that the another forbidden film was released at the same year. "Plasticni Isus" by Lazar Stojanovic. And what is interesting is that 70's were amongst most creative years in cinema of Yugoslavia. It seems that all that oppression only motivated creative individuals at that time, and even with dangers of being sent to Goli otok prison artists were motivated to create and criticize.
Jovan Jovanovic is one of them. He directed "Izrazito ja" (1969) which is to be considered as prequel to this film. Fifteen years later, Jovanovic created "Pejzazi u magli" which is considered one of the best movies of 80's Yugoslavia.
"Mlad i zdrav kao ruza" is a story about Stevan (Dragan Nikolic), rebel, small time crook becoming mafia boss of Belgrade. It is semi-documentary film, with many jump cuts, hand-held camera directed. One of the tastiest moments in film is police interrogation of Stevan. Several detectives were asking questions, in a sharp manner, and one of the questions was: "What did you do after dinner?". Stevan replied: "I was in cinema". Detective: "The fable of the film?". "It is Godard, there is no fable!" – Stevan replied. Unforgettable moment.
While I can't runaway from undeniable charm of this film, it is Jovanovic's "battle" for freedom which is absurd. At the very moment of creating this film, people in Yugoslavia fully supported politics of Josip Broz and it is only handful of intellectuals who criticized dominant political values of SFRY. That being said, Stevan represents typical anachronistic hero and force me to think that this film is more relevant today than it was at the time of release. At least in Serbia.
Krisana (2005)
Review
Fred Kelemen, cinematographer, film and theatre director, is the man behind some of the finest works of Béla Tarr (The Man from London, The Turin Horse). Even it was made over decade ago, Krisana is his last film.
Matiss Zelcs, working as archivist, becomes preoccupied finding the woman (Alina) he didn't help when she attempted suicide. Because police officers didn't find her body, he starts his own investigation just to stumble upon many mysterious and interesting facts about Alina and her life. With the advance of his investigation, Matiss find himself lost in his intentions and it becomes uncertain what are his true motives.
It is obvious that Kelemen's inspiration is rich, his work foremost resembles aesthetics, or to be even more accurate, atmosphere of both Tarr and Tarkovsky. Tarr, as his long, dark, monochromatic shots are dominant throughout the film, and Tarkovsky in a way Krisana's narrative is almost oneiric, poetic, just there is no depth like in Tarkovsky's work. Kelemen's portrayal of protagonist is rather shallow and weak comparing to those two authors (achieving characterization similar to Tarr, and especially Tarkovsky, is almost impossible task), but nevertheless, Krisana is definitely film worth watching.
Skupljaci perja (1967)
Review
When I was a boy, my parents were telling me that in order to stay safe, I need to avoid Roma people. As they were explaining to me, they would kidnap me and sell me into slavery.
At the basketball court and playground in front of our building, the very building I am still living in, there were several Roma boys and girls. They were a lot older than me and we all played together. Yes, there were some incidents and fights amongst all of us, but I can't recall I've ever had problems being safe. There were some violent boys but I always attributed that to problematic upbringing and their social status: they were raised in poor and dysfunctional families.
This film offers fantastic, colorful, stunning, absolutely vivid representation of cultural values and aesthetics of Roma people along with tragedy of their existence. What Petrovic succeeded is to create almost unbearable heaviness of being (yes, the complete opposite of Kaufman's almost similar titled masterpiece). And just when you think of, or rather try to find any hope for protagonists, there is another darkness and tragedy waiting behind the corner. It seems that life of a majority of Roma people, everywhere in the world, is constant struggle against social stigma, prejudice, poverty (which is the output of social exclusion). Than again, those are the very problems other nations/people are facing, too. Which is strange as we are enjoying much higher levels of education, freedom, technology and such. It is obvious that 'Great promise' which followed Industrial Revolution didn't brought what we expected; great happiness for most of the people, unlimited personal freedom, technological advance available to everyone.
Yet, with all those centuries-old problems, Roma people seems much more alive than most of 'us', Western people/nations. Being 'trapped' in poverty and inhumane living conditions, they are living without limits, experiencing strong basic emotions on an everyday basis, constantly trying to overcome their harsh reality.
Glück (2012)
Review
Last few days I was wondering what film should I watch and while I was browsing my collection, I noticed 'Glück' a.k.a. 'Bliss'. And even though European cinema is in decline last few years, I couldn't believe that I will be that disappointed. I mean, I watch films carefully, eliminating all prejudices, trying to be as open as possible for all new experiences.
The story takes place in Berlin, where young Irina takes shelter from war in her country (not depicted in any way, viewer never knows which country it is). She meets Kalle, homeless young guy her age and they quickly get familiar with each other starting relationship. She finds no other way to keep her alive than being prostitute, while he is trying his best to keeps them together.
It is hard for me to start any analysis of film as it is so bad, on all levels. The tension doesn't exists, there are numerous director's (Doris Dörrie) artsy-fartsy attempts, the characters aren't developed carefully thus whole time while I was watching the film I felt like I am watching weak episode of even more weak TV series. Their emotions are forced, their relation unconvincing and the worst moment in film was the very first scene when Irina got hit by a car; the man came out of the car and started opening narration... Now, that was completely unconvincing as his words seemed like cheap commercial rather than honest thoughts. For the most part, I perceived the film like very, very lame attempt to transmit the message: 'look, this is what love looks like; it is all pain, immolation, frustration but at the end, it will always be good'.
I don't need film to talk to me. I don't need it to explain or pretend. It is even better if it doesn't have any 'intentions'. I am very well aware with that fact that it is matter of individual differences in perception - but I need film to be honest. Nothing less.
La ragazza che sapeva troppo (1963)
Review
"The Girl Who Knew Too Much" marks two moments in Bava's career in filmmaking: it is both his last film in black and white and first film that will further refine the giallo genre.
It is easy story about American girl (Nora) visiting old family friend Edith who lives in Rome, Italy. Right after her arrival, Edith dies and she went through series of unfortunate events; first she's been victim of purse theft (thief left her unconscious on the ground) and right after (when she wakes up) she witnessed murder of a woman. That scene was created with the use of water glass effect, thus leaving us no authentic feeling if murder occurred as a product of Nora's hallucination/delusion. It is interesting that weapon used for murder is knife, which is also the title of the novel she was reading on the plane at the very beginning of the film.
From the moment I started watching film, I was amazed with lighting and camera angles: those elements are stunning; it's obvious that whole film is masterfully crafted. Even though it is obvious that film follows/incorporates Hitchcockian elements/patterns, I still find it very invigorating and fresh. The reason behind that is refreshing aesthetics; Bava for sure succeeded to maximally utilize surrounding of filming locations in Rome, playing successfully with lighting, music and exemplifying grandeur of neoclassical architecture of Rome.
What is really fascinating is Bava's lucidity and wit. The film exudes a very specific humor (voice narration in the first scene, and in many other, is pure comedy) suggesting, from time to time, that whole plot may be a dream and adding a frivolous touch to many "dramatic" events. It's quality I've never "recognized" in Hitchcock's movies.
The Brood (1979)
The Brood, my two cents
"Long live the new flesh!" – the very remarkable sentence from "Videodrome" by James Woods in that moment seemed belated as David Cronenberg already made strong statement with body horrors like "Shivers", "Rabid", and "The Brood". Having previous experience with Cronenberg's work, "The Brood" is not different from his earlier works – it is also filled with externalizations of unconscious into some organic forms, creatures or non-human living organisms.
It's very much a film of its time. It's slow paced, characters are weak and inconvincible, I felt no true horror in the story and setting, except the perversion of motherhood and presence of "mad scientist" (and even Oliver Reed couldn't make Dr. Raglan mad enough) who was "playing with the brains of his patients". Even with all that being said, I really respect Cronenberg's directing as he succeeded in creating detached sense of reality – throughout whole movie you will be suck in the "plot" like there exist nothing else in this world – Cronenberg's signature is omnipresent.
After I've watched the film, I thought – well, it obviously doesn't work as horror for me, but there is strength in portrayal of little girl. From the very beginning, she is completely quite and anemic. The devastating effect the divorce of her parents has one her is evident, mainly in the fact that there is no safe place for her – wherever she is, it's only death, terror and violence. Even her grandparents were divorced and have had terrible marriage (both Barton and Juliana are alcoholics). Near the very end, there is dialogue between her parents; in the middle of arguing mother said that she would rather kill their daughter than let her father have the custody arousing a tremendous rage in her father and ended by being strangled by him. When there is continuity of rage, unhappiness and absence of love among parents (sorry if I am pathetic) – childhood itself is horror.
I've read that, at the time of making this movie, Croneberg personally went through divorce and custody trials, and somehow I like to believe that this film was greatly inspired by his terrible experience and frustration.
Tystnaden (1963)
When silence is Silence
Anna and Ester are sisters, Johan is Anna's son and they are traveling through foreign country whose language they can't understand. As Ester felt terrible discomfort in train, they decided to take a rest and take a room in a hotel. During their stay at the hotel, Anna feels threatened and dominated by Ester's presence.
While most of the cinema enthusiasts were focused on the battle between sisters, Johan caught my attention. As Anna and Ester were battling, he was wondrously exploring the halls of hotel and met dwarfs, hotel janitor, even saw his mother embracing and kissing with stranger. Scenes with him in halls are true gem of this film. Those cuts were astonishing. Camera angles, characters, atmosphere at that moment briefly reminded me of Polanski's "The Tenant" (1976), particularly the moment when Trelkovsky meets alienated neighbors. It's beautiful how Bergman contrasted his childish innocence among the clash of two sisters which relation was intoxicated as a result of their completely different personalities. He was playing with dwarfs, discovering halls of hotel like some kind of parallel universe where everything is possible.
We never got true reason of sisters confrontation but from what can be perceived they are true antipodes. Anna is narcissistic, shallow, troubled mostly with her needs and desires. Ester is an intellectual, translator, meaning and reason are her raison d'etre. In their dialogue near the very end of film, it's obvious that Anna is jealous of Ester because she is educated better, her actions are driven by reason yet to be revealed that she earlier in adulthood admired her. At some point, I started thinking that all of Anna's behavior, like cheating on her husband, being very open in sexual relations and taking pride in all that in conversations with her sister was nothing more than her attempt of liberating herself from sister's influence. Anna's lover, some random citizen of that foreign country, doesn't understand her talking and she's happy because of that. Sexual objectification of a man, back in 1963 when this film was recorded, sends strong message of modernism and liberating women from dominant patriarchal paradigm.
Like in Smultronstället (1957) and Viskningar och rop (1972) Bergman again successfully used ticking clock suggesting passage of time and, also, time as inevitable mediator of death. Ticking is more lively at the very end of the film suggesting finiteness of Ester's existence. Bergman's usage of ticking clock is one of the most beautifully used symbols in his films. It's only his talent that makes their appearance at perfect timing and the fact that he succeeded to overcome banality due to their overuse.
Citizenfour (2014)
Work of intelligence
I've been poorly informed about everything regarding Snowden's activity. This great documentary for sure helped me to understand background behind his decisions and values along with many worldwide governments response.
The most important is that Laura Poitras kept everything under control in the way that Snowden's personality/character wasn't main thing, only his whistle blowing. She didn't allow herself to judge and criticize, rather pointed out different sources in an ostensive manner.
It is hard for me to express any amazement over this documentary in any way; it is very informative, brief, honest and visually appealing. Just as it should be. At the end, it isn't work of "art" (at least I didn't experience it in that way). It is work of great responsibility and brilliant intelligence.
Badlands (1973)
Characters analysis in Badlands
When I first heard about this film, there was certain lack of understanding when it comes to it's title. So, I wondered what exactly it means and stumbled upon two definitions (Merriam-Webster and TheFreeDictionary.com):
- a region marked by intricate erosional sculpturing, scanty vegetation, and fantastically formed hills - usually used in plural
- A heavily eroded arid region of southwest South Dakota (exactly the place where the film plot occurs) and northwest Nebraska. The Badlands National Monument in South Dakota was established in 1939 to protect the area's colorful rock formations and prehistoric fossils. After I've resolved that "mistery" I'll bring up arguments in relation to my perception and understanding of this Malick's first feature film.
Film starts with Holly's narration (Sissy Spacek) about her mother's death and explanation of how her father coped with that. On the other side of Fort Dupree (South Dakota), Kit (Martin Sheen) is working as a garbage collector and making jokes with his colleague Cato. Kit and Holly met each other accidentally: Kit, arrogant greaser kid, was walking after hard day on job and Holly, kind of introverted young girl, was playing in her street. From the moment Kit saw her, he started conversation and flirting. Holly, who was living under strict rules of her father, liked him. It is probably much better to describe it not like her attraction to Kit, rather attracted to idea that she is likable to some young, handsome guy (at some point in film, she describes him as attractive as James Dean).
As Holly's father didn't allowed them to have any kind of relationship and after Kit's attempt to talk with him failed – he tried to run away with Holly. He spied on their house, and waited for Holly and her father to leave, than broke into their house and started packing Holly's clothes. They returned earlier than he planned and after Holly's father wanted to report him for breaking in, things went wrong and he killed him. They both made decision to burn down the house (making it look like suicides) and attempt getaway. Driven by Kit's violent nature and Holly's unquestionable, naive love for him their getaway turned into killing spree.
From the beginning I felt atmosphere like in Terry Gilliam's films. Not exactly surreal, but somehow magical. Everything happens with easiness. Everything is smooth. Music is so chill-out, calm and I felt movie as an adaptation of fairy tale.
There is famous quotation by Jean-Luc Godard and it goes: "All you need for a movie is a gun and a girl." In "Badlands" you have it all. As the films goes on, one can think it is just that. Guns, rifles, killings and a lot of romantic clichés. But, most important element was constantly present from the moment story begins. Both protagonists have similar characters: they are shallow, banal, they lack focus/attention (Holly isn't interested in anything particular while Kit is changing jobs very often...).
They both seems alienated/introverted – they have no friends, no real contact with their Self; Holly's father seems to be very restrictive and introvert person while we know very little about Kit's family (only short dialogue with his uncle is captured) – if he had any.
Their almost unbearable easiness of killing people is reflected in complete absence of empathy for their victims. Even though Holly didn't killed anyone she showed no remorse, sense of guilt, or any kind of empathy towards victims suffering. Even when her father was killed by Kit – she was more in the state of shock and never looked back. Also, not that Kit tried to reconsider any of his acts of violence and killing; he's rather trying to justify every victim as collateral damage and as a way of preservation of their love. It was clear from the beginning that they've no moral course to follow and their road will be paved with blood and without any redemption.
When their getaway finally ended by Kit's peaceful surrender to sheriff and his assistant, we could witness interested dialogue between them. They've found him as interesting, charming and witty young man. Sheriff's assistant even expressed fascination with Kit's appearance and told him that he's "something special". Suddenly, both Holly and Kit became celebrities. People come to see their arrest, they've got full media attention. At the very end, while flying in National Guard's helicopter, sitting next to soldier, Kit started dialogue:
Kit: Sir? Where'd you get that hat? Soldier: State. Kit: Boy, I'd like to buy me one of them. Soldier: You're quite an individual, Kit. Kit: Think they'll take that into consideration?
At one point while watching film, I remembered saying by Jean Baudrillard: "We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning". The very lack of remorse both protagonists demonstrate is, ultimately, just their inability to connect with themselves or with any other meaning human culture/society has to "offer". Their killing spree isn't quest for meaning, rather attempt to transcendent state of emotional alienation and actually experience their subjectivity.