La Isla Mínima/Marshland (Alberto Rodríguez, 2014)

2000x1231xmarshland.jpg,qitok=0NODb_Z9.pagespeed.ic.ld00LsSqpi(Spoilers ahead and trigger warnings for murder and rape).

I have to confess that I wasn’t planning on seeing Marshland and hadn’t even heard of it. It just so happened that my free pass for Cinema Nova was about to run out, and I have a good friend who speaks Spanish so I thought it would be fun. I’m glad I saw it though, because I feel like it has rekindled my love for both crime and foreign films! And I can finally say that I’ve seen a Spanish film that wasn’t made by the inimitable Pedro Almodovar (I know, for shame).

“The Spanish deep South, 1980. A series of brutal murders of adolescent girls in a remote and forgotten town bring together two disparate characters – both detectives in the homicide division – to investigate the cases. With deep divisions in their ideology, detectives Juan and Pedro must put aside their differences if they are to successfully hunt down a killer who for years has terrorized a community in the shadow of a general disregard for women rooted in a misogynistic past.” – Atípica Films

Winner of the Goya Award, Marshland‘s cinematography was beautiful, particularly its aerial shots, and the wide open land of Andalusia was almost eerily a character in itself, particularly in the climactic scene.La-Isla-Minima-2I thought the two leads, Javier Gutiérrez (Juan, above left) and Raúl Arévalo (Pedro, above right), were great. There was this fantastic tension that grew throughout the film, which was assisted by short, sharp scenes that didn’t drag and kept us on the edge of our seats. Often, a lot was conveyed by the actors without words, particularly Arévalo whose radical and sensitive character I found fascinating. Taking a look around the internet, there have been a few comparisons to True Detective, which I can understand.

There are some graphic scenes and conversations in the film which you can expect from a crime thriller, particularly one about the murders of young women. It could be argued that these scenes crossed the line into gratuitous violence but for the purposes of time I won’t go into that discussion. I’d be interested to hear anyone’s thoughts on that topic though.b1f6fa7f1df2466137fb3cc98de69304
I did enjoy the political elements of the film. Juan is accused of torturing and killing dissidents under General Franco, and Pedro is only in the position of being sent to Andalusia because of his outspoken views that are punished by the force. I thought these elements added context and, for me, I generally find the addition of political context to be exciting and helpful to immerse me in the film’s setting. The recurring mentions of ‘democracy’ were reminders of Spain’s political upheaval, and corruption and distrust permeated the film.

I’m not sure how I felt about the ambiguous ending, though. It seemed that we’d wrapped up Juan’s violent past earlier in the film, so it felt a little disjointed to drag it back at the end as the movie was finishing. However, I think it still provided food for thought and left it open for the viewer to decide how they felt about his actions and their effect on the murder investigation. The Sydney Morning Herald review said that this film lacked depth, but I disagree. While minimalist at times, there was plenty bubbling beneath the surface.

I had that moment of re-adjustment after a film when I stepped back onto chilly Lygon St, realising that I was no longer in Andalusia in 1980. My friend and I had an animated conversation about what shocked and thrilled us, and I think that’s the true sign of an engaging movie. If you’re into crime thrillers, particularly those set in volatile historical periods, give this one a watch!


Dirty Harry (1971)

I am so glad that I finally crossed this classic off my watchlist. How on earth had I not seen Dirty Harry before? I don’t often watch action films in this vein but when I do, I question why I don’t watch more of them. I’d say that this classic is worth it.

A mad killer nicknamed Scorpio is stalking the streets of San Francisco,  the character being loosely based on the Zodiac killer of the same period. Police Inspector Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood), nicknamed ‘Dirty Harry’ for his unconventional reputation on cases, is tasked with catching the murderer. Directed by Don Siegel, this would be the first of five films following Callahan on the job (most notably 1983’s Sudden Impact, you know, “make my day”).

In an age (as if it ever ceased) of cases where police officers have both mistakenly and deliberately gunned down innocent people and endless stories of the failure of the justice system to properly punish criminals, it’s actually kinda nice to see a member of the police force doing his unorthodox best to catch a killer. This is Eastwood at his best – cool and iconic with a sharp tongue. It’s a joy to watch. The debates on the morality of the character and the ideologies espoused in this film are honestly endless, and it would be imprudent for me to analyse them so pathetically here. Nonetheless, there’s plenty to talk about, so here’s my six little things about Dirty Harry.


1) This film is a pretty bleak portrayal of American society in the 1970s – a curiously entertained crowd gathers to watch a man who is threatening to jump off a building, the seedy strip joints call to mind the New York of Taxi Driver (1976) and a sign reading ‘Jesus Saves’ dazzles in neon lights. Dirty Harry is a vision of a self-destructive American society in tatters after the turbulent 1960s and the conservative backlash personified by the election of Nixon in ’68.


2) It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book but the whole ‘loner inspector is dismayed to find that his new partner is a college boy, only to discover that they work well together’ schtick is a nice addition to the storyline. Make no mistake though, this is Eastwood’s film.


3) Callahan’s boss tells him, “You know, it’s disgusting that a police officer should know how to use a weapon like that.” This personifies everything that I loved about Callahan – he has an understanding of how these criminals work and cuts through the bureaucracy that can have fatal consequences in police departments. That, and his previous act of apprehending a naked man who was chasing a woman through a dark alleyway with a butcher knife.


4) This was a really interesting shot – Callahan is torturing Scorpio who screams ‘I have a right to a lawyeeeeeeer’ as the camera zooms out across the field. It’s almost grotesque, much like most of the film that left me feeling uncomfortable.


5) Speaking of, can it get anymore grotesque than Scorpio maniacally forcing the school bus of children that he’s just kidnapped to sing tunes such as Row, Row, Row Your Boat on repeat?


6) Finally, could I possibly talk about Dirty Harry without mentioning this scene? I love watching a film that I haven’t seen before and yet feeling that scenes like this are etched into my memory, word for word. “You’ve gotta ask yourself one question: ‘do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?” While this early scene establishes Callahan’s credentials as an unconventional hard man, you look back and wonder if it was necessary. But maybe that’s just because it’s now folklore.

What better way to end this review than with an excuse to post music, here’s Dirty Harry by Gorillaz.


Shanghai Express (1932)

Well, it’s been a long time between drinks but today I’m going to be reviewing Josef von Sternberg’s Shanghai Express (1932). The film calls to mind two movies that I’ve seen, Grand Hotel (1932) and Hitchcock’s later film The Lady Vanishes (1938). All three make great use of famous ensemble casts, and the latter film is similar to Shanghai in its interesting blend of suspense and comedy.

Shanghai Express is set on, wait for it, a train travelling from Beijing to Shanghai in 1931. There are people of various backgrounds on this train, including the notorious courtesan Shanghai Lily (Marlene Dietrich) and British Captain Harvey (Clive Brook), who have a “”past””. China is facing civil war and the train is attacked by rebels, with the passengers taken in to be questioned and used by the rebels’ leader. What follows is an entanglement of love, betrayal and misunderstanding, which I won’t go into for the benefits of space and spoilers.

Before I get into my six little things, I’d like to address the film’s race issues. Clearly, this is an American film (albeit directed by Austrian von Sternberg and starring the German Dietrich) from the early 1930s, and there is some heavy Oriental stereotyping going on here. It’s certainly cringeworthy and a little uncomfortable so I think it’s extremely important to recognise this serious issue. There’s a neat little line near the beginning where a multiracial character (played by Swedish actor Warner Oland in yellowface, ugh) is asked by an American to explain whether he’s ‘Chinese or white’. The character promptly dismisses and condemns his white ancestry. I thought it nicely conveyed the struggles of being caught between two worlds as well as an awareness of the outright rudeness of people. Unfortunately, this is ultimately undone when the character turns out to be the antagonist shortly after and hence he’s the stereotypical ethnic bad guy. A blog post by Kartina Richardson discusses the race issues of Shanghai Express very well.

Anyway, here are my six little things from Shanghai Express. (Fair warning: my copy of this film isn’t the greatest).

Shanghai Express (1932) Marlene Dietrich Eng[(018767)18-29-23]

1) “It took more than one man to change my name… to Shanghai Lily.” BOOM! Big, dramatic line delivered with aplomb, that’s what I like to see in an early 1930s drama.

Shanghai Express (1932) Marlene Dietrich Eng[(091747)18-26-01]

2) Two fabulous and provocative women, Magdalen/Shanghai Lily and Hui Fei (Anna May Wong), sharing a train berth because of the uppity moral disgust of their fellow passengers. I was getting envious just watching them smoke cigarettes and listen to Magdalen’s gramaphone. Unfortunately, Wong is severely under-used in this film. She doesn’t say much, as the contradictory kind of docile but suspicious Chinese stereotype, but Hui Fei is still an important character. She pretty much saves the day. All the awards for Hui Fei. Finally, I recommend learning more about Anna May Wong because her story shows the hardships of being one of the first, if not the first, Asian American film stars.

Shanghai Express (1932) Marlene Dietrich Eng[(049527)16-37-47]

3) This kiss between Magdalen and Captain Harvey that cuts away to the train whistle blowing its steam. Ah, how I love Pre Codes. (Just a reminder that the Hays Code also brought in the 3 second rule for kisses, which would remain for decades).

Shanghai Express (1932) Marlene Dietrich Eng[(128290)18-41-55]

4) The cut between Magdalen and Captain Harvey after their deceptive interaction. You can almost see the cogs turning in their heads as they plan their next move, Harvey wondering what to think and Magdalen trembling as she smokes. No dialogue, just the sound of the train running along the tracks.

Shanghai Express (1932) Marlene Dietrich Eng[(098729)16-51-01]

5) Shanghai Express won the Oscar for Best Cinematography in 1932, and it’s not hard to see why. The chiaroscuro look, the use of shadows and light in this film, are striking and give moments such as this a very intense atmosphere. I could also make a whole blog post about Dietrich’s dazzling costumes in this film but I’ll restrain myself.

Shanghai Express (1932) Marlene Dietrich Eng[(139815)18-24-54]

6) The ending. It’s a nice, sweet relief from the tension of the film, although it is a bit jarring when contrasted with the rest of Shanghai Express. Perhaps a little disappointing.

I realise that this post has almost solely focused on the relationship between Magdalen and Harvey in the film, as well as a little on Anna May Wong’s character. To be honest, they’re my favourite elements and what I consider to be the most interesting parts of Shanghai Express. It’s worth a look for these reasons, along with the enjoyably tense plot.

Buffalo ’66 (1998)

I won’t lie, I prepared myself to hate Buffalo ‘ 66. Director Vincent Gallo’s films have been described as borrowing from David Lynch and John Cassavetes, although he says that this is false as he doesn’t really like either of them. Gallo has a pretty bad reputation as a sex-crazed narcissistic racist, and he ended up alienating most of the people he worked with on this film. With this film described as ‘semi-autobiographical’, I expected a misogynistic, narcissistic grungy piece. And yeah, I got that but I also ended up kind of adoring it.

I found myself trying to explain this film to my mother, as she’d caught part of the scene at Billy’s parents’ house and was intrigued. It was actually difficult to describe what happens in Buffalo ’66, because there’s so many little details that make the film what it is. A bare bones description of it would involve Gallo’s character, Billy Brown, leaving prison, kidnapping a girl (Christina Ricci) to be his fake wife in front of his parents and looking to kill the footballer who lost the Super Bowl for the Buffalo Bills, inadvertently sending Billy to prison. That synopsis leaves out so much of the magic of this film, which I’m going to now try to examine as six little things.

Just a note on this: I’ve mentioned on a number of occasions that I’m very cautious about calling this film a ‘love story’. I know that film is often about escapism but let’s not try and escape the fact that Billy Brown has kidnapped Layla and does a number of rather unsavoury things in general. This is very male-fantasy, Beauty and the Beast kind of stuff. That doesn’t mean it’s not enjoyable or a good piece of filmmaking, but rather something to keep in mind.

(Spoilers ahead).

Buffalo 66 (1998) 720p.BRrip.Sujaidr[14-58-55]

1) “If you make a fool out of me, I swear to God, I’ll kill you right there. Boom! Right in front of Mommy and Daddy. And I’ll tell you something else, you make me look bad… I will never ever talk to you again, ever.” It was from this darkly humourous point early on that I realised that there was more to Billy Brown (and indeed Buffalo ’66) than met the eye.

Buffalo 66 (1998) 720p.BRrip.Sujaidr[15-05-49]

2) Billy’s mom (an interesting performance by Anjelica Huston) laments missing the Buffaloes’ first Super Bowl win in 30 years because she was giving birth to Billy, “I wish I never had him”. To bring it home, you can hear the commentator from the TV saying “He’ll have to live with that for the rest of his life.” Combined with the animal abuse, the neglect and paranoia, you’re realising that Billy didn’t exactly have a normal, loving upbringing.

Buffalo 66 (1998) 720p.BRrip.Sujaidr[11-59-16]

3) The musical interludes. Whether it’s father Ben Gazzara miming to an old record (yes, more Ben Gazzara) or Layla’s little dance at the bowling alley, it almost feels as if we’re getting a look into the other characters’ mind and taking a break from the main story, considering this is a film definitely dedicated to its protagonist.

Buffalo 66 (1998) 720p.BRrip.Sujaidr[10-50-21]

4) Most of us have had that uncomfortable moment where we’ve bumped into someone from our past and felt embarrassed about it. Billy’s encounter with old crush Rosanna Arquette at Denny’s is awkward, and provides us with a further link to the film’s storyline as well as Billy’s life, down to his choice of Layla’s fake name.

Buffalo 66 (1998) 720p.BRrip.Sujaidr[12-09-48]

5) Sure, there’s probably a number of more subtle ways to show Billy’s thoughts but the little box fading out back into reality is an interesting concept. (Also, this is a fantastic sequence in general).

Buffalo 66 (1998) 720p.BRrip.Sujaidr[14-13-26]

6) That ending. Buffalo ’66 seems to be on a constant, narrow trajectory towards disaster up to the final 4 to 5 minutes. And it’s only when that doesn’t occur that you realise what a relief it is. Billy Brown is certainly a difficult character to understand, let alone like. But it’s as if being on this journey with him for the day has helped the audience understand him a little better, and I like that.

It’s clear from the backstory of Buffalo ’66 that Billy has been through a lot and has pretty warped perceptions as a result. Is that used to excuse his criminal and downright immoral behaviour in kidnapping Layla? Maybe, but in some ways I don’t think so. With this in mind, I think that’s why Buffalo ’66 works so well. I could talk for hours about all the little parts in this film but I should probably leave it there.