Viridiana (1961)

1/5

Buñuel's Viridiana is poorly-made nonsense. Nun-to-be Viridiana (Pinal) is invited back to her uncle's mansion before she takes her vows before God. There, she discovers that her uncle (Rey) wants to marry her, and he enlists the aid of his maid (Lozano) to force her to stay with him. Things don't go as planned and the rest of the movie diverges from acceptable storytelling and just kind of bumbles around into chaos. The film is not really about the story at all, so I won't bother telling you any more of the plot. Suffice it to say, it's incomprehensible (in purpose) and more than a bit frustrating.

Nothing feels believable, including any supposed satire. The writing is poor. The filmmaking is poor. This is essentially a student film, complete with above-average actors made to perform stilted and staged dialogue by a pretentious director who thinks he knows better than everyone else. Buñuel's tunnel vision disdain for the church (and apparently kindness in general) borders on offensive. But more insulting than the content itself is Buñuel's use of overt imagery and obvious symbolism, because nobody could have figured out his genius strokes without having him graciously dumb it down for all us idiot audience members. If I wanted to watch a feel-bad movie where well-intentioned people are made to pay for their beneficence, I would have watched the equally terrible Au Hasard Balthazar and walked out halfway through. But who does? Avoid this movie unless you like being sledgehammered in the face with negative sentiment.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055601/

Through a Glass Darkly (1961)

3/5

Ingmar Bergman's Through a Glass Darkly is a movie that is equal parts fascinating and equal parts aggravating. The movie is essentially a character study of a woman suffering from schizophrenia who was recently released from a mental institution. She spends her first 24 hours out with her husband, father, and brother on a vacation island. During that time, she experiences aural hallucinations about seeing God, which is where the movie finds its title. According to the Bible, seeing God in life can only occur through a glass, and darkly; we cannot see Him clearly except in death. However, explaining even this skeleton of a plot was not a simple task, requiring some external data-gathering, because the movie is full of subtleties that are far too subtle. The thing about it is that the movie is compelling enough to make you want to go out and find out more about it. Unlike La Notte, it's not bad enough that you can just dismiss the seeming impenetrabilities.

Technically, the movie is a mixed bag. Shot by Sven Nykvist, it's beautiful. The editing is more than adequate, but nothing special. And as I've said before of the movie as a whole, the writing and dialogue are really interesting, but can sometimes be too confusing. The acting is similarly double-edged. At times there's overacting and posturing that makes it seem unrealistic. At other times there's underplayed subtlety that feels real but can be difficult to discern. Basically, the movie has some good stuff and some bad stuff. Neither overwhelms the other. Watch it at your own risk.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055499/

La Notte (1961)

2/5

Michelangelo Antonioni's La Notte is the quintessential art film that modern audiences love to hate for its lack of entertainment value, its inability to keep the viewers' attention, and its ineffable "meaning." The barebones plot follows a married couple (Mastoianni and Moreau) as they discover that they've fallen out of love after a party where they each become involved with someone else. It is the second film in an informal trilogy on the inability of couples and lovers to communicate with each other. And yet there is nothing but silence and banal dialogue nobody cares about, not even the characters. The silence isn't interesting or exciting either--it's just boring. There are inexplicable scenes, there are stilted performances, and there are about 110 minutes that could have been cut out of the 120 minute runtime.

The movie was, in fact, so boring that we took 10 minute breaks and missed nothing. On those breaks, we read cell phone reviews, did crosswords, and caught M&M's in our mouths. (In case you're curious, I caught 17 out of 20 self-thrown M&M's and also caught M&M's thrown from about 15 feet away. Do you see how this is already more fascinating than the content of the movie?) The reason this isn't a one-star movie, which it was very close to being, is that it actually had some pretty interesting thematic threads. Other than that, nothing really stands out about this movie in a positive way. If you're looking for a good Antonioni movie to see, check out Blow-Up. Forget about this one.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054130/

Last Year at Marienbad (1961)

3/5

I loved Alain Resnais's Night and Fog, so I was hoping for a lot coming into Last Year at Marienbad. I was terribly disappointed. I confess the majority of my disappointment was due to a difference in expectations. I assumed that the movie would tell a rather untraditional story in a traditional way and I would come out the theater having experienced extraordinary beauty and insight. Not so. The story followed a man trying to convince a woman that they met and had an affair a year before, perhaps at Marienbad. But the way the story was told was far from conventional. Through repetition, Resnais shows how easily memory can be distorted. His control over lighting and mood is spectacular. The cinematography and camera movements are reserved yet purposeful, creating a breathtaking and arresting visual style. There was one absolutely incredible part that I loved about an hour in (which I won't reveal) that dealt with repressed memories in the narrator as well as the listener. But the movie folds back in on itself, denying that idea almost as quickly as it introduces it. A hysterical, over-the-top organ dirge relentlessly backgrounds the piece, serving as a stark contrast to the slow, soothing, soporific visuals. I can't hate on it too much though, as its aggressively violent wails and screeches regularly woke me up after I had dozed off.

Much of the movie is simply too confusing and abstract to understand. Yes, it is technically competent and seductive, but so are perfume commercials. A good movie requires more; it requires a dialogue between the film and the audience. Unfortunately, I found very little that this movie could contribute. Yes, it is easy to dismiss something you don't understand, but it is equally easy and just as misguided to accept something obtuse and incomprehensible because you will appear smart and trendy. Most people who tout it are pretentious film snobs separated from reality. Only a few actually come away from the film with something meaningful. I am not one of them ... yet. I think with more viewings, I could appreciate what the film has to offer. And I really would like to see the movie a few more times, but as of an initial viewing, I cannot justifiably rate it higher than a 3.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054632/

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

4/5

First off, the acting in this movie by Marlene Dietrich, Maximilian Schell, and Burt Lancaster is unforgettable. The dialogue in the script is spot-on; sensational when need be, understated at other times. The ending is phenomenal, and utterly uncompromising in its verdict. The power is amplified by the uncertainty and moral ambiguity present up until the finale. It could get surprisingly emotional and devastatingly powerful at times. It grips you from the start and never lets you go, even after the screen blackens.

Stanley Kramer doesn't know how to direct worth crap. The camera movements and shot composition were so ludicrous, unnatural, and just plain ugly, it distracted tremendously from the most impressive components (story and acting). Although, by setting practically the entire movie in a courtroom, he set himself up for disaster. He had two options: either create artificial camera movements or use extremely stale, stationary shots. He unfortunately chose the former, but even if he had chosen the latter, it wouldn't have been much better because the editing was terrible. On that note, it's unnecessarily long; nothing is gained by the extraneous scenes that neither flesh out characters nor progress the plot. Also, repetition to ensure understanding of the theme is, as I've always stated, insulting to the viewers. Luckily, it doesn't occur very often. But when it does happen, it's especially heinous and cringe-inducing. For example, some minor characters were introduced for the sole purpose of bluntly reiterating a point that had already been made subtly. Speaking of characters, some were dealt with extremely poorly (forgotten or introduced at the very end), especially in comparison to the main ones. Others were extremely stereotyped and not really fleshed out at all (Richard Widmark's characters, for example). But really, imagine how amazing the rest of this movie must be for me to be able to look past all those negatives and still give it a four; I highly recommend this movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0055031/