I'm not that stupid

To those who may interpret me as a misogynist, feminist hater or terrorist supporter:
(For those who haven't even had the thought that I would be a mean person - just look at the pictures and enjoy.)


I may be blonde in the picture above, but I'm not that stupid. This is a film blog, and it would be stupid (which I'm not, at least not that stupid) to sneak in upsetting political comments to scare off my readers. One could compare that hypothetical deed to the popular urban legend that Tommy Hilfiger once said that he didn't want black people or Asians to wear his clothes. That would just be stupid.

Even though this is a classic film blog, I have obviously made some political comments every now and then - but that is either for harmless comical reasons or that the Swedish minister of justice has an IQ of a football and recently has proven it yet again. I.e. nothing that should upset my, mostly American, readers.

Why do I then feel the need to explain myself? I have no fucking idea, and I despise myself for it. It's fucking common sense that I do not hate women for being women, that I do knot know enough about feminist history to know that some amazing things have been accomplished, or that I would be as ignorant as to have some underlying hatred for all Americans just because your ex-President was considered totally loopy by great parts of the world population.

My real political opinions are rather normal and boring, to tell you the truth, and therefore I may spice them up with obviously bizarre comments if I feel like making a brief reference to political opinions. Like "all women are usually whiny bitches".

Thankfully, 99% of my readers seem to have brains enough not to think twice about it. Thankfully, most of those people who do find my blog disturbing just go to some other area of the pretty big world of the Internet. Thankfully, most people probably don't want to waste their valuable time giving pathetic life lessons in the comment section of a blog post they didn't like.

Thankfully, most of my dear readers also understand that this is a classic film blog for movie nerds - and that politics have nothing to do with the subject.

I guess everyone that was born with a sense of humor can see the difference between making fun of innocent victims of a national disaster, and a lighthearted reference to the incident as a whole. The latter does not mean "yay for terrorism and loads of civilians ending up dead".

In Sweden the MS Estonia disaster of -94 (852 deaths, read more about it here) is still a touchy subject, especially with the state-smuggling-weapons-on-board-and-therefore-didn't-raise-the-ship conspiracy theory attached to it. Just adorable.

That doesn't mean that we would go berserk if someone mentions it - or even jokes about it. If it shows to be a tasteless joke, then one can be pretty calm with the notion that it was spoken by a pathetic person not worthy of my attention.

So... are we cool now? If not, just remember that I will not beg on my knees to explain something obvious and (for the theme of my blog) irrelevant again. I will do a lot for my readers, but when it comes to this shit once is enough. When (hopefully "if") similar comments about me being an asshole reach my comment section, I will just answer with a link to this post.

Notice that I never delete the comments - they are pretty entertaining in a way too.

Inception (2010) was, by the way, a mind blowing film that I would recommend to about anyone.

It's clever (took about eight years to write!) and original - something that I never dare to expect to come from Hollywood since the 1960's. Don't read too much about it before watching it, though. Or, do - you will not understand a thing anyway and will not be able to spoil it for yourself. You only have to know that the film centers around the concept of being able to break into and manipulate dreams - an ability that some would pay a lot to be able to exploit. Oh, and that dear, dear Marion Cotillard is in it.

And the film nerd's favorite:

Public Enemies (2009) or: I like new movies too

Public Enemies

Director: Michael Mann

USA 2009

140 min

I've finally seen it! And I must say that this film was a positive surprise to me. I didn't have any high expectations.

So why did I go see it? Johnny Depp usually chooses his parts well, they seldom disappoint you. And when he chooses to play the charming gangster John Dillinger, I can't help but getting a little curious about it.

The director, Michael Mann, did however lower my expectations. Yes, he made Collateral (2004), and that was a pretty good movie (if you ignore the cliché ending), but nothing more impressive than that. He seems "too American", to me. (Does that make any sense?)

I had a free movie ticket, that made my choice obvious. Otherwise the cinema tickets in Sweden are way too expensive (ca $14).

I guess there isn't much I can say about the film that hasn't already been said, so I will just go with my personal opinions and not dig too deep. I'll begin with the flaws:

• The camera work was a little too shaky. I liked the mixture of extreme closeups and long shots, and there were a lot of amazing camera angles, but in the actions scenes the camera just confused me. It was hard to understand what was happening with all the quick cuts and the spinning camera.
• The length. There wouldn't have been any problem to cut it down to just under two hours. What is it with movies nowadays? It seems like all filmmakers try to to make their own Lord of the Ring trilogy. (Which I loath, by the way.)

Trailer: See the trailer, and you'll get what I mean. (Why do all trailers want to "Americanize" the movies? It feels like an insult, to those films that actually has some original parts, to be thrown into the mainstream ditch among all the others.)

Now to the good stuff!

Characters:

The characters depictions were really amazing. You sympathize with the public enemy Dillinger, just like the Depression era people did and you therefore should.

The relationship between Dillinger and Billie Frechette (played by the lovely Marion Cotillard, who won the Academy Award for her depiction of Edith Piaf in La Môme, 2007) feels real, and contributes to the rest of the story. Christian Bale as Melvin Purvis from FBI was great too, even though he didn't really get the chance to shine.

It felt kind of weird though, the first time I saw Johnny Depp with a machine gun. He hasn't made many action type roles in his life, so it was quite fun to see. And thankfully, he wasn't any Rambo type of an action hero - he was the kind of an action hero Johnny Depp could be. The John Dillinger type.

Artistically:

The cinematography, aside from the, at times, too jumpy camera, was beautiful and professional. The color scheme was romantic, and there was a good mix of close-to-sepia colored scenes and Technicolorful striking scenes (like the almost disturbingly beautiful scene in the beginning, when Melvin Purvis hunts down and kills Pretty Boy Floyd in an apple garden).

Wardrobe:

Oh, those costumes! The clothes were very faithful to the 1930's fashion, very striking. And I must add here, that if that red dress Marion Cotillard refers to as "a three dollar dress" really cost $3, It's mine.

Everything about the film in this area is thoroughly planned - clothes, cars, hair styles... Well, pictures say more than words:

Manhattan Melodrama:

I was at first afraid that this part of the John Dillinger story wouldn't be in the film. When I heard that it actually was, there was nothing that could keep me away from the cinema.

I was surprised at how much focus it was on relatively small part that it was Manhattan Melodrama [review] Dillinger went and saw (zoomed in newspapers, film posters in the background, etc.), and the irony in Clark Gable's gangster character Blackie's death and the impending end of Dillinger just outside the theatre. I got the feeling that the director admired this film. The popular rumour that Dillinger's favorite actress in fact was Myrna Loy, is underlined in Dillinger's reaction of the film.

And didn't I get tears in my eyes when I saw three of my favorite actors, William Powell, Loy and Gable, fill the screen? Oh yes, I did. And I was probably the only one in the theatre reacting that way. (At least of the people in my age.) When I first saw Manhattan Melodrama (1934), I had no idea that I was going to be able to see parts of it on the screen in a movie theatre. It was an experience I'm proud of.

All in all I really liked Public Enemies. And I will spend many nights dreaming about Johnny Depp in that glorious moustache... Can't wait for Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds (2009), when I get to see a Brad Pitt, who finally has gotten a little older and finally is handsome, with a moustache too.

I just wonder why they skipped the bit about Dillinger going through a plastic surgery to change his appearance. Instead he just grew a moustache and put on some round glasses (no complaints, it was a really good look for Depp). It kind of takes away the purpose of Anna Sage having to tell the FBI she wears an orange skirt, in order for them to recognize Dillinger, doesn't it? Well well...

Now - let's drool, ladies! (And gentlemen!)




Here's a little comparison between the real-life persons, and the people who depicted them in the film:

John Dillinger vs. Johnny Depp.

Billie Frechette vs. Marion Cotillard.

Melvin Purvis vs. Christian Bale.