Thursday, May 24, 2018

House: After Five Years of Living (1955)

Sometimes, when you find something new, you try to find more of the same.  If you come across a song you like, you might look for other tracks by the same artist or maybe buy the album.  There is a certain expectation that the other tracks will sound similar.  When I first saw Powers of Ten, I didn’t realize that Charles and Ray Eames had made so many short films.  Netflix and YouTube have allowed me to find many other short films by the husband-and-wife team.  Not all of them where what I expected

I had imagined that this was more of a documentary.  I had read that the Eameses had  designed, built and lived in a house.  This movie shows what that house looks like after about five years.  You get the usual assortment of items, like tables and chairs.  There’s even a spiral staircase.   Instead of interviews, it’s a series of still images, each shown for a moment before moving on to the next one.  The entire sequence runs for 11 minutes and is set to music by Elmer Bernstein.

The house itself is currently open to visitors.  Students can get in free.  Everyone else is charged a $10 admission.  Apparently, you have to make a reservation.  (Details can be found on the Web site.)  It might be interesting to visit if I’m ever I the area.  However, the Web site states that you can’t park on site due to the location.  Also, due to the age of the house, restrooms aren’t available for public use.

If you want to watch this production, it is available on DVD as part of a collection.  The Eames Web site doesn’t seem to have this video available, nor does it appear to be available on their YouTube channel.  However, there does appear to be a house walkthrough.   (The walkthrough seems to be more what I had in mind for this short.)  I did see the video on YouTube, but the account isn’t the official Eames account.  I’m not sure what their association is.

I don’t know that I would buy any of the sets.  The replay value is going to be limited for me.  My interest is in seeing what else Charles and Ray Eames made.  I’m probably going to watch many of the films just once.  I could see this being of interest to architects or art students.  Even then, I don’t know how often it would be viewed.

The DVD I was able to rent from Netflix was The Films of Charles & Ray Eames, which goes on Amazon for $250.  Unfortunately, I could get just Vol. 2 before Netflix removed it from their selection.  I might have to check local libraries to find other copies.


Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Overboard (2018)

I vaguely remember the 1987 version of Overboard.  I recall that it starred Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, neither of which I particularly care for.  It wasn’t a particularly great movie to begin with.  It was about a woman who falls off the side of a ship.  When it’s discovered that she has amnesia, she’s taken in by a man in need of a wife.  The 2018 remake follows a similar plot with the main roles reversed.

In case you’re wondering, this is a movie that I had gone to see with my parents.  There weren’t any other movies playing that we could all agree on and I figured that the original was so bad that they might actually be able to improve on it.  I was not correct.

Kate is working three jobs while trying to become a nurse.  Leonardo is the son of the third-richest man in the world.  As per one of her jobs, Kate goes to clean Leonard’s boat.  Before setting off, Leonardo pushes her off the boat and throws her equipment overboard, as well.  She gets fired and has to pay for the equipment.  Shortly thereafter, Leonardo falls off the side of his boat.  When he washes ashore, he has no memory of who he is.  Kate goes to the hospital to claim him so that she might put him to work.

I found the entire movie to be questionable, at best.  It’s stated that she knows someone who knows someone who can fake documents and whatnot.  Still, the entire thing requires the cooperating of her three children and all of her friends.  Everyone seems to go along with it, although there are still issues.

Since Leonardo was a heavy drinker, Kate gets the idea to put him in AA.  While the real Leonardo wasn’t in AA, Kate’s husband had been going.  I’m not sure how this worked out.  If it was a real group, someone might have said something about Leo being the new guy.  If not, it would mean that Kate had to assemble a group of random people and rent out a location somewhere.  I don’t recall it being explicitly stated which it was.

The entire scenario is legally questionable if we’re being kind.  It is acknowledged that Kate is essentially kidnapping Leonardo.  Even when things come to light, no mention is made of Kate being arrested or needing a lawyer.  She basically gets away with it.

This brings up the entire plot device of Leonardo’s amnesia.  Being that this is a comedy and a remake, I don’t think I’m giving much away when I say that Leonardo gets his memory back.  Throughout the movie, it’s almost an all-or-nothing deal.  Leonardo remembers that he doesn’t like doing certain things, but has no memory of his previous life.  Even seeing building supplies with his family name on them, he doesn’t recall who he is.

It isn’t until his father arrives that his memories come flooding back.  I’m not sure if this is how amnesia works.  Being that it’s a comedy, I’m certain liberties were taken for the sake of the story, but it seems a little forced.  It seems to be a way of having him storm off at the right moment.

This ended up being a horrible, clichéd movie.  Every part of it seems to be done for the sake of a joke.  We even have a running gag of Leo being a real dad versus a fake dad.  (Since the daughters look nothing like Leo, Kate says that they used a sperm donor.)  Normally, I’d say stick with the original, but I can’t even do that here.  I would say that both movies are worth missing.


Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Kaleidoscope Jazz Chair (1960)

A little bit of nostalgia can go a long way.  When looking up the short film Powers of Ten, I came to realize that the directors of the film had also made several other movies.  Charles and Ray Eames are known for chairs.  But they also made a lot of movies, including Kaleidoscope Jazz Chair.  They not only wrote and directed it, but they also make an appearance.

The short film is pretty much what the name implies.  There’s no dialogue, but there are plenty of chairs and a lot of imagery reminiscent of kaleidoscopes.  There’s also some nice music accompanying it.  It only runs for seven minutes, which makes it pretty efficient.

I had gotten this on DVD from Netflix.  I was able to skip the first DVD, as both of those motion pictures were available through their YouTube channel.  It took me a while to watch many of the shorts on the second disc, as I was having trouble finding a DVD player that would play the disc.  When I went to see about renting another disc, I was dismayed to see that they’re no longer available.

It’s a shame.  All of the shorts, including this one, are kind of fun to watch at least once.  I don’t expect to get a lot of replay out of this one, so buying it probably wouldn’t be best.  From what I can tell, most of the versions available on YouTube are excerpts.  To watch the full video, you may have to either buy the DVD or see if your local library has it.

I think for most people, this isn’t going to be one of the videos that would compel you to buy the whole set or even the one disc.  It’s the kind of thing you’d watch after having some other reason to buy it.  I could see an art teacher playing this in class one day.  I would definitely recommend watching this short film if you can get access to it.  It’s a shame you can’t rent it from Netflix, though.



Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Atlas (1976)

A lot of things happened in years ending with 76.  I was born in 1976.  200 years before that, America broke away from England.  Also, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, was published.  Atlas was produced to coincide with the 200th anniversary of its publication.

It’s a short video, only 2½ minutes long.  The video shows how Rome grew from a city to an empire and back again.  Most versions seem to repeat the video.  The first time has narration.  The second time is just the animation with music.  (The version on the Eames YouTube Channel has Russian subtitles.)

The animation is pretty simple.  It shows Rome and the surrounding empires and groups, like the Huns, and how each group changed over the corresponding years.  The time frame runs from circa 500 B.C. to A.D. 500.  The short is safe for people of all ages.  It’s just a map with changing lines and either narration or music.

There’s nothing objectionable like fights.  It’s not particularly elaborate, but it is at least somewhat informative.  It helps people visualize what the map looked like over the span of a millennium.  It’s exactly the kind of thing that a teacher might show to a third-grade class.

IMDb doesn’t list who the narrator is and I can’t find any information that would suggest a particular name.  I would imagine that it’s narrated by Charles Eames only because the voice is male.  If anyone can tell me definitively, please leave a comment.


Monday, May 14, 2018

The Twilight Zone -- Season 1 Episode 36 (A World of His Own)

The Twilight Zone was known for stories that bent the rules a little.  Someone might find themselves transported to an alternate reality.   A dying man may get the chance to cheat death.  A walk might result in a trip back in time.  Sometimes, there’d be a catch.  Not always, though.

Gregory West, for instance, has a tape recorder that allows him to create people.  His wife, Victoria, looks through a window Gregory and Mary.  When Victoria finally comes into the house, Mary is gone.  There are no secret doors.  There are no hidden compartments.  Gregory explains that he describes a character into the microphone and the person he describes appears. If he burns the corresponding tape, the person goes away.

She doesn’t believe him.  In fact, Gregory has to create an elephant to keep her from leaving the room.  When Gregory produces an envelope marked Victoria, she grabs it from him and throws it into the fire only to realize that he was telling the truth.

Gregory starts to recreate Victoria only to realize that he could have Mary as his wife, instead.  The episode ends with Rod Serling appearing on screen only to find out that he, too, is a figment of Gregory’s imagination.  (This is the only episode from the first season where Serling made an appearance within the episode rather than simply having a voiceover.)  

The episode takes place entirely within the house.  This may have been done to save money, as the Twilight Zone is said not to have had a huge budget.  It seemed common for episodes to have a small area in which the story was set and to have very few actors.  (Including the elephant and Rod Serling, there are only five characters in this one.)  I think it says something that the series was able to come up with so many memorable episodes given the restrictions.

This was actually a pretty fitting ending for the first season of The Twilight Zone.  This episode effectively leaves you wondering what’s real and what’s imagination.  How many wives has Gregory had?  Is he even really a playwright?  Richard Matheson came up with some fairly good episodes for the series.  This was one of the better episodes, despite the fact that it was somewhat streamlined.

I’m somewhat surprised that I’ve never seen it.  Then again, there were over 150 episodes.  Eve if I catch a lot of marathons, I’m going to miss a few.  This is where modern technology comes in handy.  Given services like Netflix  and that most libraries allow you to check out DVDs, it’s not difficult to watch the series at my own pace.

For those watching or renting/borrowing the series, the episodes can be watched out of order.  The last scene of this episode makes a little more sense when you consider that this was the season finale, but not knowing that doesn’t really detract from it.  If this happened to be the first episode you had ever seen, it would still be a good one.


Sunday, May 13, 2018

Omohide poro poro/Only Yesterday (1991)

A few days ago, I read that director Isao Takahata died.  Takahata co-founded Studio Ghibli along with Hayao Miyazaki.  The article pointed out something that I hadn’t considered before: Miyazaki tended to direct more fantastical movies whereas Takahata tended to direct more realistic ones.

In fact, Only Yesterday seems like something The Hallmark Channel might air, even if only on a superficial level.  The movie is about a woman living in a big city with a comfortable job.  She goes on vacation to a small town, where she finds that small-city life isn’t so bad.  The evens of the movie force her to confront who she really is.  She even meets a potential love interest that she spends most of the movie not being overtly interested in romantically.

Taeko is actually visiting her brother-in-law’s family.  She wants to get away for a while, but has no real plans of staying there permanently.  She’s just trying to get away from city life by helping out with a safflower harvest.  While there, a lot of memories from her childhood resurface.  She has no idea why.

The movie is a little unusual in that it doesn’t seem to be aimed at children.  Taeko seems like a normal young girl.  She has trouble with fractions.  She’s maybe a little awkward around boys.  She even stresses out at being one of the few children not going on vacation for the summer.

The unusual part comes in that the movie deals with puberty and the onset of menstruation.  It’s mentioned as something that a young girl would be concerned about.  It’s not really explained in graphic detail, but it is something for parents to be aware of.  From what I’ve read, that’s what kept Disney from releasing it in America.  (GKIDS had to be the one to distribute it here.)

I didn’t really feel uncomfortable with the references.  The story focused on Taeko and her trip, for the most part.  It seems to be about her coming to terms with her life choices.  She’s used to big-city life, but is it really what she wants?  She’s single, but doesn’t seem set against a relationship.  (She does resist a little when people bring up dating.)

I would say that the movie is more for adults.  It should be safe for those 13 and above, but there might be some uncomfortable questions due to talk of puberty and dating.  It’s nothing that would scar a child, but you might want to be prepared to answer questions on basic reproduction.


IMDb page


Friday, May 11, 2018

Du levande/You, the Living (2007)

About six months ago, I came across En duva satt på en gren och funderade på tillvaron by Roy Andersson.  (The title translates roughly as A Pigeon Sat on a Branch Reflecting on Existence.)  It was a very subdued, muted film that seemed to comment on the nature of life.  I was able to get it streaming through Netflix.  It was the third in a trilogy.  I was able to rent the second movie in the trilogy, Du levande (You, the Living) on DVD.

Du levande has that same muted quality to it.  I could probably copy large parts of my other review here, they’re that similar.  It’s a movie consisting of several short scenes, some related to others and some seemingly independent.  One couple is featured in several scenes where they argue with each other.  In another set of scenes, various musicians practice, either alone or as a group.  A driver recalls a dream he had where he was sentenced for breaking centuries-old dishes.

It has an almost Seinfeld-like quality in that it’s mostly everyday stuff.  It’s not necessarily comedic.  Some of it can be a little odd or depressing.  (A psychiatrist recounts how he has 27 patients wanting help that he can’t provide.)  There’s definitely an absurd element to the movie.  It’s almost like a blunt elegance.  There aren’t a lot of details, but what few there are come through very clearly.

As with the third movie, there’s very little camera movement and the acting is almost monotone.  Characters break the fourth wall.  The technique is effective, though.  There doesn’t seem to be any connection in the narrative between this movie and the next one.  (The movies don’t have any characters in common.)  I also don’t feel like I was missing out by not having seen the first movie yet.  You could easily rent the two movies out of order.

If you’ve seen En duva satt på en gren och funderade på tillvaron and liked it, you’ll probably like this one.  I didn’t find it to be repetitive.  However, I don’t know that you’ll want to watch them back to back.  You might want to wait a few weeks just for pacing.  This movie was 95 minutes whereas En duva satt på en gren och funderade på tillvaron was 101 minutes.  Almost 200 minutes of this might be a bit much for someone to take in at once.


IMDb page