Nosferatu (1922)

Directed by: F. W. Murnau

Written by: Henrik Galeen

Starring: Max Schreck, Alexander Granach, Gustav von Wangenheim

Count Orlok really looks like a vampire. Watching Nosferatu, I was constantly reminded about how easy it would have been to come up with the idea for Shadow of the Vampire, a film about the making of this movie in which the actor cast to play Count Orlok turns out to be an actual vampire, and they destroy him for real in the finale.

I feel that having not read Bram Stoker's Dracula, I am missing context. Knock, who seems to be already under the spell of the vampire at the start of the movie sends Hutter out to close a deal so the count can buy a local home. The count moves by ship and brings coffins full of rats with him, causing a plague wherever he travels. A lot of the latter half of the film is dealing with the panic and paranoia stoked by the plague, and how the townsfolk blame Knock and are chasing him through the streets. At this point, Orlok seems forgotten.

The true hero of the film is Ellen Hutter. Most of the run-time she's weeping, in a sleepwalking trance, or moping about her husband being gone. I think that she is under the spell of Orlok. It seems that she might be the reason he decided to travel to this town in the first place. That the story was put in motion to bring her and the count together. After all, the book about Nosferatu that Thomas finds at the inn claims that the only way to kill him is for an innocent maiden to offer herself willingly. The vampire will be so mesmorised, they will forget that the sun is coming up, and will perish. That is exactly what happens. I was expecting a greater special effect. Sometimes I forget that these films are still the early days of cinema because of the obvious money put into them in costume and location.

The soundtrack on the version I watched (which I will link at the end) is odd. It starts very upbeat and happy, but moves towards sinister even before Hutter starts off on his travels. The rest of the time it's this eerie droning that fits well, but no scenes of horror are punctuated by the music. The final scene in Ellen's bedroom returns to a triumphant bombast. I'm not sure if it added or detracted from the images, but it is preferable to silence.

This is the first silent movie I watched where I felt its slow pace was a detriment. Birth of a Nation was slow paced, but still engaging. It was also double the length of Nosferatu. I could feel my interest waning at certain parts of the film. This is hyperbole, but after Orlok is introduced, every scene that did not feature him, or a reaction to him, did not engage me like the rest of the movie.

I've now watched two films from Germany in the early 1920s and both are horror films. I find the context of the culture a film is made in fascinating. My guesses are the climate of post World War 1 Germany, especially with the scars of those who had survived the conflict led to a need for the expression of darker themes. The next film on my historical list (I'm trying to alternate between modern films and going through film history) is Dr. Mabuse - The Gambler, also from Germany. We shall see if it too is a horror film.

I'd recommend Nosferatu to horror fans. There are two scenes in particular that I'll always remember. Orlok shuffling towards the camera outside Hutter's room and the infamous shot of Orlok rising out of his coffin on the ship. Orlok is definitely one of the best vampires I've seen in film.

Personal enjoyment: ★★★

The version I watched can be found here.

Brigsby Bear (2017)

Directed by: Dave McCary

Written by: Kevin Costello, Kyle Mooney

Starring: Kyle Mooney, Mark Hamill, Jane Adams

For a good potion of Brigby Bear, I wondered what the movie was. Was it about the dangers of fandom? Was it celebrating fandom? Why was this kid raised in a bunker with a fake TV show? Why is the Brigsby Bear show important when it seems like he's integrating with the outside world? After a while, James (the main character) gets his flash of insight. He wants to make movies. Not only does he want to make movies, he wants to finish off the story of Brigsby Bear. The not-so-hidden subtext being that if he is able to finish the story, than perhaps he can put his ordeal behind him and move on with his life.

Along the way he makes friends and the main conflict comes from his new parents worried that this obsession with Brigsby Bear is stopping him from moving forward. In the low part of the film, they even institutionalize him. That part of the movie contains the strangest Andy Samberg cameo I've ever seen. Just because he plays everything so straight and serious. There's not a hint of goofiness. As this is a movie written and starring Kyle Mooney, his SNL buddy Beck Bennet has a cameo as a police officer that I thought might end up being the antagonist of the film due to how he kept popping up and looking sinister.

This is also one of those movies where the enthusiasm and naivete of the main character infects all those around him. Everyone begins to believe in James' dream and it inspires them to keep working on theirs. It makes me think that the point of the film might be that positivity can come from even the most toxic fandoms, and while Brigsby Bear is a wholesome kids show, it was made by a man who kidnapped a baby and raised him in a bunker for 25 years. That's pretty toxic.

Kyle Mooney plays James off as awkward and yet endearing. It was easy to cheer for him through the film. To cringe at the awkward situations he finds himself in, and laugh at how everything turns out ok. Like James' effect on the other characters, his enthusiasm is infectious for the audience. I like how the film never uses James' lack of knowledge of the world as a punchline. The film never laughs at him. He is not the joke. There is some comedy to mine in the way he sees the world, but that's always peppered with feeling sorry for him and his inability to see where he went wrong.

There is a sincerity to the characters and their motivations that rings true despite how ugly or weird the situations presented actually are. Even near the end of the film when James visits a prison to talk to the man that kidnapped him (played by Mark Hamill), it's a touching moment instead of a confrontational one. He ends up helping James complete his movie and there is no ill will between them. Yes, James does complete his movie. The audience loves it. It's a nice parallel because I loved the time I spent watching Brigsby Bear and easily recommend it.

Personal Enjoyment: ★★★★★

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)

Directed by: Robert Weine

Written by: Carl Mayer & Hans Janowitz

Starring: Werner Krauss, Conrad Veidt, Friedrich Feher

One of the confusing aspects of watching old silent films is that they have been restored to make them viewable by modern audiences. That means that the version we are watching today may not be the way the film was originally presented, and an audience's emotional reaction to the movie might be different because of these changes. The restored print of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari I watched contains colour grading, a jazz soundtrack, and creative title card design which all added to the horror and engagement of the film. I'm fairly certain the colour grading is from the original, and perhaps even the subtitles (translated from German of course). However, there is no way a jazz band was synced up to the steps of a character as he walks downstairs.

Caligari is regarded as one of the highlights of the German Expressionist movement. Expressionism is an artistic style concerned with subjective reality. Warping images for emotional effect. A highlight of my watch was not only the painted backgrounds, but the way sets were constructed with wonky perspective, creating a sense of claustrophobia as the characters moved through them. Everything seemed off-kilter and surreal, and that added to the horror of the story.

A somnambulist is in town and gives people their fortunes, controlled by the creepy Dr. Caligari. A string of mysterious murders start happening. One young man whose friend is a victim seeks to discover the truth. The way the film ends was a little confusing. It turns out that the story that the young man told was to a doctor at the very insane asylum that Caligari is the director of. Earlier in the tale, when the young man finds out that Caligari is the director of the asylum, in horror he tells the orderlies of the hospital what he's encountered. After so many years of horror stories, the trope I was expecting is that the orderlies think the young man insane and commit him to the asylum, Caligari having used his position to get away with his crimes. I'm sure you've encountered such a story before.

To my surprise, the orderlies believe the young man. They wait till Caligari sleeps and then search his office and find the evidence they need to commit the Director. The young man is vindicated. The ending shows that this was just a story. The question raised is whether or not Caligari has actually gotten away with it, or if the whole ordeal is just the delusion of a mental patient. The film ends on an ambiguous note when the Director says that since he now understands that the patient thinks of him as this Dr. Caligari, he knows how to cure him. The end credits come on screen. Whether this last line is meant to be menacing or hopeful, I do not know.

This might be one of the earliest examples of the unreliable narrator in film. The girl in the story who was attacked by Cesare the somnambulist is in the asylum too and the young man asks to marry her at the end of the film. At the start when she wandered by he called her his fiancee. I'm inclined to think the whole story is actually the delusions of an insane asylum patient. It would also explain the backgrounds and set design. that are not present in the final scenes of the film.

The version of the film I watched can be found here.

Coco (2017)

Directed by: Lee Unkrich & Adrian Molina

Written by: Lee Unkrich & Jason Katz

Starring: Anthony Gonzalez, Gael Garcia Bernal, Benjamin Bratt

Coco is one of those movies looking back on it, I should have seen a lot of things coming. If I had thought about why this part of the plot was setup in this particular way, I could have seen that the payoff was the only logical outcome. What happened though is that the movie was so good at emotionally affecting me that each revelation and moment was pulled off with great impact.

Take the sequence where Miguel finally achieves his goal and makes it to Ernesto de la Cruz's party. Ernesto learns he has a great grandson and there's a beautiful montage showing them reconnecting and enjoying each others' company. Miguel is so happy to finally have a family member that accepts his desire to be a musician, and Ernesto is only too happy to show his new family all of his accomplishments. I even said to myself during this sequence "I hope that Ernesto actually is his family, because not being able to send him back after this would be devastating." Then the sequence where Ernesto is confronted by Hector happens. The truth comes out, and that feeling of hoping that Ernesto is Miguel's great grandfather is but a distant memory. The landscape has changed too much.

Another example is Hector being forgotten. The way it played out I thought that there might be a chance he would stay forgotten. That Miguel would use that moment to understand once and for all the power of family, while still being able to gain the support of them. The theme of family didn't quite work for me. Near the end Miguel was willing to sacrifice his dream for Hector, a change that took place over the entire movie. Meanwhile Imelda and Abuelita have a change of heart very quickly after one incident each. For Imelda it's the finale of the film, stealing Hector's photo away from Ernesto, and for Abuelita it's Coco opening up and talking after Miguel plays her 'Remember Me'.

Now that I think about it, Abuelita's change is quite strong. She sees in one act the power of music. It brings Coco back to life more than she has been in years. I think the same idea is behind Imelda's change, but that scene is trying to do so much more (reveal Ernesto's wickedness to the whole world for one) that her change of heart doesn't seem as earned.

Coco is another part of the movie I should have seen coming. Watching the trailers I wondered why it was called Coco. That question returned to me throughout the film, even though Mama Coco is introduced right at the beginning. It was only when Hector talks about his daughter and it clicks why he wants to return to the land of the living that the full weight of that title hit me. That's the genius of the film. The way all the pieces are in plain view for the entirety of its run time, but it's only when they click into place that you realise the answers were right in front of you the whole time. That's why every reveal is emotionally powerful. Even the character arc of Dante the street dog. He and his floppy tongue sit right alongside Doug in the pantheon of great dogs in animation.

Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages (1916)

Directed by: D.W. Griffith

Written by: D.W. Griffith & Anita Loos

Starring: Lillian Gish, Robert Harron, Mae Marsh

The siege of Babylon impressed the hell out of me. I wonder if it's because I know it was achieved with sets, extras with costumes, and camera trickery. In 1916 that would have taken a lot of money and a lot of planning. I mean it's only confined to a couple single shot locations but the sheer magnitude of what's being captured on film is astounding. Flame tanks, beheadings, men falling off the ramparts of 300 foot walls, and the statue of Ishtar glowing with her favour, turning the tide of battle - all these elements made for a breathtaking finale to the first half of the movie.

Intolerance is wildly ambitious. Set across 4 different time periods, it tells the story of love and the forces against love (intolerance). The main story is a present day tale about a poor young woman who endures multiple hardships through the actions of a temperance society, trying to eradicate everything they deem an affront to decency (dancing, drinking, and then single mothers). There's the aforementioned war between Babylon and Cyrus which focuses on a mountain girl who falls for the ruler of the great city. In 14th century France there's fighting between Catholics and Protestants with a peasant girl called "Brown eyes", and there's the story of Jesus Christ.

The film cuts back and forth between these time periods, the backdrop of the title cards letting us know where in history we are. There's also the book of intolerance which is the overall framing device of the story, along with the film cutting back to a woman rocking her baby in a blue lit room. I haven't watched much silent film but I am constantly delighted by how the use of colour tinting, title cards, and music help convey the story being told through the movement onscreen. How so much of the composition of these single shot scenes is striking. How even though the characters don't have names for the most part (the woman in the main story being known as "the dear little one"), I found myself attached to their plight. I was furious when the uplifters (the temperance society) took her baby from her.

Not all these stories have happy endings. Babylon is betrayed and the Mountain Girl is shot with arrows as Cyrus and the priests of Bel take over. Brown Eyes is murdered along with her lover in the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and well, we all know how the story of Jesus Christ ends. The single shot of him on the cross is majestic, the screen bathed in a stunning purple. The Dear Little One's husband is charged with a murder he didn't commit and is sentenced to death. There's a tense race against the clock as she tries to halt this wrongful execution. This climax is inter-cut with the climax of all the stories, and it brings to light how the modern day tale and the Babylon story have the most care put into them. The story of Brown Eyes and Jesus Christ seem like an afterthought with how they resolve, even though I feel their resolutions are stronger than the resolution of the Babylon story.

The film ends on a saccharine note. The same tint that was used for the rocking baby is used for scenes of conflict and incarceration. The film urges us to allow peace and love to overcome our intolerance as the prison fades to a field of flowers. Thinking back over the 4 tales, I'm not sure peace and love helped to resolve any of the stories. It certainly influenced the actions of certain characters, but for the most part, things did not work out. Perhaps the idea is we shouldn't stop striving for this ideal no matter the outcome, but watching those scenes, I couldn't help but feel this moral lesson was unearned and watered down a lot of the spectacle and drama that came before it.

Ready Player One (2018)

Directed by: Steven Spielberg

Written by: Zak Penn & Ernest Cline

Starring: Tye Sheridan, Olivia Cooke, Ben Mendelsohn

I should be the target audience for Ready Player One. I'm a white male who grew up in the 80s and 90s. This movie (and from what it sounds like, the book) seems tailor made for me. The problem I had with it is that the references are all this film seems to have, and when it wasn't making them it was a generic CGI filled quest to get the special thing before the bad man gets the special thing. I'll say one thing for it though, for a movie that's 2 and a half hours long, I was engaged for the entire runtime. That's gotta be because of Spielberg right?

The world sucks, so most of the planet escape into a VR video game known as The Oasis. A corporation is enslaving people within said video game and engaging in all kinds of shady business practice. It seems despite the world sucking, everyone has access to the technology required to dive into the game. Artemis makes a big deal of wanting to take IoI down because they killed her father, and when she kidnaps Percival in the real world, she says "Welcome to the resistance". This thread is completely forgotten as the finale is all about protecting The Oasis from IoI and for the heroes of the movie not to get killed by them in real life while they're trying to protect The Oasis.

At the end when they become the new owners of The Oasis, they talk about shutting down the game 2 days a week because reality is important. That's the on-the-nose message of the movie. If you spend all your time in virtual worlds, you'll miss out on what's really important in life, and that can only be found in reality (even though the rousing speech Percival makes before the final giant action setpiece talks about how he found friendship and yes, even love inside The Oasis). I can make a leap and say with more time in reality, people can start to address the problems of the real world, but it also seems that a lot of the problems of the real world are because of The Oasis and the companies that make a profit off of it like IoI.

In a lot of CGI action sequences these days I find myself tuning out. It may be because of a lack of weight to the characters and what's happening ,or it may be that too much is being thrown on screen. It all ends up swirling up into an amorphous "stuff happening" blob. The action sequences in Ready Player One are easy to read, but all I can remember vividly is King Kong in the race, and the Gundam fighting Mecha Godzilla. My favourite sequence in the whole film is when they visit The Overlook Hotel from The Shining. I think it's because I was caught off guard by the movie using a Kubrick reference as the basis for a whole sequence (most of the references in the movie are name drops or background characters). The Overlook also holds some fun character interactions between H, Daito, and Sho, who are supporting characters painted in the broadest strokes possible. After H warns Percival that Artemis could be different than she presents herself in the game, the reveal of who these characters are in the real world is deflated. Yes they're a little different, but they're still stereotypes.

I wasn't expecting to enjoy the movie, so I went in with the goal to just have fun with the experience. The theatre was full of teenagers and other movie goers, and everyone seemed to have a good time. I'd also say this is a film where the action sequences would benefit from seeing it in 3d. Maybe that's why the CGI action fell flat for me.