"And vat does ze fat man get for his troubles?
Nothing but a broken jaw and to be laughed at by mousies."
If Germany ever produced something reminiscent of brilliance, it is this. Forget Fritz Lang, Ernst Lubitsch and the other guys: Werner Herzog reads Curious George.
Okay, it's not really Herzog reading. But it could be. A dark and existentialist update of a children's classic.
They should have suspected something. He has a huge wart on his cheek, his mother didn't.
[Warning: I was so eager to get this blog post out there that I haven't reeaally checked all sources. Do it yourself if you don't believe me. But believe everything I say, my Messiah complex tells me that I am indeed correct.]
I was going to trash the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean film to pieces (I won't even link to its IMDb page), but it's not really necessary. It's shit. I will make a one-sentence-review: The mermaids were cool and should have been a short film on it's own, while the rest was tired recycled-predictable-once-successful bullshit. Don't see it. Don't give Disney the money. Don't let Johnny Depp disappoint you this way any more. And don't f*cking watch 3D movies, it's shit.
Now to the real subject of this blog post. It does not seem to have hit the international news yet (but the Swedish, so use Google Translate on this article if you're obsessed), but apparently... Ingmar Bergman's mother was not his biological mother! He was a bastard!
At least according to a DNA analysis. Well, I can't argue with science, can I? No, but I can argue with the sources of the DNA samples, which were two stamps that Bergman may have licked in the 1950's. And the world is flat, because it looks that way.
But - so what if he was a bastard child? Unfortunate for him, in that case, since he had to grow up in a strict and mentally disturbed pastor family without really having to. BUT. Artists go nuts, totally bananas. They think we will have to reinterpret all Bergman's films now, since most of his films had strong ties to his personal life and his upbringing.
I don't think that's necessary. I will explain why, referring to that Swedish news article that you can't read. The reporter has contacted a scholar (oh yeah, a scholar) called Jan Holmberg, and asked him how the these news about Bergman's biological heritage is going to affect the director's creations.
- I would say nothing. But I am not very naive. When it comes to Swedish artists such as Bergman, one is interested in his works mostly from a biographical perspective. He has repeatedly said that childhood is the key to his artistry," says Jan Holmberg.
On the other hand, Jan Holmberg thinks that researchers, critics and journalists have been somewhat uncritical when it comes to the analysis of Bergman's films.
- You should remember that Bergman was amazingly good at convincing. He was also terribly sneaky. Just because Bergman said that something was in a certain way, it need not necessarily mean that it was like that," said Jan Holmberg.
And, of course, Bergman was not aware that his mother wasn't his biological mother (if she wasn't, but she probably was), so how the hell could that affect his work?
But then again, as an arguing friend of mine teased me with: he may have KNOWN, but didn't TELL...
I had to argue that Bergman was a narcissist and liked to share his private life. He would have let us know about it. Then again, probably not truthfully. He liked to spice up the stories of his life, add a few "dämons" and canted camera angles. (He did not say "demons" like normal people, he had "dämons". Then again, he was far too different from ordinary people to have ordinary demons.) But he would NOT have kept quite about being a bastard child, it would have been too good and scandalous story at the time and the context of a strictly religious home.
So if anyone thinks that these news are a reason to revalue all of Bergman's films, that person is no better than the idiot that thought Hitchcock was adding poop and rectums in all his film. (Read another blog post of mine.)
"But come on, I'm not for the Second World War! And I'm not against Jews. Well, Susanne Bier is... No, no, even Susanne Bier. Ehm... that was also a joke. I am of course, ehm... very much for Jews. No, not too much, because Israel is a pain in the ass, but... eh, still, ehm... how can I get out of this sentence?"
Update: Just heard an interview with Lars von Trier after he had been banned from Cannes: "Oh, so you heard that I have become a persona non grata? Yeah, my parents would be proud of me..."
I thought it was a fun idea, and I'm busy with my essay. So eat it up.
"Woody Allen has written and directed forty-one films in the last forty-five years, making him one of our most prolific auteurs. He's also run the gamut between great and awful more perhaps than any other director. With his latest, Midnight In Paris, out this Friday, I sized up the man's formidable body of work, listed here from worst to best."
I'm so hyped! There is no secret that I adore the deeply disturbed Danish doomsday-filmmaker (alliteration for the win) Lars von Trier, so of course I look forward to his next film Melancholia(2011). But there is more!
The latest edition of the Swedish movie magazine Cinema just arrived to a thankful Lolita, and isn't there one of those strange, surreal interviews with Lars von Trier about his latest film in it? Of course there is! There is a reason for my strange blog title, so listen up: The film Melancholia is inspired by The Philadelphia Story(1940).
I will repeat that. In this interview Lars von Trier says that his latest film, the one that succeeds Antichrist (the film with a stillborn deer, an evil fox that proclaims "Chaos REIGNS" and Willem Defoe ejaculating blood), is inspired by the Cary Grant/Katharine Hepburn/James Stewart screwball comedy The Philadelphia Story. Suck on that!
So if you can imagine the hilarious wedding chaos of Tracy Lord with a planet ten times bigger than Earth that soon will collide with our dear Tellus, you seem to have gotten the gist of Melancholia. This sounds so awesome that I don't know what to do of myself. I think I will jump off the balcony and try to fly away with anticipation. (No, I haven't taken any drugs that I don't already take regularly. I'm just psyched about this.)
It's alright, Alexander. I won't kick you out of bed. Non! maintenant...! viens...
Now the cast. It's awesome! Surprisingly enough Kirsten Dunst - I have high expectations for her. Do this right, woman! Then we have one of my favorite actresses of this day and age, Charlotte Gainsbourg (yep, the daughter of the man that so sexily sings Je t'aime moi non plus with Jane Birkin). She was fantastic in Antichrist, I don't doubt that she will match that performance. Then there is Kiefer Sutherland (another surprise), Charlotte Rampling (yay! a favorite superbitch of mine), John Hurt and scary Udo Kier. (See him in Blood for Dracula from 1974, if you have no self respect. Like me.) Among the Swedish cast we have father and son Stellan Skarsgård and Alexander Skarsgård - known in great, big, amazing America for the tentacle monster in Pirates of the Caribbean respectively a sexy vampire in the True Blood series. And a Lady Gaga video, in which he is called "Alejandro", for some reason. (Crikey, why do I know that?)
[Lot's of vampire actors/actresses, when I think about it... Kirsten Dunst in Interview with the Vampire (1994), Kiefer Sutherland in The Lost Boys (1987), Udo Kier as Count Dracula and Alexander Skarsgård as Eric Northman in True Blood. There is a vampire inflation going on. Be ware. Pull the strings!]
Now watch the damn trailer. It really is The Philadelphia Story - Lars von Trier style! Sometimes I'm so proud of Scandinavia! *happy sigh* Who wants to buy me movie tickets?
Note: it's filmed in Trollywood, Sweden. Woo-hoo! (No, Denmark and Sweden are in fact not the same country.)
[Update May 11: I'll just copy-paste what dear Tim Williams e-mailed me.
Just read your blog post for "Melancholia"--nice as always; however, I felt bound to point out that in the Pirates of the Caribbean milieu, Stellan Skarsgaard in fact plays Orlando Bloom's cursed father ("Bootstrap Bill") and not the "tentacle monster" ("Davy Jones") who is played by Bill Nighy. Small faux-pas, probably insignificant, but I thought I would tell you that privately before anyone else did publicly. Keep 'em flying!
Sorry for the error, but in my humble opinion bad movies don't need any serious research before being mentioned. Like the first Pirates of the Caribbean, though. And obviously, the Skarsgård/Skarsgaard family.]
Død snø aka Dead Snow
Director: Tommy Wirkola
Norway 2009
91 min
Tagline: Ein! Zwei! Die!
Double April Fools Day on you all! First I make a bad joke about the subject for my essay, then I disappear for more than a month - surprise! I will say only this: I was gone, bin Laden died, and now I'm back again. You may draw your own conclusions. (But please build your conspiracy theories around something Mata Hari like, so I may feel a little flattered.)
The other day I watched this film Dead Snow, which I had bought on DVD for my brother as a Christmas gift (with accompanying Merry Christmas card with Joseph Goebbels on it, as is mandatory). I had not seen it, but a film that claims to be "the best Norweigan Nazi-Zombie-splatter film that has ever been made" just has to be good. Not only do I think that Dead Snow is the best Norweigan Nazi-Zombie-splatter film that has ever been made - I suspect that it is the only Norweigan Nazi-Zombie-splatter film that has ever been made. And hopefully it will not spawn an army of cheap copies.
Just the idea of Dead Snow is pretty mind blowing. I watched the trailer on a pretty wild (read: "lots-of-liquor") party about a year ago, and it is but now that I have been able to still my hunger for it. Now, this is a tongue-in-cheek film, as many zombie films are. But it is unique, oh, it is unique! You may first watch the trailer and get an idea of what we are talking about here. Count the film references - which film are you for instance thinking about when the youngsters open the box with Nazi gold? (I know, quiz for 7-year olds. I just want my readers to feel a little smart once in a while. Altruism for the win.)
If the plot isn't obvious from the trailer, it is just as simple and cliché as a gang of stupid/horny teenagers getting the brilliant idea to live in a filthy cabin far up in the Norweigan mountains. Of course only one knows how to find the way back to the car/civilization, and he is also the only one with a snowmobile. One girl is supposed to meet up with the others at the cabin, but is viciously hunted down and eaten by (what we suspect is) a Nazi zombie in the very first scene of the film. Of course the guy with the only snowmobile and the only sense of direction goes off to look for her, when the rest of the gang are attacked by... well, a pretty dead, rotten and angry Nazi army that want their Leprechaun gold back.
Aside from just being a wonderfully entertaining film, perfect to watch with a few cans of beer and a loved one by your side that can alternate between laughter and horror to your privilege (I advise both men and women to use each other in these kind of situations), Dead Snow is also an intelligent parody of the zombie film genre. They don't give a damn about ridiculous plot holes (why would a teenage girl get the idea to walk across the mountains by herself? what is that old man doing in the mountains, and why does he just invite himself into the cabin to tell them the history of the Nazi occupation and that their coffee tastes awful? why would a hot girl want to fuck with a guy taking a shit? and so on), and the blood and gore is wonderfully entertaining.
It could happen... if you are insanely disturbed and grotesque. Guys, don't get your hopes up.
One of my favorite scenes is when that Rastafari chick is chased by zombies and manages to hide in a tree, just to have a fucking crow making noises and draw attention to her hiding spot. In desperation she grabs the crow around the neck and bangs it against the tree until it dies. (Haha. Macabre and humorous. I'm sick, I know.) She looks down to see if the zombies have gone. Two uniformed zombies stand still under the tree, looking up on her. There is silence and stillness. The zombies start to climb the tree and the Rastafari chick throws the dead crow at them. It doesn't help.
Anti-humor is the shit. Watch this film now! And then you can brag about you being so cultural, having seen a Norweigan (or was it Swedish? maybe it was from Switzerland...?) movie, and therefore may get laid if you play your cards right. Thank me for that. My pleasure.
I am currently writing a 25 page essay in film studies, and I just got the idea to change the subject of it. I first thought about analyzing the female influence on the male characters of The Maltese Falcon from 1931 (Roy Del Ruth) and 1941 (John Huston), but I have sadly realized that there is already too much written on that subject. Instead, I remembered that I always got unmistakable incestuous vibes from Rick and Ilsa whenever I have watched Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942), and I think that point of view can result in a substantial re-evaluation of the great classic, and a great essay.
Isn't it weird that Rick and Ilsa seem unreasonably uncomfortable with running into each other? Almost as if there were something else than just a regular heterosexual love affair to be anxious about.
Haven't we all wondered what Rick really meant with "We'll always have Paris?"
What we all do know is what Paris was infamous for back in those days. For example, there is one scene in Boardwalk Empire (Terence Winter, 2009-) where Jimmy asks his wife to fellate him, arguing that all women in Paris does it. And Boardwalk Empire takes place in the jolly 1920's - just imagine what happens in Paris 20 years later, in desperate war times.
I do also believe that the line "Here's a looking at you, kid" is an obvious reference to Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's Venus in Furs (publ. 1870), but I may have to check minor details.
This stance may not be the most popular one, but I do think I have enough evidence on my side to make this essay work. Any ideas?
Thank you, Monty! His reason for giving me this blog award was that my blog is "awesome!" - and I bet the awesomeness of my blog lies in the fact that I update just seldom enough to lose the interest of my blog readers. Or just that I am awesome. Anyway, thanks again, Monty! Check out his blog, if you have a fetish for classic films.
I'm supposed to list seven facts about me, and I'll try to pick a few that aren't too obvious. It may be some repetition since I've done this before, but it was such a long, long time ago that I won't bother to check my old answers.
Then I will pass along this award to seven other bloggers, and let is spread like chlamydia. So here goes:
Some time between the age of 10, when I was deeply in love with Johnny Depp in Cry-Baby (who wasn't), and the age of 14 when I wanted to sexually assault Chico Marx every time he played the piano, I had a serious fling with $crooge McDuck. I can't find any word for that kind of infatuation, but I think I really was attracted to the idea of him being an older, wiser dude. With lots of money. Anyway, this little trivia brings the is-manga-pornography-debate to another level, I think.
I'm married to the most cynical, intelligent, entertaining (not necessarily haha-funny), non-jealous man that I could find that doesn't want to have kids. Too bad he wasn't rich too, though. But I think that's about to change - he's studying to work at the hospital. My Manolo Blahnik shoes are just around the corner! (That was haha-funny.)
My favorite stand-up comedians are Bill Hicks, Eddie Izzard, George Carlin, a couple of Swedish guys you won't care me to name and, recently, also Doug Stanhope. Apart from Izzard, I like my men bitter and broken. And of course, the occasional transvestite always liven things up.
I have a thing for taking pictures of dead animals. I don't kill them myself, mind you! But if I run across a dead pigeon that's had its gut ripped apart by crows, I just have to pick up my camera. The whole beauty of death thing, I think. Anyway, my camera is broken now, so I guess Allah was trying to tell me something about my hobbies.
I love Braindead (Peter Jackson, 1992), and in my humble opinion that was about the last good move Mr. Jackson did in his career. But money makes the world go 'round, and makes artistic souls cry blood.
I'm currently blowing out my brain through my nose. There is nothing as horrible as a bad cold, as any man would say while his wife gives birth.
I am a student and the Department of Cinema Studies at Stockholm University, and it makes me feel awesome.
Now to the nominations! Other stylish bloggers are:
Political art can be both beautiful and emotional, and this is a great example from the organization Peop1e.
Images that we recognize from the news the last couple of weeks are put together to the sound of Charlie Chaplin's final speech from The Great Dictator (1940), to an amazing effect.
Chaplin was then engaging the people to stand up against the Führer - now he is engaging them to stand up against all other dictators. This is beauty, and it proves that Chaplin knew what he was talking about. His speech is everlasting.
I applaud all projects that involve digitalization of media, whether it be old newspapers or audiovisual. Everyone should have the right to study history, as I argued in my previous post. Do you want to know what Rev. Dr. Charles H. Pankhurst had to say about D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation in El Paso Herald (Texas) in 1916? Let's see!
[Do your own searching at Library of Congress. There you can find digitalized American newspapers from 1860 to 1922. Click on the "Search Pages" button, and write whatever you are looking for. I could sit there for hours.]
"A boy can learn more true history and get more of the atmosphere of the period by sitting down for three hours before the film which Mr. Griffith has produced with such artistic skill than by weeks and months of study in the classroom."
Well, about that... If I remember correctly, that film is not really historically correct? And wasn't it, if I'm not mistaken, kind of... racist? Dr. Pankhurst explains:
"The criticism that it exhibits the negro in an unfortunate light and that it is calculated to engender racial animosity is fully met by the consideration that it represents the negro, not as he is now at all, but as he was in the days when he had just had the chains broken from him and when he was rioting in the deliciousness of a liberty so new and untried that he had not yet learned to understand it and was as ignorant as a baby of the way to use it. It is in this respect exactly true to history, and if it reflects upon the negro as he was then it is a compliment to the black man of today."
Oh, I'm glad Dr. Pankhurst solved those misunderstandings! He has obviously also checked that all facts represented in the film corresponds with facts, since he claims that "[o]n Griffith's screen we see the real thing." Like he said before: schools should show this film when teaching about the Civil War!
And how did the audience react upon viewing this spectacle? Except for them being so excited that Dr. Pankhurst had "been crowded upon, pressed down and run over"?
"Every eye was dim with tears in the strangling hush that fell on the theater. What might not our country have been saved had the problem of reconstruction been left to the great heart - the one man who compassed within himself the resources of the intelligence, experience, breadth and sympathy of Abraham Lincoln!
'The Birth of a Nation' has my unqualified approval."
One of the most notorious anti-semitic propaganda movies of all time, Jud Süss. It was highly popular in Europe when it was released, 10 million Germans saw it and another 10 million in the rest of Europe, and it earned director Veit Harlan the 1943 Universum Film Archive award. Swedish actress Kristina Söderbaum (not one of our greatest national prides) was immensely popular, and remained that way for several years to come. Reichsführer of the SS, Heinrich Himmler, ordered all members of the SS and the police to watch the film.
Veit Harlan (right) and Ferdinand Marian's widow during a court case in 1948.
Then the war ended, and the view of Jud Süss took a 180 degree turn: Veit Harlan was twice charged of crimes against humanity, but was acquitted when claiming that he had just followed orders. The actor that played the title role, Ferdinand Marian, died in a traffic accident in August 1946. In September, Heinrich George, who played his highness Karl Alexander, died during an appendectomy in a Soviet concentration camp. Veit Harlan died in his home in Capri, Italy - his wife Kristina Söderbaum died in Germany 2001. Two of Veit Harlan's daughter changed their last name when going for acting careers.
Now the sale of Jud Süss on DVD is prohibited in Germany, France, Italy and Austria. The copyright holders, the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau Foundation, only allows screenings in explanatory contexts, such as in school for educational purposes or in museum exhibitions.
Now it's only natural to become curious. What, indeed, can be so upsetting about this film to cause such controversy? A lot, I realized after watching it. If one were to delete all Jewish references, keep all characters religion/race/whatever neutral - if it would have just been regular good vs. bad guys - this would have been a pretty decent film, and masterfully filmed too. And that's exactly what is most upsetting about the film - it having such appealing qualities while being an anti-Semite campaign on its own. There were obviously dire consequences to the showing of, and acceptance of, this film - to the vast disadvantage of the already vulnerable Jewish community - but to what extent we will never know. However, we should look closely on this film for that very reason. (I think it's insane that it's banned in some countries. Everyone should have access to history and learn from it.)
Yes, Jud Süss is actually based on history. Vaguely. Joseph Süss Oppenheimer was a Jewish banker and financial planner for Duke Karl Alexander of Württenberg in Stuttgart (taken directly from Wikipedia) in southern Germany. Being a powerful man who had a great influence on the Duke he made a lot of enemies, and when the Duke died he was charged for a hell of a lot of crimes (probably were some of them taken from thin air, who knows). He was executed in 1738 and left to hang in a cage for six years. You know, to set an example to anyone who may have planned to make a similar career choice.
However, when Nazi Germany were to interpret the story, Süss Oppenheimer was made into a greedy, sneaky, filthy, megalomaniac of a man with a taste for groping innocent Aryan women. The story seems to rather be based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion rather than either the 1827 novella or the 1925 novel. Interestingly enough, the Brits made a film adaption in 1934, Jew Süss with Conrad Veidt in the title role, and that film is instead condemning anti-Semitism.
The best way to give an idea of what a film is like is to offer a lot of screenshots, dialog and a brief explanation of the plot. As for how bizarre this film is, I am confident that my readers are intelligent enough to understand that without me adding a lot of obvious comments. I'll just add a few here and there where it feels fun to.
We begin with Karl Alexander undertaking an oath to serve his country and his people. Then we cut to the romantic couple of the day, Dorothea Sturm (Söderbaum) and Faber (Jäger), playing and singing at the piano, naïvely oblivious to what horrors are yet to come with the introduction of the next character: Süss Oppenheimer. He is introduced as a wealthy man living in a Jewish neighborhood (I bet there were a lot of those left in Germany anno 1940).
After showing off some pearls and other riches, and making sly facial expressions, we understand that Süss is planning to manipulate his way to power by making the Duke rich. And if you ever wondered how Jews look like when villainously chatting about strategies to achieve money and power, according to this film they look like this:
Süss shaves off his beard and dress a little more fashionably. But when Faber first sets his eyes on Süss, he instinctively knows that he is but a Jew in disguise.
But of course, the Duke can set that whole Jew-thing aside, as long as he gets riches. As a nice little fade from a pile of gold coins to dancing girls at a ball illustrates:
Ta-daa! The Jew gold turned into something physical that the fat, old Duke loves. That's the charm with propaganda: keep it simple and clear, then you'll get your message through.
Soon of course, the Duke is in debt to Jew Süss. Being a kind soul, Süss offers a way out of his debt: He wants the authority to maintain the roads of and bridges of Württenberg for 10 years. He adds tolls and taxes for their use, and a percentage of those incomes goes directly to the Duke. Greed and pride wins, and Oppenheimer gains authority on the cost of the hard working citizens. This will eventually anger enough people to demand the deportation of Oppenheimer.
One could write a 30 page assignment on this film and everything that is thwarted with it. However, I believe in the power of images. Let's move to the decadence aspect of the "Jud Süss problem" - he introduces ballets, parties and gambling, and a lot of young girls. At one point he introduces the Duke to a couple of ladies that are "not yet 18".
Süss Oppenheimer himself has however fixed his eyes on the pure, innocent and blonde Dorothea Sturm. Here comes screenshots of his seduction, which she manages to flee from. Later on in the film (see film clip), he extorts her into exchanging sex for the freedom of her now husband Faber and her father.
Now, Kristina Söderbaum was famous for her many drownings in film, and was therefore nicknamed "The Water Corpse", or Reichswasserleiche ("Drowned Girl of the Reich"). So of course, that's the way Dorothea reacts when Süss has raped her. (In my opinion, I actually thinks it looks like she longs for his passion too, but I might be over thinking things.)
This is it for the people of Württemberg. Coincidentally, the Duke has a heart attack and dies. All there is to do now to form a posse and catch Süss for execution in front of the whole town. The film ends with the banning of Jews being reinforced, and the exclamation that it will remain that way.
The last scene is, regrettably, pretty awesome cinematically. The camera moves around, zooming in and zooming out. The scene takes place outside in the snow, the camera cuts between different angles in pace with Süss' pleads for mercy.
It looks really good. And, as I stated before, it's quite problematic that it does. It's hard to comment on a film like this. It's like trying to decide whether or not Hitler was a good painter, or if Kim Jong Il has a good taste in clothes. Okay, the latter one may not be so hard to decide, after all. Anyway, I hope this post gave something to those of you who haven't had a chance to see the film. But to it, if you do get the opportunity. One can't fully comprehend the mentality behind propaganda films if one never sees one.
I can recommend the documentary Harlan - In the Shadow of Jew Suess (Feliz Moeller, 2008), which tries to explore what the hell that man Veit Harlan and that woman Kristina Söderbaum were thinking when contributing to a film like this. It features mostly interviews with Veit Harlan's children and grandchildren, who reflect about how Jud Süss has affected their lives, and completes their stories with home movies Veit Harlan made.
