Stray Dog [1949]

Set in post WWII Japan - a rookie cop is pickpocketed and loses his gun. He begins a desperate search to find his weapon in fear of what damage it could cause in the wrong hands.

The film unfolds as if it’s meant to be a modern day fable of not allowing the weight of the world crush you – yet there’s a bit a disconnect when it comes to the universal “ah-ha” moment we are meant to feel at the end of a good fable. We are given the “wisdom” of a senior officer – and it basically boils down to “you’ll get over it, kid” – which even though may be true – isn’t as powerful as you’d like for a fable or a movie.

I’ve only really seen Toshiro Mifune in Kurosawa’s samurai films – and could barely recognize the man – but the intensity of his performance was ever present. As he investigates the emotional build up keeps showing itself through Mifune’s face and body language – the guilt he feels – as if this major dishonor to him speaks for the culture of post war Japan.

As he learns of the crimes his missing weapon has been involved in – he is encouraged not to put the weight of the world on his shoulders even though it’s hard not to feel guilt in a situation like this. He must learn in order to deal with his own humanity that it’s the choices that people make that define them – not the mistakes and curves life throws at them. He could have chosen to move on with his life and career – he was given a punishment – but instead he chose to move forward with the investigation and retrieve his weapon because of the character of his being.

Thus again – this would speak as maybe a message from Kurosawa to post war Japan – to not be in shame and use the defeat to lead down the road to bad things – but to learn from the mistakes and grow from out of those lessons.

Actually, as I write this I’m beginning to realize how the fable actually works very well as a message to the society as a whole - though I would’ve liked to see a major “ah-ha” moment – but I guess you can use that ambiguity to say “it’s your move, society”.

As for the film – you’ll find me pretty hard pressed to say that Kurosawa doesn’t know what he’s doing – because he’s as good as a director as have ever been. He keeps the story engaging throughout – uses the composition of his shots, lighting and single continuous shots wonderfully as always.

I had reservations about the story – but after having time to think – it’s quite good – though I realize I’m not always in the mood for ambiguity – I’d recommend it if it sounds interesting.

Z is for...

Closer in spirit to a police procedural than a gory serial-killer flick, David Fincher's Zodiac provides a sleek, armrest-gripping re-invention of the crime film. It surveys the investigation of the Zodiac killings that terrorized the San Francisco Bay area in the late -60-early -70s; Zodiac not only killed people, but cultivated a Jack the Ripper aura by sending icky letters to the newspapers and daring readers to solve coded messages. But the film's focus isn't on the killer. We follow the reporters and detectives whose lives are taken over by the case, notably an addictive crime writer (a sartorially splendid Robert Downey Jr.), an awkward editorial cartoonist (Jake Gyllenhaal), and a hard-working cop (Mark Ruffalo). Fincher and his brilliant cinematographer Harris Savides are deft at capturing the period feel of the city, without laying on the seventies kitsch, and James Vanderbilt's script doles out its big moments to major and minor characters alike. Fincher's confidence is infectious; the movie glides through its myriad details with such dexterity that even the blind alleys and red herrings seem essential. The well-chosen cast includes unexpected people popping up all over: Anthony Edwards as a lunch-bucket homicide cop; Charles Fleischer as a mysterious suspect; Elias Koteas and Donal Logue as small-town policemen whose districts are hit by Zodiac; Chloe Sevigny as Gyllenhaal's sweet-natured wife; Brian Cox as the media-friendly lawyer Melvin Belli, so famous he once appeared on Star Trek; and the mighty John Carroll Lynch, as a supremely creepy suspect. The film is based on non-fiction books by Robert Graysmith (he's portrayed by Gyllenhaal), although Fincher and co. did extensive research on their own. The result is a propulsive whodunit without (thus far) an ending, but the uncertainty makes the film even more intriguing. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 2007

directed by David Fincher

X is for...

The feature film The X-Files: I Want to Believe is a satisfying if unspectacular installment in the X-Files series, taking place an unspecified time after the show's nine-year television run. Former agent Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) is now a doctor, while Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) is being hunted by his former agency and living in seclusion. He and Scully are summoned back by a case involving a missing agent and a former priest (Billy Connolly) who claims to be able to see clues to the agent's whereabouts psychically, though his initial search turns up only a severed limb. Don't expect the usual cast of characters; the FBI has completely turned over (except for the George W. Bush portrait), and the only reason Scully and Mulder are back is because agent Dakota Whitney (Amanda Peet) remembers his success on similar cases involving the unexplainable. Don't expect the same rogues' gallery either; unlike the previous X-Files feature film, which was inextricably linked to the series' convoluted mythology arc (and served as a bridge between the fifth and sixth seasons), I Want to Believe is a stand-alone piece that makes use of the series' roots in horror/sci-fi and moody Vancouver, B.C., locales. Also unlike the previous film, which was almost self-consciously shot for the big screen, this film is on a smaller scale, like a double-length episode of the series. But it's still a good reminder of the creepy vibe that hooked fans for years. And the relationship between Mulder and Scully? It seems to have resumed pretty much where it left off, at least when you take into account the long period of separation. But stick around for the end-credit sequence to take in all the possibilities for the future. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 2008

directed by Chris Carter

W is for... [part 2]

Family loyalty and self-reliance take on whole new meanings in this dark story of one family's desperate struggle to survive in the Ozark woods of southern Missouri. Day-to-day life is tough in the economically depressed, unforgiving harsh rural landscape that's home to the extended Dolly clan, but it's made much tougher thanks to their history of cooking crank and deep involvement in the local drug culture. For Jessup Dolly and the other men of the family, looking out for oneself has become the first priority. Seventeen-year-old Ree (Jennifer Lawrence) has been caring for her mentally ill mother and her two younger siblings while her father runs from the law. Ree has been managing OK, but when the sheriff shows up with news that her father has put the house up as bond collateral and is unlikely to show for his court date, things get desperate. Ree is well aware of the family code of silence, but desperation forces her to confront her relatives in search of her father, regardless of the personal consequences. One by one, Ree's relatives refuse to help, protecting themselves even at the cost of one of their own. This is a dark, often violent film that doesn't shy away from the harsh realities of the manic drug culture permeating some rural areas of the South. It is intense, emotional, and extremely effective: it is at times simultaneously uncomfortable to watch and paradoxically riveting. Jennifer Lawrence, John Hawkes, and Dale Dickey deliver phenomenally powerful performances and are completely believable in their respective roles. While this official selection in the dramatic film competition at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival doesn't align well with many of the details in the Daniel Woodrell novel on which it's based, what is absolutely faithfully rendered is the overwhelming sense of resolute self-reliance, complete desperation, and intense, yet distorted family loyalty. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 2010

directed by Debra Granik