#94- My Night at Maud’s

Quick recap:  A devout Catholic runs into an old friend, who identifies himself as a Marxist. The two decide to visit a recent divorcé (Maude), where they spend a night discussing philosophy.

maud

Fun (?) fact:  Want to host the most boring movie marathon EVER? My Night at Maud’s is the 3rd movie in a series entitled ‘Six Moral Tales’. 

Is philosophy really that exciting? No. No, it is not.

Is philosophy really that exciting? No. No, it is not.

My thoughts: Oh, France. I came into this project with some very stereotypical views about the French: Whimsy? Check.   Corrupting of youth? Check.    Existential art film? Check.  A story in which a penniless writer falls in love with a can can dancer from the Moulin Rouge? Check. And now add to that list a pretentious film, where every single bit of dialogue is stuffed with references to philosophy that some people might get, but I sure didn’t. Fact: If you have to spend more time researching what you just watched in order to understand the basic point, it’s not worth it.

The entire film is based off of the ideas of Pascal, who wagered that since it’s impossible to prove God exists, you might as well believe. If you live a good life and God does exist, you will be rewarded in the afterlife. If you do good and God doesn’t exist, then at least you didn’t waste your life.Vidal, the Marxist, likes the idea of Pascal but his friend Jean-Louis, the Catholic, does not. Jean-Louis doesn’t agree with his view on Christianity for several reasons I never understood. When the two friends end up at Maud’s, the conversation turns to Jean-Louis and his love for a woman he has never met. At some point, Vidal leaves and he is left with a choice: whether to sleep with Maud, who he clearly has an attraction to, or a random woman. Maud, for her part, is trying really hard to get Jean-Louis into bed. He is able to hold firm to his convictions until the middle of the night when he crawls into bed with her to get warm. In the morning, she rolls over and he embraces her. My first reaction was approval at his logic. But then he ultimately rejected her advances, and maybe that was for the best. When Jean-Louis meets his dream girl the very next day, he is seemingly rewarded for not backing down. The two get married and live happily ever.

My husband came up with the idea that Jean-Louis bet on meeting the girl of his dreams and, even if she had never appeared,  made the right choice not to sleep with Maud. I’d think about the movie further, except it has already exceeded the time spent watching the movie and so I am obligated to stop.

Final review: 2/5. My brain hurts.

Up next: Who knows?

 

 

#93- Meshes of the Afternoon

Quick recap: A woman falls asleep, except she’s not. There’s also a key, a flower and a knife that are important for some reason. And also a guy with a mirror face. Basically, what one would expect in a 14 minute art house film.

The phone is off of the hook! How deep! Such meaning!

The phone is off of the hook! How deep! Such meaning!

Fun (?) fact: I’m out on the porch as I type this, and I think I’m about to watch a battle between a wasp and random bird.

My thoughts: If I’m going to be entirely honest, here are my exact thoughts as I watched this film:

Is it a requirement for all experimental films to feature a flower?

Is it a requirement for all experimental films to feature a flower?

 

Gross! Is the symbolism flirting with death, because that's what she's doing putting that nasty key in her mouth.

Gross! Is the symbolism flirting with death, because that’s what she’s doing putting that nasty key in her mouth.

 

That's.....off-putting?

That’s…..off-putting?

 

WTF?

WTF?

 

WTF?

WTF?

 

WTF?

WTF?

 

I could continue, but I think my point has been made. I got that the main character was asleep and I think I understood that she was in a dream but that’s about it. On one hand, I could take the time to analyze the film and research its true meaning, but that kind of ruins the ‘wtf’-ness of it all.

Final review: 2/5. The film was creepy, but overall all the symbolism turned me off.

Up next: My Night at Maude’s

 

#92- Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

Quick recap: 

A_long_time_ago

Fun (?) fact: Han Salo doesn’t know and doesn’t care who shot first.

Calvin-and-Hobbes-Mashups-Star-Wars

My thoughts: So, I’m just going to get this off my chest: I loved Episode I. A little explanation first- I saw Episode IV for the first time in 8th grade, right before Episode I came out. Before then, I had always dismissed Star Wars as a silly sci-fi movie and would’ve never sought it out on my own had it not been for a few friends of mine. Once I saw the trilogy, I was hooked completely. So when Episode I came out a few months later, I got caught up in the hype. It never occurred to me (until much later) to think of Episode I as sort of awful because I was there as part of a community, not as a critic. I admit to buying Lay’s potato chips and Pepsi products simply because there was a Star Wars tie in (side note: I won a Queen Amidala phone from a potato chip bag and it was kind of a crummy phone considering she didn’t have too many catch phrases besides, ‘ I am Queen Amidala’). All that to say that I’ve always been afraid of revealing I like Star Wars because I don’t know the names of the ships or even many of the characters, yet I still love the series. Star Wars is the very epitome of American pop culture and I think there is something worth celebrating in that.

I’m not sure how many times I have seen Episode IV, although I doubt it is as much as Empire Strikes Back. Still, it has its merits, none of which I will be discussing here. Why? Simply because Star Wars has been analyzed in every corner of the internet at this point, even THAT corner. You know the one I’m talking about (I’m talking about the original Space Jam site which is STILL up, if you can believe it). My own analysis would add nothing to the conversation, plus I just don’t feel like researching to make sure I get every fact straight. Instead, I bring you a few stray observations:

  • Luke Skywalker is whiny. Annoyingly whiny. I had a slight crush on Mark Hamill as Luke but now I don’t see how that was possible because his character grated on my very last nerve this past viewing.
  • The special effects are still amazing and it blows my mind to think how much was done without a computer. I’ll add sadly that the only version available to watch from Netflix was the one with all the added CGI George Lucas thought would enhance the film. Spoiler alert, Lucas: No one sat in the movie theater in 1977 and thought, ‘yeah, Storm troopers are cool and all, but I just wish they were riding dinosaurs. That’s what this film is really lacking’.
  • I watched this movie with my 4 year old and this was his first time watching anything Star Wars related. I had high expectations he would enjoy it, but instead he was bored to tears because of the lack of Yoda.
  • And on that note, Episode IV was kind of boring overall. There was a lot of set up, which is important in the beginning of any series but not enough action for my taste.
  • The acting was hit and miss. Hit: Harrison Ford because he can do no wrong. Miss: Chewbacca.
  • My husband is in fact one of those Star Wars fans and spent the entire movie complaining once more about Episodes I-III. Anything can set those guys off.
  • The Force seems kind of hokey, now that I think about it. It really is a religion and that observation made the movie less fun, overall.

90c72c0f

Final review: 4/5. I’m anxiously awaiting Empire Strikes Back because it really is the best.

Up next: Meshes of the Afternoon

 

#91- Monsieur Verdoux

Quick recap: Charlie Chaplain plays Monsieur Verdoux, a perfectly charming gentleman.Faced with the difficult situation of caring for his wheelchair bound wife and young son after losing his job at the bank, Verdoux does what any stand up man would do-he becomes a mass murderer.

I'm going to murder you all!

I’m going to murder you all!

Fun(?) fact: Chaplain bought the idea for the movie from Orson Welles for $5000

My thoughts: City Lights is one of my favorite movies, and so I was hesitant to watch Chaplain in a ‘talkie’. In all honesty, I had kind of assumed he had retired once the era of silent films was over. Apparently not, and it was quite a relief to see how easily he had transitioned, yet still keeping his over the top expressions he was known for.

The film apparently takes place in France, although everyone has an english accent. That’s one of my biggest pet peeves in movies- when the accent doesn’t match the region (I’m talking to you, Tom Cruise). There were a lot of characters thrown in at the beginning of the movie, which was confusing at first, until I learned to just focus on Verdoux. Chaplain’s character is a little guy, but an expert at wooing women. He is supremely charming when he needs to be and has to summon up a lot of patience for some of the women he deals with. I especially loved the little quirks of his, such as how quickly he thumbed through the money and his continually failing to kill one of his wives. Hilarious!

1083875860

I thoroughly enjoyed myself until the end of the movie, when Verdoux is finally caught and sentenced to death for all the murders. In his speech to the court, Verdoux basically says that everyone finds him horrible, yet bombs are killing women and children every day and no one cares. It’s not that I disagree with the message, but I don’t like having to sit through a movie only to realize it was political satire this whole time. And I do love me some satire, but not in this way. If the speech had just been edited out, it would’ve been a perfectly fine comedy. Satire can be subtle but not so nonexistent so that the main character has to make a speech about the point of the movie. Chaplain was apparently extremely left-wing and felt this film to be one of his best. It was controversial when it came out and was the beginning of the end of Chaplain’s career.

Final review: 3/5. Still a nice little gem of a movie, if you take away the ending.

Up next: Star Wars: Episode IV