Animal Farm

Dir: John Stephenson

1999

*

That muffled whirling sound is the sound of the great George Orwell spinning in his grave. What Hallmark Films of all people were thinking when they decided to make a live-action version of Animal Farm is beyond me, I can only guess that they thought it was a way of cashing in on the popularity of the CGI-heavy Babe films. Animal Farm is of course a classic piece of literature, a favorite among many (myself included), so as a made-for-television film, the title was always set to attract a strong audience. However, this is not a faithful adaptation – far from it – it is possibly one of the worst screenplays based on a book of all time. Sure, Blade Runner was nothing like Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep but, as much as people love the book (myself included), Philip K. Dick’s sci-fi classic isn’t in the same league as Orwell’s seminal masterpiece. I will always suggest that viewers read the original before watching the feature adaptation but in this instance I suggest reading the book twice and skipping the film altogether. Orwell wrote many masterpieces, read one of those (all of those) instead. 1945’s Animal Farm is a story that was meant to reflect the events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and then on into the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union. It was written in a way that everyone – including children – could understand and digest. Orwell, a democratic socialist, was a critic of Joseph Stalin and hostile to Moscow-directed Stalinism, an attitude that was critically shaped by his experiences during the Spanish Civil War. The Soviet Union, he believed, had become a brutal dictatorship, built upon a cult of personality and enforced by a reign of terror. In a letter to Yvonne Davet, Orwell described Animal Farm as a satirical tale against Stalin ("un conte satirique contre Staline"), and in his essay "Why I Write" (1946), wrote that Animal Farm was the first book in which he tried, with full consciousness of what he was doing, "to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole". The 1999 adaptation seems to misunderstand all of this, and the film feels like nothing more than a tale about how pigs are the meanest of all farm animals. The story has been updated unsuccessfully, with the animals being bribed with television and many of the key characters are nothing more than shadows of what they are in the original. Key moments are either twisted or missing altogether. The meaningful moments are rendered meaningless and the horrifying climax of the novel is passed by halfway through the film. The re-written ending is possibly one of the worst endings to a film that has ever been. I’m sure it was intended to be symbolic, perhaps something to do with the ending of a cold war? The story really looses its way, the Nazis are referenced and supposedly a world war in the form of a thunder storm are wiped away and everyone lives happily ever after. The farm received new owners who are fresh-faced with bright white teeth and everything is well again as they drive up the path in their white convertible. Are they dead? Is this Farm heaven or has nothing been learnt? Either way, it’s dreadful. It completely mixes up history and time-points and makes a hash out of everything Orwell wrote about. I imagine greats such as Peter Ustinov, Paul Scofield, Ian Holm, Patrick Stewart and Pete Postlewaite thought it was great to be doing a bit of Orwell and the younger cast like Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Julia Ormond and Kelsey Grammer must have seen it as an honour too but also for working with such legends. I hope they all got paid well as I’m sure none of them boast about it being on their curriculum vitaes today. It's amazing really how wrong they got it, especially considering how good the 1954 animation was.

Men & Chicken

Dir: Anders Thomas Jensen

2015

****

Men & Chicken is a strange film to describe but if you are aware of the work of director Anders Thomas Jensen then you will know what to expect – that is, you will know to expect something unexpected. Much like Jensen’s other films, there is nothing else quite like it. I love that it was shortlisted by Denmark to be their submission for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film at the 88th Academy Awards and I’m still saddened that it didn’t make the final cut. The story begins with two brothers, Gabriel and Elias (David Dencik and Mads Mikkelsen) as we see them around their father’s death. Gabriel is first to the hospital and witnesses his father pass as Elias is on a date with a female psychiatrist – purely to ask her to analyse his dreams. He tells her his dream of a dove coming through a window, revealing itself to be his brother and of his overwhelming desire to rape it. He gets the call, leaves his date and goes to the hospital. It is then discovered that their father had left them both a video tape, in it they discover that they both are adopted half-brothers. They discover that their biological father is Evelio Thanatos, a geneticist specialised in stem cell research. To learn about their mother and to meet their biological father, the brothers choose to visit the Island of Ork where they find out that they have three other half-brothers Franz, Josef and Gregor (Søren Malling, Nicolas Bro and  Nikolaj Lie Kaas). Both Gabriel and Elias are welcomed with a beating (with a stuffed animal and a large metal pot), but in due course, the brothers get along. All five half-brothers have hare-lips and unattractive facial features or deformities. Gabriel is wheel-chair bound for the first few days of his stay due to the beating he received but Elias is fine and fits in well with his new brothers. Soon, Gabriel and Elias discover that their father is dead and the other brothers have kept it as a secret, pretending that he is alive. Gabriel contacts Flemming (Ole Thestrup), the Mayor of the Island, and makes arrangements for a proper burial. Gabriel, a professor, recognises the difficult, peculiar and poor social skills of his brothers. He tries to alter the lifestyle and become the head of the house (leading with democracy) but after a series of unsuccessful efforts (being beaten and caged by his brothers) he soon has enough and he abandons the house, leaving Elias behind. While Gabriel is away the four brothers go out to find women and jobs, but end up in a series of mishaps. They beat the head of the Island’s only school (which has only two pupils – one of which Gregor had previously attacked) and the only place the brothers find to ‘pick up women’ is in the local old people’s home. Truth be told the film could have done without this ten-minute scene. While at Flemming’s house, Gabriel notices a Heron with human feet enter their garden. Flemming had spoken of the bird that would visit their home often and had done for many years but he had never mentioned its feet. Gabriel then remembered several strange animals around the island and remembers other animals he had seen in the house and goes back to investigate. At the house Gabriel opens a secret hatch which he had intended to look at since his arrival. He finds the preserved fetuses of many cross-species of farm animals and sees experimentation done on humans using stem cells and their father's research. He also finds the preserved corpses of each of the boy’s mothers. The brothers come to the horrific realization from the research notes that each of them is genetically part-animal and that their mothers were subjected to unethical experiments and fatal caesarean births. After reading their father’s notes, they discover that Gabriel is 9% Owl (wise), Elias is 12% Bull (the same bull the brothers keep as a stud and maybe the reason why Elias can’t stop masturbating), Josef is part Dog (sweet and loyal), Gregor is part sheep (a follower but with some intelligence) and Franz is part Chicken (a lesser animal than he would have hoped). In the end the five brothers stay together in the house. The final scene shows them surrounded by family and children, despite the fact that all the brothers, as hybrids, are sterile. It is hinted that the brothers have continued their father's work in order to have children. It is dark but with some humour, somewhere between Kafka's 'The Metamorphosis' and The Island of Dr. Moreau but made by the director of The Green Butchers. I had almost forgot what a great character actor Mads Mikkelsen was but he doesn’t steal the show as one might expect because all of the actors are on such great form. It is a tough film to swallow at times but not as strong as it sounds. It has a rather lovely message beneath all the dark themes and it is actually quite a subtle film on reflection, with a rather clever level of detail. Originality wins and they don’t get much more original than this.

Goat

Dir: Andrew Neel

2016

***

I loath the fraternity film genre and I’m one of the few film fanatics who dislike National Lampoon’s Animal House for influencing the many awful films that have been inspired by it. Goat however, based on the book and memoir by Brad Land is a slightly different film to the rest. In many respects, it is the antidote and the fraternity film to end all fraternity films. The screenplay was written by David Gordon Green, Mike Roberts and Andrew Neel, with Neel directing. The film opens with a brutal scene and doesn’t once back down from its initial message. Brad Land (Ben Schnetzer) goes to a party with his older brother Brett (Nick Jonas) in their hometown. It is a party like many others but this time the brothers have a sexual opportunity with a couple of drunk girls. Brad feels uncomfortable with the situation and leaves the party without his brother, despite his brother’s pleas to stay. On the way home, a couple of guys who say they were at the same party ask for a lift and Brad naively offers them a ride. The strangers convince Brad to drive out of town to a deserted spot where they viciously beat him for no apparent reason. Months later and still reeling from the terrifying assault, Brad starts college determined to get his life back to normal. His brother is already established on campus and with a fraternity that lures Brad in with its promise of protection, popularity, and life-long friendships. Brad is desperate to belong but as he sets out to join the fraternity his brother exhibits reservations, a sentiment that threatens to divide them. As the pledging ritual moves into hell week, a rite that promises to usher these unproven boys into manhood, the stakes violently increase with a series of torturous and humiliating events. The pledges are taken to an off-campus site in the woods, where they are told they either need to drink large quantities of beer, or if they fail they need to sodomize and then kill a goat. They pass the test, and are told the hazing is over. During the crossing ceremony, Brad becomes upset that his brother did not attend and confronts him. Their argument becomes heated and they almost fight each other. Brett tells his brother that he does not belong in the fraternity after seeing how bad the hazing process was. Events culminate when Will, Brad's pledge brother, dies of a heart attack while exercising on the track field and his body was shown to be covered in bruises from hazing. The pledges, particularly Brad, are warned not to reveal anything to the authorities. The university launches an investigation into Phi Sigma Mu and the fraternity is suspended from campus after someone had told the investigators all about the hazing process. The pledge master suspects Brad for leaking information to the university. Brad comes back to his dorm after class to find his goat defecating on the carpet with "Rat Fuck" shaved into its coat. After confronting the brothers at the house, Brad gets accused of speaking to the authorities but Brett steps in and reveals himself as the source of the leaks. Brett and Brad both go to the police station to identify Brad's attackers from 6 months ago. One of them is revealed to have been shot in a gas station robbery, while the other has yet to be identified in a line up. Brad lies and says none of the men are the one who assaulted him. The final scene is of Brad and Brett visiting the field where Brad was beaten. It is brutal and unflinching and every bit as deplorable as it needs to be. There are far too many films that either make light of hazing or that skip merrily around it. The ritual goes back centuries, most notably to The Bullingdon Club in England, the focus of Lone Scherfig’s 2014 film The Riot Club. It needs to stop, not only the act itself but the films that glorify it. Goat is, essentially, the Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom of the genre. Ben Schnetzer is good as Brad Land and displays the right level of unconfidence for his character. The casting of Nick Jonas as his brother has the skeptic in me thinking his involvement is purely a ploy to remove his nice-guy image and make him a more dangerous and therefore more interesting actor but truth be told, he’s not bad. James Franco produced the film under his Rabbit Bandini Productions banner but I’m not sure he should have starred in it. In the film he plays an ex-member and ‘legend’ of the fraternity, a married man with a child who still can’t get the way of life (and worship that came with it) out of his system. He pops by the house to say hi and stays all day and night drinking, forgetting about his family. It is a tragic character and an important one dynamically but unfortunately it just feels like James Franco himself has appeared in the film and it makes the film feel like the wrong kind of Frat movie. It isn’t a pleasant film to watch but then that is the point, and for that I applaud it. In the same breath I can’t say I enjoyed it but I’m really glad it exists and I hope more people see it and reject the glorification of the fraternity and all the horrible stuff associated with it.

We're No Angels

Dir: Michael Curtiz

1955

****

We're No Angels is a rare example of the great Humphrey Bogart doing comedy, but funnily enough, this was the second time he played an escaped convict from Devil's Island (the first being 1944's "Passage to Marseille"). Michael Curtiz, who had directed Bogart in 1942’s Casablanca, collaborated with his old friend once more after thirteen years and twenty-five films including Mildred Pierce, Flamingo Road and White Christmas. Although it never quite feels like it, We’re No Angels is technically a Christmas film, it just doesn’t feature any snow. The screenplay was written by Ranald MacDougall, based on the play My Three Angels by Samuel and Bella Spewack, which itself was based upon the French play La Cuisine Des Anges by Albert Husson. The story is great but the film is all about the three leading characters, played by Bogart, Peter Ustinov and Aldo Ray. It begins with three convicts – Joseph (Bogart), Albert (Ray) and Jules (Ustinov) – who escape from prison on Devil's Island just before Christmas and arrive at a nearby French colonial town. Joseph is a prolific forger and a talented salesperson, Albert seems to have issues controlling himself with the ladies (his history and why he was imprisoned lingers uncomfortably) and Jules is an educated dandy, a splendid chap with a taste for dark humour – on the whole he seems like a good egg, except for the fact he killed his own wife. Each actor is perfectly cast, Bogart and Ustinov are on excellent form and outshine Ray but Ray’s performance feels so contemporary, I’ve often felt like he appeared in the film after arriving from the future. They go to a store managed by the Ducotel family, the only one to give supplies on credit. While there, they notice the roof is leaking and offer to fix it. They do not actually intend to, the roof is just the perfect place to hide so they decide to remain there until nightfall, when they will steal clothes and supplies and escape on a ship waiting in the harbor. As they wait, they find that the small family of Felix (the wonderful Leo G. Carroll), Amelie (Joan Bennett), and daughter Isabelle (Gloria Talbott), is in financial distress and offer their services to hide the trio's all-too-sinister ruse. Joseph even gets to work conning people and falsifying records to make the store prosperous. However, the three convicts begin to have a change of heart after they fix a delicious Christmas dinner for the Ducotels made mostly of stolen items. Tensions heighten after store owner Andre Trochard (Basil Rathbone) arrives from Paris with his nephew Paul (John Baer), the light in Isabelle's eye who had promised himself to her before he left the Island the previous year. The Trochards plan on taking over the store, which they perceive is unprofitable due to its use of credit. It turns out that Paul is betrothed to another woman, to Isabelle's dismay. Before any action can be taken, both men are bitten by Albert's pet viper, Adolphe, and die nearly instantly. Isabelle finds another love, and the family is happy as the convicts finally ready for their postponed escape. However, while waiting on the docks for their boat to arrive, the threesome reconsiders. Judging that the outside world is likely to be worse than that of the prison, they decide to turn themselves back in. As they walk toward it at film's end halos appear over their heads...followed by one above the cage of Adolphe. The three leads are awesome but Joan Bennett, Basil Rathbone and Leo G. Carroll give as good as they get, particularly well even, considering that they are essentially the film’s stooges. The timing is great but I do think it could have been tighter but only ever so slightly. Some scenes were a little forced but the physical comedy is superb considering that none of the actors were known for their comedy. Michael Curtiz was a brilliant director, and even though the film took place largely indoors in a small set, you still feel they were on an Island and that the weather was hot. The last scene whereby the three convicts get their halos is one of my favorite endings to a film ever, I’m surprised the film has only been remade one to be honest and I would argue that the remake is, much like the original, an overlooked gem.

Venus in Fur

Dir: Roman Polanski

2013

*****

Roman Polanski’s thrilling theatrical two person show is the best adaption of an adaption I’ve seen for quite some time. Based on David Ives play that he adapted from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch’s 1870 novel, the film shares the same name and feels like a natural evolution of the core story. In Leopold von Sacher-Masoch’s classic novel, we see a dream that a man has of him speaking to Venus. The story is narrated by the nameless man as he explains it to his friend who tells him how to break himself of his fascination with cruel women by reading a manuscript, Memoirs of a Suprasensual Man. This manuscript tells of a man, Severin von Kusiemski, who is so infatuated with a woman, Wanda von Dunajew, that he asks to be her slave, and encourages her to treat him in progressively more degrading ways. At first Wanda does not understand or accede to the request, but after humouring Severin a bit she finds the advantages of the method to be interesting and enthusiastically embraces the idea, although at the same time she disdains Severin for allowing her to do so. Severin describes his feelings during these experiences as suprasensuality. Severin and Wanda travel to Florence. Along the way, Severin takes the generic Russian servant's name of "Gregor" and the role of Wanda's servant. In Florence, Wanda treats him brutally as a servant, and recruits a trio of African women to dominate him. The relationship arrives at a crisis when Wanda meets a man to whom she would like to submit, a Byronic hero known as Alexis Papadopolis. At the end of the book, Severin, humiliated by Wanda's new lover, loses the desire to submit. He says of Wanda: “That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion. This she can become only when she has the same rights as he and is his equal in education and work.” The story explored female dominance and sadomasochism – indeed the novel inspired the term ‘masochism’- and was fairly ahead of its time, it certainly wasn’t quite seen as the Marquis de Sade of its day, but rather a precursor to modern feminism, the character of Wanda being based on the writer Fanny Pistor who approached Leopold von Sacher-Masoch for guidance in getting her work published. David Ives updated version is far easier to digest and adds an extra element to the story. Thomas Novachek is the writer-director of a new play opening in New York City; this play-within-the-play is an adaptation of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch’s Venus in Fur. The play begins with Novachek on the telephone lamenting the inadequacies of the actresses who have showed up that day to audition for the lead character, Wanda von Dunayev. Suddenly, at the last minute, a new actress called Vanda Jordan bursts in. At first it's hard to imagine that she will please this very particular and exasperated writer/director: She's brash, vulgar and unschooled. But she convinces him to let her audition for the part of Wanda, with the director/writer reading the part of Severin von Kushemski. Much happens during this dynamic reading, as lightning flashes and thunder crashes outside. Vanda shows astonishing insights into the novel and her character, and she performs what is in effect a terrific audition. They both become caught up in the characters they are reading. The balance of power is reversed, and the actress establishes dominance over the director, which is similar to what occurs in the novel. In Roman Polanski’s version the story moves to a theatre in Paris and Vanda is played by an older woman. Vanda is around twenty-four in the play but is played by Emmanuelle Seigner in the film. Seigner, Polanski’s wife, was in her late forties which I think worked so much better for the role. Mathieu Amalric plays director Thomas Novacheck and the pair of them have a chemistry between them that any director worth their weight would kill for. It’s a two person play, so both performances have to be nothing short of perfect, and they are. Polanski’s visual style is all over the film, as is his ability to apply a certain captivating mystery, seen in nearly all of his films, particularly the classics. The move from New York to Paris, the outstanding performances and with the directors signature all over it, I would argue that Polanski’s version outshines the play. The story keeps you guessing until the very end and the switches from fact and fiction are astonishingly smooth, so you are never quite sure if it is the play, the audition or real life that you are watching. The masochism is psychological and the dominance is subtle, making both side of the story far more effective. The overall story is almost dreamlike, you wonder whether it is even happening or if it is all in Novacheck’s mind. It is kept as a theatrical play, which I think was a bold move but the right decision by Polanski, and the direction is simple but striking with very few camera movements. It’s all about the script and the amazing performances, both of which are masterful.

Harold and Maude

Dir: Hal Ashby

1971

*****

There is a scene in the Farrelly brothers’ 1998 comedy hit There’s Something About Mary where Cameron Diaz’s character is asked what her favorite romantic film is. Her character, being quirky (there was something about her after all) answered ‘Harold and Maude’ and a whole new generation became aware of the 1971 classic. It is a great, perhaps one of the greatest romantic films ever made but it never, ever, appears on ‘greatest’ lists or is even considered a romance film but only a dark comedy. There is a darkness to the story, its an existentialist drama after all (I usually hate existentialist films, although the German’s make good ones) but the darkness comes from some of the earlier scenes that deal with suicide and death. I’m not sure why It’s A Wonderful Life is never considered a ‘dark’ existentialist drama for similar reasons but I digress, I believe people’s perception that it is dark is due to the huge age difference between the couple in love. It’s certainly towards the top of my list of favorite romantic films as well as my favorite comedies of all time. There are no films quite as lovely as Hal Ashby’s films. The film starts with us being introduced to Harold Chasen (the hilariously straight-faced Bud Cort). At only eighteen years of age, Harold finds himself somewhat obsessed with death, staging elaborate fake suicides, attending funerals of people he didn’t know and choosing to drive a hearse, rather than the flash sports car his socialite mother (Vivian Pickles) has bought for him. The elaborate fake suicides are the funniest part of the film and are possibly one of the funniest moments in cinema of all time. Harold’s mother sets him up appointments with a psychoanalyst, but the analyst is befuddled by his case and fails to get Harold to talk about his real emotions. At another stranger's funeral service, Harold meets Maude ( played by the wonderful Ruth Gordon), a 79-year-old woman who shares Harold's hobby of attending funerals. He is entranced by her quirky outlook on life, which is bright and excessively carefree in contrast with his own morbidity. The pair form a bond and Maude shows Harold the pleasures of art and music and teaches him how to make the most of his time on earth – as well as how to play banjo. Meanwhile, Harold's mother is determined, against Harold's wishes, to find him a wife. One by one, Harold frightens and horrifies each of his appointed dates, by appearing to commit gruesome (and utterly hilarious) acts such as self-immolation, self-mutilation and seppuku. She tries enlisting him in the military instead, but he deters his recruiting officer uncle by staging a scene in which Maude poses as a pacifist protester and Harold seemingly murders her out of militaristic fanaticism. When Harold and Maude are talking at her home he tells her, without prompting, the motive for his fake suicides: When he was at boarding school, he accidentally caused an explosion in his chemistry lab, leading police to assume his death. Harold returned home just in time to witness his mother react to the news of his death with a ludicrously dramatized faint. As he reaches this part of the story, Harold bursts into tears and says, "I decided then I enjoyed being dead." As they become closer, their friendship soon blossoms into a romance and Harold announces that he will marry Maude, resulting in disgusted outbursts from his family, analyst, and priest. Maude's 80th birthday arrives, and Harold throws a surprise party for her. As the couple dance, Maude tells Harold that she "couldn't imagine a lovelier farewell." Confused, he questions Maude as to her meaning and she reveals that she has taken an overdose of sleeping pills and will be dead by morning. She restates her firm belief that eighty is the proper age to die. Harold rushes Maude to the hospital, where she is treated unsuccessfully and dies. In the final sequence, Harold's car is seen going off a seaside cliff but after the crash, the final shot reveals Harold standing calmly atop the cliff, holding his banjo. After gazing down at the wreckage, he dances away, picking out on his banjo Cat Stevens' "If You Want to Sing Out, Sing Out". If you don’t have a lump in your throat or a tear in your eye by the time the credits roll then you’re not human. Colin Higgins wrote Harold and Maude as his master's thesis when he was a student at UCLA. He was working as a pool boy at producer Edward Lewis's house when he showed the script to Lewis's wife. She was so impressed that she got Edward to give it to Stanley Jaffe at Paramount. He sold the script to Paramount with the understanding that he would direct the film but he was told he wasn't ready, after tests he shot proved unsatisfactory to the studio heads. Hal Ashby would only commit to directing the film after getting Higgins' blessing and then, so Higgins could watch and learn from him on the set, Ashby made Higgins a co-producer. That shows you just how much of a great guy Ashby was. Higgins says he originally thought of the story as a play but it was turned into a novel before the film. Everything about the film is perfect, from the performances to the direction. Timing is everything and this has to be the best edited comedy I can think of. Believe it or not, Elton John was initially offered the part of Harold as Ashby thought it would be great if he also did the music but luckily he declined. I like Elton John but Bud Cort was the perfect Harold and Elton suggested his friend Cat Stevens instead and I think his music suited the film far greater. It is, as far as I’m concerned, a perfect film. It’s one of those iconic films that represents the big step from 60s cinema to 70s cinema. Hal Ashby was a genius, so few films but nearly all of them masterpieces.

The Statement

Dir: Norman Jewison

2003

***

Based on the 1996 novel by Brian Moore, The Statement is the great Norman Jewison’s last film before retirement. It was inspired by the true story of Paul Touvier, a Vichy French police official, who was indicted after World War II for war crimes. In 1944, Touvier ordered the execution of seven Jews in retaliation for the Resistance's assassination of Vichy France minister Philippe Henriot. For decades after the war he escaped trial thanks to an intricate web of protection, which included senior members of the Roman Catholic priesthood. In real life Touvier was controversially pardoned in the 1970s but remained on the run until his capture in 1989. He died in prison in 1996, the year the novel was published. Moore’s Touvier character however goes by the name of Pierre Brossard, he’s every bit the same as Touvier apart from the fact he was never pardoned or caught by the authorities. The novel and adaptation features an extra element of a fictional organisation outside of the police that is tracking down World War II war criminals and eliminating them for crimes against humanity. The story sees Brossard on the run from hired hit-men with the police following close behind. When Brossard kills the first hit-man hired to kill him, he soon finds the Catholic priesthood that has protected him all these years starting to distance them from him. It’s a solid thriller but it comes with certain issues. Firstly, it really should be in French. Pretty much every actor in the film is British and speaks English, which seems a little bit ridiculous. One would have thought lessons had been learned from The Hunt For Red October but then many a great World War film has been filmed in English from the German point of view and has been successful. Personally it bothered me but I soon began to see beyond it. The film began rather well with Brossard hotly pursued by the hit-man but the thriller element soon waned. This was something of a shame seeing as it started so well but then the real serious issue – the protection Brossard had received by the Church – was able to be explored further and this was essentially what Moore’s novel was highlighting. The film itself has a made-for-television feel about it but I have to say I enjoyed seeing the south of France in the early 00’s, a time when I holidayed there quite a lot. While the content could have been explored a little further, the performances do go a long way towards making up for it – and the rest of the film’s misgivings. Tilda Swinton plays her role as Investigating Judge Annemarie Livi with a unique edge that sets her character apart from the rest, while Jeremy Northam gives a sturdy performance as her counter part Colonel Roux, a senior French Gendarmerie investigator. The supporting cast are made up of some all time greats including Alan Bates, John Neville, Ciarán Hinds, Frank Finlay and Charlotte Rampling, along with fresher faces such as Colin Salmon and Peter Wight. However, the film really belongs to Michael Caine as the main character Pierre Brossard, and it soon becomes unimportant that he seems like a Brit abroad – even though he’s supposed to be an ex-Vichy French police official and proud countryman. His performances outshines the film as a whole if I’m being honest but all in all, it’s a well-rounded thriller that is entertaining from start to finish.

My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?

Dir: Werner Herzog

2009

****

2009 was a good year. Werner Herzog had waited a couple of years for another feature and suddenly two came along at once, Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans and the far more Herzog-sounding My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done? Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans came with confusion and nervous anticipation as everyone thought it was a remake. It was unconnected, other than having the same name and the same producer but it didn’t stop Abel Ferrara from venting his anger in public and he declined Herzog’s invitation to meet with him for a cup of tea and a chat about it. My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done? sounded more like a Herzog film, which was exciting, but that wasn’t all – not only was it starring the brilliant up and coming Michael Shannon, it also stared indie favorites Willem Dafoe, Chloë Sevigny, Udo Kier and Brad Dourif – and not only that, it was produced by none other than David Lynch. A Herzog/Lynch production! Cinephile excitement overload was an understatement. It is amazing to think that Herzog had been trying to get the film made since 1995 with no one prepared to back it until Lynch agreed fourteen years later. Herzog described the film as "a horror film without the blood, chainsaws and gore, but with a strange, anonymous fear creeping up in you." That’s about as good a description as I could ever give. It’s Herzog in American suburbia, with a dash of Lynch sprinkled over it for good measure. The film begins with Detective Havenhurst (Willem Dafoe) driving with his partner Detective Vargas (Michael Peña). They receive a call and drive to the scene of a murder. As they push their way through the crowd at the crime scene, they see Brad McCullam (Michael Shannon) leaving with a coffee cup. Inside the house, the detectives find the body of Mrs. McCullam (Grace Zabriskie), Brad's mother, who has just been stabbed with an antique sword. At the scene are the neighbors and chief witnesses, Mrs. and Miss Roberts. The detectives soon realize that they had just seen the murderer leaving the scene. Neighbours tell the detectives that Brad was disturbed and had changed when he went to Peru recently. In a flashback we see Brad in Peru preparing for a kayak trip on a raging river. Back to the present time, the police have learned that Brad has taken two hostages in the house across the street. The police surround the house, and Brad's fiancée Ingrid (Chloë Sevigny) arrives. Ingrid talks to Havenhurst about Brad's trip to Peru, saying that Brad's friends all drowned on their kayak trip, which Brad had decided at the last minute not to take part in; he later claimed that the voice of God had told him to stay behind. Several more flashbacks follow of Brad and Ingrid in Brad's bedroom, talking with Mrs. McCullam, looking at nearby houses, having dinner. Back in the present, Brad demands pizza for himself and the hostages, along with a car for transportation to Mexico. In another flashback, we see Brad in rehearsals for a Greek tragedy directed by thespian Lee Meyers (Udo Kier). As the pizza is delivered to Brad, Lee arrives at the scene of the crime. Lee talks with Havenhurst about Brad and we flash back to Lee and Brad visiting Uncle Ted's (Brad Dourif) ostrich farm. Brad convinces Uncle Ted to give him the antique sword which would be used in the crime. Brad uses the sword in more rehearsals for the play, in which he plays the part of a man who kills his mother, who is played by his fiancée Ingrid. Brad becomes disruptive and is eventually kicked out of the production, but still travels to Calgary with Lee and his mother to attend a performance. A SWAT team arrives to take command of the hostage situation, and the detective talks further with Ingrid and Lee (look out for an early performance by Dave Bautista as a SWAT police officer) . We see a flashback to Brad and Ingrid's trip to Tijuana, after which they go to Bob Wilson Naval Hospital to "visit the sick in general". Brad buys several pillows at the hospital gift shop. Then Brad and Ingrid walk in Balboa Park and Brad gives away his bag of pillows, keeping one, and leaves his basketball in a tree. Back at the crime scene, Havenhurst interviews neighbour Miss Roberts, who had witnessed the crime. In a flashback to the scene just before the murder, we see the Roberts family sitting down with Brad and his mother for coffee. When Brad steps out, his mother tells Mrs. Roberts that Brad has just tried to smother her with a pillow. Brad gets his coffee cup, and then goes to his car and returns with a baseball bat and the sword. He hands the bat to Miss Roberts, saying "Kill me, kill me before it happens". She does nothing, and he draws the sword and holds it in front of his mother. Miss Roberts tells detective Havenhurst that Brad stabbed her, though the murder itself is not shown (big respect to Herzog for that). Ingrid and Lee talk to Brad, urging him to release the hostages and surrender. Ingrid realizes that Brad's hostages are actually his two pet flamingos and the SWAT team moves in and arrests Brad. As Brad is led into the car, we see shots of running ostriches. The final shot is in Balboa Park, where a young boy resembling Brad picks up the basketball. The script began as a project of classics scholar Herbert Golder. Golder was inspired from a young age by Jules Dassin's A Dream of Passion, about an actress playing Medea and a woman who enacts Medea's crimes in her real life. Golder heard about the Mark Yavorsky's case soon after it happened. On June 10, 1979, Mark Yavorsky, an award-winning actor from the University of San Diego, killed his mother using an antique saber. He reenacted, literally, a scene from the Greek tragedy Orestes, a play in which he had been cast as the lead. Golder met with Yavorsky and began a relationship with him that would last several years, conducting a series of taped interviews which would be used to write a screenplay. In 1995, Herzog joined Golder in the last of these meetings. Herzog described Yavorsky, then living in Riverside County, as "argumentative". Yavorsky, living in a trailer, had erected a shrine to Herzog's film Aguirre, the Wrath of God. This concerned Herzog so much that they did not meet again. Herzog, however, was impressed with Golder's project, and told Golder that he wanted to work on the film. The two returned to Herzog's home immediately to finish the screenplay. Herzog said, "You're not leaving until it's finished, and you're not staying longer than a week." Golder and Herzog decided immediately that their film would deviate significantly from Yavorsky's true story. Herzog decided that they "should not connect much to the real man" and that they would focus on Yavorsky's mental state rather than the clinical facts of his case. Several lines of the script were taken verbatim from records of Yavorsky's case, but Herzog has stated that "About 70 percent of the script is false... loosely made up." Notably, Yavorsky's name was changed, and the entire hostage situation was invented (Yavorsky surrendered immediately and took no hostages). Herzog said, "I wanted to do something intelligent where an audience would know three minutes into the film, would know what had happened. An elderly woman had been killed with a sword. Secondly, you would know who the murderer was. And finally you would know where he was. From then on, you do not know what is going to happen one moment after another." It’s far less Columbo like than it sounds. The film's development stagnated for many years after its writing, when Herzog and Golder were unable to find anyone willing to produce it. The production eventually began in the late 2000s at a meeting with Herzog and filmmaker David Lynch. Herzog and Lynch both expressed a desire for, in Herzog's words, "a return to essential film-making" with small budgets, good stories, and the best actors available. Lynch immediately asked "Do you have a project?" and Herzog told him about My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?, which began pre-production immediately. The film works so well because everyone involved understood the script and understood Herzog. Michael Shannon, Willem Dafoe, Udo Kier and the entire cast got Herzog and his vision. It look amazing and the deconstructed style of what is a rather subtle thriller is fresh and invigorating. It had the desired effect and then some. Blood and guts don’t always make for a scary film, it real people who are the most frightening. It’s an unsung masterpiece of frosty terror told in a way that only Herzog could tell. Sometimes its good to be haunted.

Cobra Verde

Dir: Werner Herzog

1987

*****

Cobra Verde is based on Bruce Chatwin's 1980 novel The Viceroy of Ouidah, which was itself based on the Brazilian slave trader Francisco Félix de Sousa and his role in helping King Ghezo overthrow his brother Adandozan as King of Dahomey with the help of Ghezo's Dahomey Amazons. It is the last of five films in a legendary partnership between director Werner Herzog and actor Klaus Kinski following Aguirre, the Wrath of God, Nosferatu the Vampyre, Woyzeck & Fitzcarraldo, and it was the last straw for both men. The picture of Kinski attempting to throttle Herzog in front of a crowd of African extras is now infamous and is discussed in Herzog’s 1999 documentary My Best Fiend. In the documentary,  photographer Beat Presser asks Herzog what happened, to which he replied that he simply thought that Kinski, aware of the camera, wanted to create a dramatic moment, while everyone else present agreed that Kinski was genuinely trying to kill him. Herzog always involved Kinski in the production of their films and spoke to him about the possible filming locations in Ghana, Brazil and Colombia. Kinski was interested in some landscapes in Colombia, but Herzog did not agree. However, Kinski made the trip with a group of friends to some remote places that fascinated him: the foothills of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and the Cape of the Sailing, on the peninsula of La Guajira, Colombia. Herzog finally decided on Villa de Leyva and Valle del Cauca, in the South American country. It was then that Kinski famously uttered "Herzog does not know that I give life to the dead scenery". Their now-legendary personality conflict peaked during the film. The film's production was especially affected by Kinski's fiery outbursts. The cast and crew were continually plagued by Kinski's wrath, most famously culminating in the film's original cinematographer Thomas Mauch walking out on the project after a perpetual torrent of verbal abuse from Kinski. Herzog was forced to replace Mauch with Viktor Růžička. It is amazing that the pair had so much equil respect and hatred for each other but it accumulated into some of the greatest films ever made. Francisco Manoel da Silva (Klaus Kinski) is a debauched Brazilian rancher who reluctantly goes to work at a gold mining company after his ranch is ruined by drought. When he discovers that he is being financially exploited, he murders his boss and goes on the lam to pursue a career as an outlaw. He becomes the notorious Cobra Verde (Green Snake), the most vicious bandit of the sertão. In his travels, da Silva encounters and subdues an escaped slave, an act that impresses wealthy sugar baron Dom Octávio Coutinho (José Lewgoy). Dom Coutinho, unaware that he is dealing with the legendary bandit, hires da Silva to oversee the slaves on his sugar plantation. When da Silva subsequently impregnates all three of the Dom's daughters, the sugar baron is furious, but the situation becomes even more complicated when he discovers that da Silva is none other than the infamous Cobra Verde. As punishment, rather than kill him or have him prosecuted, Dom Coutinho decides to send da Silva on the impossible mission of re-opening the slave trade with Western Africa. The bandit is aware he is likely to be killed in Africa, but accepts anyway. He travels by sea to Dahomey, West Africa (present-day Benin), where he must negotiate with the fearsome King Bossa Ahadee of Dahomey (played by His Honor the Omanhene Nana Agyefi Kwame II of Nsein, a village north of the city of Axim, Ghana). Amazingly, da Silva succeeds in convincing the King to exchange slaves for new rifles. He takes over Elmina Castle and takes Taparica (King Ampaw), sole survivor of the previous expedition, for a partner. They begin operating the slave trade across the Atlantic to Brazil. Soon, however, the fickle king has them captured and brought before him. The King accuses da Silva of various crimes that he has no knowledge of, including poisoning the King's greyhound, and sentences him to death. He and Taparica are rescued the night prior to da Silva's decapitation by the King's nephew, who negotiates a blood alliance with da Silva, planning to overthrow the King. The ambitious bandit trains an enormous army of native women, and leads them on a raid to successfully overthrow King Bossa. Against all expectations, the slave trade is successfully maintained under the new King, thanks to da Silva's resourcefulness. However, da Silva eventually falls out of favor with the new King, and discovers that in the meantime the Portuguese have outlawed slavery and seized his assets, and the English have placed a price on his head. Despite the adversity, da Silva is glad that finally a change has come. The exhausted bandit tries desperately to take a boat to water, but despite his best efforts, he is unable to accomplish the task. He collapses next to the ship as the tide slowly laps in. The film ends with the hauntingly symbolic image of an African man stricken with polio walking along the shore, and a group of young native women laughingly chant over the credits. Herzog’s dream-like nightmare vision is astonishing and as rich as you’d expect and Kinski's manic performance is impossible to take your eyes off. It is fair to say that a lot of that is him rather than the character but he brings the character to life more than anyone else could. All five of the films the pair made together are masterpieces and they ended on a high before they killed each other – and many firmly believe that could have genuinely happened. Kinski by all accounts was a nasty piece of work but he possessed the camera like no one else before or since. Herzog’s film is an amazing adaptation but when Kinski is in front of you, all you need to do is film him and hope that he doesn’t kill you later.

Scream of Stone

Dir: Werner Herzog

1991

****

1991’s Scream of Stone is certainly one of Werner Herzog’s lesser known films and for many it is one of his least accomplished. It had been four years since Cobra Verde and a whole decade since Fitzcarraldo and I think many had thought the great director had reached his peak. Cobra Verde would be the last time Herzog would collaborate with Klaus Kinski but he was originally going to play the leading character in the film, a role which subsequently went to Vittorio Mezzogiorno instead. Mezzogiorno is a very different actor and certainly not as intensely hypnotic but a lot safer to have up a mountain for sure. It isn’t one of Werzog’s finest works but when most of his films are masterpieces it isn’t saying much. The story is about a meeting between two world famous climbers, one an experienced mountaineer called Roccia (Vittorio Mezzogiorno), the other a sport climber called Martin (Stefan Glowacz – a real climber), that results in a bet being made on which of the two is the best climber. Roccia states that Martin wouldn't survive on a 'real' climbing expedition, although he is the indoor 'world champion'. Then they both plan to climb the 'Cerro Torre' in the Patagonia region of South America, near the Argentinian/Chilean border, one of the world's most difficult mountains, especially considering the extreme weather conditions in the area. The journalist Ivan (Donald Sutherland), using the rivalry for media exploitation, joins them and reports on their progress. The rivalry among the two men results eventually in the death of a common friend. Martin claims to have been at the top of 'Cerro Torre', but can't proof it. Then Martin 'steals' Roccia's girlfriend Katrina (Mathilda May), who feels lonely and under appreciated by Roccia. After some time the two men meet again at 'Cerro Torre' and the rivalry results in a 'climb against time' in which Martin and Roccia each attempt different routes up the mountain in a race to the summit. But they're in for a surprise, involving Brad Dourif and four missing fingers. Director Kevin Macdonald who made the amazing Touching the Void in 2003 once said that Scream of Stone is his favorite film by Herzog, the subject clearly being of interest. I do think it is one of his most overlooked works but I can see why this is the case. The fact is that Herzog is responsible for some of the most glorious films ever made. Look at Aguirre, the Wrath of God, Fitzcarraldo, The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser, Stroszek and Nosferatu the Vampyre, and the many amazing documentaries he had made. The truth is that compared to these masterpieces Scream of Stone looked like a cheap made-for-television film. However, if you look past that and watch it for what it is you will be pleasantly surprised. It’s one of those odd films you might catch late at night, think you will switch off within minutes but end up watching till the end. It’s hypnotic in its content but also in how different it is to most films. This is the film that makes me believe Herzog never went to film school but it is also the film that makes me think great film makers don’t necessarily have to. The structure is totally different from the norm but it isn’t distracting enough to take your attention away from the main story. The acting isn’t always great but the passion is always believable, probably because it is mostly real. It is actually legendary actor Donald Sutherland who stands out as the piece that doesn’t quite fit the puzzle but his casting also makes the film somewhat intriguing. It’s odd and quirky, as many of Herzog’s films are, but in a totally different way. If anything Scream of Stone is far more mainstream than the directors other works, it’s ill fitting among its peers but it is very comfortable once you get into it. The filming on location looks stunning, as you’d expect, and it is true that the beautiful landscape is half the film. However, it is the human obsession that Herzog captures best once again, you just have to unlearn how to watch film to really appreciate it, and that is by no means as bad thing.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

Dir: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, The Coen Brothers

2018

*****

A western-themed six part anthology film written, directed, and produced by the Coen brothers sounded like the stuff of rumour almost, like it was too good to be true. It is true, its real and its here but there was a niggle at the back of head when I first learned of it, even though I adore the Coen brothers and everything they’ve done. The thing is, they seem to reach their peak every nine years or so and then slump a little. Their first four films are all brilliant and they built up the fan following nicely. Miller’s Crossing really put them on the map but Barton Fink and The Hudsucker Proxy – the two films that followed – didn’t do so well, even though they are two of my favorites and favorites of Coen fans. I loved everything they did up until Intolerable Cruelty and their remake of The Ladykillers, two films I merely liked but were no where near as masterful as their previous films. No Country For Old Men followed and it was a huge hit. Then they made Burn After Reading, which missed the mark, and while I liked A Serious Man and Inside Llewyn Davis, neither felt like a true Coen film. True Grit was good but it was a western remake, I liked the Dude playing the Duke but again, it was no O Brother, Where Art Thou?. Hail Ceaser was something of a return to their early madcap style but as much as I liked it, it wasn’t quite the same. The film was also to be released on Netflix. Now I’m not hating on Netflix, I am a fan, but a Coen Brothers’ film should be seen on the big screen no? Frankly, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs got go one of two ways; either it would be a return to form incorporating everything that we loved about their previous films, or it would suck and mark the beginning of the end for the film making siblings. Thankfully, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is a bloody masterpiece. The old America has always been kind to the brothers and setting is perfect. There are hints of Blood Simple, Miller’s crossing, Hudsucker Proxy, A Serious Man, True Grit and even Hail Ceaser. There is also a lovely slice of O Brother, Where Art Thou? in there for good measure. The cast are sublime and the characters are as vivid and quirky as you could ever hope for. The collection of six stories is classically presented as an old book with the title The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and Other Tales of the American Frontier. A hand turns the pages before and after each story, each one preceded by a colour plate illustration of a scene within the story. The first story, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, is everything you hoped the film would be within the first few seconds, although it isn’t necessarily the tone throughout the whole film. Tim Blake Nelson plays the title character, a cheerful singing cowboy clad in perfect white who travels atop his trusty white horse Dan. Buster introduces himself to the audience and gives them the lay of land. As he rides across the iconic Monument Valley, he explains to the audience that he is known as an outlaw and misanthrope, though he insists he harbors no dislike of his fellow man. He arrives at an isolated bar and asks for a whiskey, but the owner refuses him due to it being a dry county such that he'll only serve drinks to "proper" outlaws like the rough men sitting across the bar. The lead outlaw and Buster exchange insults before drawing their guns, Buster effortlessly shooting him between the eyes as well as mowing down the other outlaws and bar owner as they reach for their guns. He then heads into town and enters a saloon wherein, by house policy, he surrenders his guns at the door. He sits to join a game of poker that a player has suddenly left, but discovers this was because the man was dealt the infamous dead man's hand (two-pair of black aces and black eights), which the other players insist he still play now that he has peeked. When Buster refuses, a large menacing player named Joe (Clancy Brown) stands and draws a concealed pistol, the scene depicted in the color plate. Unable to dissuade Joe, Buster kicks down a plank in the table that seesaws up to instantaneously flip Joe's gun towards his own face and shoot him repeatedly. Buster then breaks into boisterous song about having to kill "Çurly Joe”, much to all the patrons' delight, until Joe's brother arrives in dismay and challenges Buster to a duel in the street. Buster gladly obliges and proceeds to shoot off each of the man's fingers before he can even draw, then finishes him off with his sixth bullet. However, a polite young man clad in black (Willie Watson) rides into town and recognizes Buster, having heard that he "is the one to beat" at both gunfighting and singing. Buster again happily obliges a request to duel, but much to his surprise, the young man is an even faster draw and shoots him straight through the middle of his forehead. Buster examines the wound in disbelief before collapsing, admitting via voiceover that he should have foreseen that "you can't be top dog forever." The young man and Buster then sing a bittersweet duet as Buster's spirit rises from his body and floats towards heaven complete with angel wings and a lyre. The breaking of the forth wall, narration, singing and dancing are all classic Coen, but I have to say the level of violence, although rather comedic, was surprising but welcome. The second story, called Near Algodones, should have been called Unlucky Luke in my opinion. James Franco plays a young cowboy who cautiously enters a bank that stands isolated upon the prairie. After a brief but hilarious chat with the jabbering bank teller (the brilliant Stephen ‘Where’s my stapler?’ Root, draws his pistol to rob him. However, when he allows the teller to stoop to reach the "large denominations," the teller instead fires a row of shotguns mounted below the counter, which the cowboy leaps to avoid whilst the teller escapes into the back. After filling his bag with cash from the drawer, the cowboy flees out the front, but the teller fires after him, causing him to hide for cover behind a well. As depicted in the story's color plate, the teller then charges the cowboy wearing a washboard and several pots and pans that deflect all the cowboy's shots as the teller repeatedly cackles "Panshot!" The teller knocks the cowboy out with his rifle butt, and when the cowboy regains consciousness, he is sitting upon a horse under a tree with a noose around his neck and being asked for his final words by a lawman and his posse who have already convicted and sentenced him to death while he was unconscious. He is assured it was a fair trial. The execution is then suddenly interrupted by ambushing Comanche warriors who quickly slaughter the lawman and posse but leave the cowboy in place upon the horse. After a time, a drover happens by and frees the cowboy, who then joins him on his drive. However, the drover is actually a rustler, and they are promptly chased down by another lawman's posse, who capture and march the cowboy into town where the sheriff summarily orders him to hang. As the cowboy stands upon the gallows with three other men awaiting execution, one of his fellow condemned begins to sob and wail. The cowboy's dry response offers the story a punchline: "First time?" He then spots a beautiful young woman in the crowd and mutters "There's a pretty girl" before the hangman abruptly hoods him and pulls the lever to cheers and applause. The first story was both what the audience wanted and something unexpected, while the second was rather wry with funny bits. The whole ‘you can’t escape your fate’ idea is simple but effective and the lawlessness of the old west is beautifully highlighted. Meal Ticket, the third of the six stories, takes the anthology to darker territory. An aging impresario (Liam Neeson) and his artist Harrison (Harry Melling), a young man with no arms or legs, travel from town to town in a wagon that converts into a small stage where Harrison theatrically recites classics such as Shelley's poem "Ozymandias", the biblical story of Cain and Abel, works by Shakespeare, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. The impresario collects money from the audience at the end of each performance, with profits dwindling as they visit increasingly remote mountain towns with smaller and more indifferent audiences. Our impresario grows weary and callous from performing all the physical labor in the endeavor as well as having to feed, dress, and assist Harrison in relieving himself. Their financial situation is never desperate, as the impresario can afford to visit a prostitute (keeping Harrison present but facing away), and later draws from a large roll of dollar bills in his coat to buy a chicken of unusual talent in hopes of supplanting Harrison's performances. The impresario observes a man drawing a crowd with the chicken, which can ostensibly perform basic math, pecking at the correct numeric answers to addition and subtraction equations that the audience calls out. After buying the chicken, as the impresario drives their wagon through a mountain pass, he stops by a bridge over a rushing river. He walks to the center of the bridge and drops a large stone into the river to gauge its depths before returning to the wagon wearing a faint smile. The film then cuts to the story's final scene in which he has resumed driving the wagon, the chicken his only passenger and Harrison presumably dropped into the river, as foreshadowed by the quote from Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice that captioned the color plate illustration of Harrison: "The quality of mercy is not strained, it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven." Harrison, superbly performed by Harry Melling, is a Coen creation through and through and maybe their best character in the last decade. The bleakness of this story shows the hardship of the era but the darkness of the story show both the greed and desperation of the ‘survivor’. At this point we learn that this is no ordinary Coen production and although there are hints of their previous work, this is something new and exciting. All Gold Canyon is the great one-man show of the anthology. The old and grizzly Tom Waits plays a prospector who arrives in a pristine mountain valley with his trusty donkey in tow. In the grassy meadow beside a stream that snakes through the valley, the prospector begins digging soil samples and panning through them in the stream to count the gold specks and thereby slowly determine the area with the highest concentration and possibly a major gold deposit, which he calls "Mr. Pocket." After his first night camping at the site, he catches a fish for his breakfast, and then spots a Great Horned Owl tending its treetop nest at the edge of the valley. As depicted in the color plate, he climbs the pine tree that holds the nest, but pauses mid-climb to look out at the vast expanse of wilderness - "And in all that mighty sweep of earth he saw no sign of man nor the handiwork of man." When he reaches the nest, the mother owl's watchful gaze from a nearby tree dissuades the prospector from stealing more than one egg for his meal. After digging several more soil sample holes that day, he identifies Mr. Pocket's location and begins digging a larger hole. The next morning, he digs out gold chunks of increasing size before finally reaching Mr. Pocket: a large gold vein running through the quartz rock. But no sooner does he make his discovery than a shadow falls over him; a young man (Sam Dillon) has snuck to the edge of the hole and shoots him in the back. However, the bullet passes through the prospector without striking any vital organs, and when the young man jumps into the hole to steal the gold, the prospector stops playing dead, knocks the man down, wrestles his gun away, and shoots him in the face. The prospector then assesses and cleans his wound in the stream, finishes digging the gold from the hole, pushes the young man's body back into the hole to serve as his grave, and departs the valley with his bounty. At this point the viewer has been lead to believe that there isn’t much justice in frontier America so it looked as if our gold digger might have had it, so it was nice that the typical lawlessness was shown but with a happy ending. Again, the conclusion is expected and unexpected at the same time. The penultimate story could have probably been a film in its own right. This is the most un-Coen feeling film, although the characters are definitely theirs. The Gal Who Got Rattled follows a young woman named Alice Longabaugh (Zoe Kazan) and her inept businessman brother Gilbert (Jefferson Mays), who are journeying in a wagon train across the prairie towards Oregon, where Gilbert claims a new business partner will marry his sister. Gilbert dies quite suddenly of cholera shortly after they embark, and the wagon train's leaders, Mr. Billy Knapp (Bill Heck) and Mr. Arthur (Grainger Hines), help Alice bury her brother. Though she has no certain prospects, Alice decides to continue to Oregon rather than return east. However, the young man Gilbert hired to lead their wagon, Matt, is demanding half the $400 he claims Gilbert promised him, and Alice cannot find Gilbert's money, fearing he was buried with it. Alice conveys her predicament to Billy, who offers his support in contemplating how to proceed, and also does her the favour of driving off Gilbert's small dog, President Pierce, whose incessant barking has drawn widespread complaint. He promised to kill the dog to put it down kindly but it gets away and it isn’t clear whether this was by mistake or by his kindness and gentle nature. Through the course of their conversations, Billy grows fond of Alice, and he ultimately proposes to solve her dilemma by marrying her in Fort Laramie, assuming Gilbert's debt to pay Matt, and retiring from leading wagon trains to build a home and family with her upon 640 acres in Oregon per the Homestead Act. Alice is surprised by Billy's proposal, but she has likewise grown fond of him, so she accepts the next morning, and Billy informs Mr. Arthur that this will be their last ride together. The following morning, Mr. Arthur notices Alice missing, and he rides over the hills to eventually find her laughing at some prairie dogs with President Pierce. Mr. Arthur then spots an indian sentinel and advancing war party, and he gives Alice a pistol to shoot herself in the event he is killed so that she can avoid capture. Mr. Arthur twice drives back the charging warriors with his rifle, but when a remaining warrior momentarily appears to kill Mr. Arthur, Alice shoots herself as instructed. As depicted in the color plate, Mr. Arthur sadly walks back to the wagon train with "no idea what he would say to Billy Knapp." The film is full of the dark and comically tragic, but the conclusion of this story is just plain tragic. Once more it covers a lot of history within a short time and again shows that life wasn’t easy at that time but it also shows the kindness of others, for the first and only time in the whole film. The final film is an odd one, although I think it was brilliant to end with a tale so ambiguous and strange. The Mortal Remains sees five people as they share stagecoach together at sunset to Fort Morgan. The five are singing Englishman Thigpen (Jonjo O’Neill), Irishman Clarence (Brendan Gleeson);  Frenchman René (Saul Rubinek); a Lady Mrs. Betjeman (Tyne Daly) and a Trapper (Chelcie Ross). Thigpen says that he and Clarence often travel this route "ferrying cargo," alluding to a corpse on the roof, but he does not yet specify the nature of their business handling corpses. The Trapper rambles about his past relationship with a Native woman in which neither knew the other's language, but his observing her basic emotions led him to conclude that "people are like ferrets or beaver, all pretty much alike" in their animal needs and desires. Mrs. Betjeman, a devout Christian, indignantly rebuts that there are two kinds of people, upright and sinning, and explains that her husband, from whom she's been separated for three years, is a retired lecturer on "moral and spiritual hygiene." René challenges her dichotomy (and the Trapper's argument of simplistic animalism) with reflections on the innately individual and complex subjectivity of human experience, and then questions whether her husband conceives of love the same way she does and has remained faithful to her. Mrs. Betjamen becomes apoplectic, and René calls out the window for the coachman to stop, but as foretold in the color plate, "Whether or not he heard, the coachman did not slow." Thigpen clarifies that never stopping is policy. Clarence sings a bittersweet folk song to calm the group, and he and Thigpen then reveal themselves to be reapers (bounty hunters). Thigpen explains how he distracts their prey with stories while Clarence "thumps" them. He tells them of how he distracted Mr. Thorpe, the corpse on the roof, with the story of The Midnight Caller, and how he enjoys watching their prey die, the expression in their eyes as they "negotiate the passage" and "try to make sense of it." The other three are visibly unsettled by this as they arrive at the foreboding hotel in Fort Morgan where they will all be staying, and they remain in the stagecoach while Thigpen and Clarence carry the corpse into the hotel. As they then warily make their way inside, René lingers in the doorway to watch the stagecoach ride off into the eerily foggy night. He then turns to face whatever fate awaits within, dons his hat, and closes the heavy double doors behind him. It’s a wonderful eerie mystery, driven by wonderful character performances and a killer script. One of the reasons that the film feels both fresh and old school Coen is because all of the Western-themed short stories have been written by the Coens over a period of 20 to 25 years. All Gold Canyon was based on a Jack London story and The Gal Who Got Rattled was inspired by a story by Stewart Edward White and based in part on contemporaneous accounts, including those of heated arguments over pets. From the outset, the Coens ruled out traditional film studio funding, seeing an industry shift in how smaller projects are financed. Joel Coen said that Netflix was investing in movies that aren’t based on Marvel comics or other established action franchises, "which is pretty much the business of the studios now." The filmmakers have made clear that they had mixed feelings regarding distribution as The Ballad of Buster Scruggs had only a limited theatrical run before its Netflix streaming debut. The Coens credited home videos with helping establish their own careers and admitted that they themselves succumbed to the temptation to watch movies at home rather than going out to a theatre but the "hours and days and years you spend struggling over details" of a film "is appreciated in a different way on a big screen," Joel Coen said. I don’t think cinema is dead, but it is certainly on the decline. That said, when companies like Netflix are investing and producing brilliant films and television shows the art is certainly alive and well. Everything about the film is perfect; the direction, cinematography, characters, writing, dialogue, performance…but more than that, the mood and themes manage to change while still remaining entwined. It is the return to form that I’d hoped for but also the Coens’ as they’ve matured. It’s one of the best things they’ve ever done and better than most things that have appeared on the big screen the same year. I’m a very happy Coen fan right now.