Mint Condish Productions is an entertainment production that is behind the Criterion Connection, Mint Condish Retrospective, B-Movie Den and much more. We talk about Movies, Comics, Pro Wrestling, Video Games, Anime and everything in between
After rewatching "Querelle" in a more organized manner, my current thought is that this movie might not be simply a gay film. The definitive narration throughout the movie, along with some very obvious symbols of traditional patriarchal society (what comes to mind is a lamp post base resembling a phallus, on which the captain graffiti's: 'young men need boys with big cocks,' and then there’s the scene where the police officer flips through Gil's photos, where the naked women are always accompanied by a naked man, perhaps the brother of the naked woman), these overly explicit and apparent representations of a male-dominated society's perspective on 'gay love' make me doubt that Fassbinder is delivering a crude conclusion. Instead, it’s possible that he uses these frameworks to metaphorically (artistically) depict Querelle’s self-awareness exploration process as a journey to find oneself under a specific power structure. Especially the way the lines are recited like dramatic dialogues in the film seems to imply an unquestionable framework structure. Also, there's a line in the movie where Lys tells Querelle that he is infinitely self-replicating, which might be from Artaud. I remember seeing something similar in "Difference and Repetition." But even from this perspective, the film still inevitably seems a bit narcissistic... Nevertheless, emotionally, I still enjoy watching it. I never find it boring, and instead, I think there are many points of doubt (the meaning of the tarot cards at the beginning, the intention behind the birth certificate at the end, the significance of Gil and Robert being played by the same actor, etc.) that can be interpreted or explored from multiple angles...
Lets be real this movie asks more questions than it gives answers, its thought provoking....it makes you think more about each character as to why they are the way they are... there are some answers but ultimately those answers could change its open to intepretation.
Dear oh dear. So many factual errors about the film, I'm honestly wondering if you two watched the film & did ANY research or just read the back of the DVD case? Do better guys. Great film btw, ignore this review though
you guys don't know what you are talking about that section of NYC is called the lower east side and it was bad but crazy exciting and fun i loved it because i live on the lower east side all my life and i really like the some of the actors actually speaking with a lower east side accent, and wren was a tough and smart but she, but looking at the movie made me think of the good old days, wren is not center and she needs a friend.
Anita Mui was not only a good artress but also an icon in Hong Kong music. She was dubbed the "Madonna of the East". Just introduce you her concert in 1991 : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UhJnY8o3Hmw.html
I bought the blu ray and I enjoyed them both. I favored The Executioners more personally. I watched these with a group of friends. Definitely a fun time for our first watch!
Always enjoyed this fun overboard at times action film. Balanced with drama in between. Picked up the laserdisc back in the mid 90s. Unfortunately Anita died of cancer in early 2000s I believe.
A movie that reminded me of this film is The Other Side of The Wind by Orson Welles. I agree with you that Irma Vep requires a deeper interest in cinema to be recommended. Good rec for people interested in the behind-the-scenes, filmmaking-process kind of movie. Which isn’t for everyone. Good review though, and nice to find as there is sadly not many reviews on RU-vid about this film, despite it being a movie that opens a lot of space for discussion and analysis.
One minute you're defending the whole galaxy, and, suddenly, you find yourself sucking down (The)Darjeeling(Limited) with Marie Antoinette... and her little sister.
Just watched Frownland, after seeing Patton Oswalt quasi-rave about it during his visit to The Criterion Closet, and in another clip on Trailer From HeII. I can totally see why this would appeal to almost no one, but I have to say I found it intriguing as a darkly humorous character study and mood piece. I'll admit that it was tough going at first, as I struggled to find something to either connect with or understand about it. But as it went on I got more and more into it. I agree with Joe's tastefully discrete suggestion of the main character's "neurodivergence," as that came through strongly to me while watching the film (being "on the spectrum" myself, I tend to find cinematic depictions of the condition alternately fascinating and exasperating; this was much more of the former than the latter). That said, I don't think the nature of his neurodivergence was because it was "just an amalgam of stereotypes," because (again, speaking from direct experience and extensive observation) Dore Mann's portrayal in the film gets so many specifically autistic traits so right that I'm tempted to wonder if the actor isn't on the spectrum himself (not that he'd need to be; that's why it's called acting ;-). Some further reflections on the movie: In the opening scene, I wondered how this guy even had a girlfriend, if that's who the Laura character is supposed to be. (Side note: the fact that she sports an old green Army jacket made me wonder if this was a reference to the Lindsay Weir character from Freaks and Geeks.) While watching, I thought the Sandy character had to be Keith's brother, because what normal / functional person would be friends with someone like that. But according to every review of the film I've read, he is indeed supposed to be Kieth's only friend I suppose one of the modest successes of the movie is that it made me want to know more about the other people in Keith's life, such as Laura (what's with the numbered scenarios in her notebook? She appears to be a student - if it's high school, why is she hanging out with twentysomething Keith?), and Sandy (why's he wearing a t-shirt with an NYPD logo in his last scene with Keith? Did he work for the police dept. prior to becoming a waiter? Or, maybe he is or was a social worker with professional ties to the police, which could explain not only the t-shirt, but also how he came to know Keith, and why he ostensibly feels some kind of obligation to help Keith.) I thought the brief scene with Keith disclosing to a psychotherapist a pivotal incident from his childhood was a nice touch. And the way the therapist tried to guide Keith to insight about who he feels "betrayed" him in the incident felt authentic. Roger Ebert, in his review, wondered about the purpose of the test-taking "digression." As I watched the movie, I entertained two ideas about the test-taking sequence: (1) it might serve as a break from the patience- and empathy-testing assault of Keith's locked-in character; and (2) it looks like turning the tables on the roommate, Charles, who in one of the previous scenes had berated and belittled Keith, but then in the stairwell scene after the LSAT test, Charles himself is treated the same disparaging and scornful way by the other test-taker, who seems more intellectually dominant and verbally expressive than Charles, just as Charles is (or at least comes off as) more intellectually dominant and verbally expressive than Keith. Basically, the scene seems to demonstrate a hierarchy of intellectual bullying. As for the complaint that the film "doesn't go anywhere," I don't think the absence of a plot or contrived dramatic tension are necessarily deficits in any film; as mentioned in this review, Slacker is both plotless and meandering, though I'll agree that it's a vastly more entertaining movie than Frownland. And I know I've seen many other films that are much less about plot than about character, atmosphere, and/or stringing together otherwise unconnected vignettes. But even apart from that, it seems to me that there might be something like a character arc in this movie: in the early scene where the female friend is sobbing to the point of dripping with mucus, Keith tries to explain to her that he can't cry, and then proceeds to force his eyes to water by spreading them wide open for over a minute. But by the end of the story, he's undergone such a maelstrom of humiliation and frustration that he's finally been brought to an emotional catharsis even more extreme (and disgustingly mucusy) than Laura's. The fact that this last act transpired over what almost looked like a Dantean descent into heII (note the red glow of the room where the drunk guys toy with him), followed (post-purgation) by a later re-emergence into the rooftop sunrise (rebirth?), further suggests that there wasn't literally _nothing_ happening in this film. One last thing is that, according to the IMDb, just about everyone in the cast has done almost nothing apart from this movie.
Just finished watching it. Loved it. I will check out all the extra stuff on the bluray tomorrow but what a great film. I remembered watching this as a kid with my family.
My all time favourite horror movie. It never ceases to both puzzle and disturb me and it does it all with imagery, music and a forboding feeling. Extremely effective filmmaking. Robert Altman's "Images", which came out a year earlier, does a lot of the same thing.
Good conversation about this movie, gentlemen. In addition to your mention of Fellini’s 8-1/2, I would throw in Truffaut’s “La Nuit Americaine” ( which also has Jean-Pierre Léaud) as another film about moviemaking and the challenges of inspiration and creativity.
why the hell people think they can review the movie they didn’t even finish will always be a mystery to me..and then talk about what it should or shouldn’t be, sounds ignorant..might be an American thing I guess?
Here's some recommendations: The Fugitive Kind (1960) Rififi (1955) Le Cercle Rouge (1970) A Face in the Crowd (1957) Woman of the Year (1942) Ace in the Hole (1951) Following (1999)
If you haven't watched charade, that's a really fun movie. It has Audrey Hepburn and Cary grant. The last metro as well, it might be Truffauts best movie.
What I like about it is that each story takes place same time in a different part of the world and eat story involves two people from completely different worlds and how those worlds interplay and exist simultaneously to such an extent that every character has a sort of Innocence about them because they know nothing about the other person and how they retain the Innocence and how they retain that innocence regardless of the outcome good or bad.
I see why you are disenchanted with it. It is made for a few who can see the enchantment in it. I think generational dive is a part of it. I do however appreciate your point of view. This is hands down one of my favorite movies, I watched it by chance on airplane and when I unboarded, all I can think of was the organized chaos that this gem of a movie is. It put me in a suspended and dreamy state ✨️
