Movie Recommendations

Synopsis: It’s an adaptations of the kids show Speed Racer, by the duo who did The Matrix. An arthouse kids film.

Who Should Watch This: People who are tired of sameness in Hollywood films, and want to see something really wild and different.

Things to Look For:

• That editing.
• Seriously, that editing.

Commentary:

Speed Racer (2008) is an arthouse kids film. Read that again, it’ll make more sense each time.

I was inspired to suggest this one, after seeing it come up in a recent video essay mentioning. Multiple film friends of mine have cited this film as one to come back to. Yet because it’s a “kids film” and was commercially unsucessful, people haven’t appreciated the wildness of it’s style.

Speed Racer is an example of how box office doesn’t always correlate to merit. Matrix Reloaded was one of the most finiaincially successful Wachowski films, while Speed Racer was a flop. Wrap your brain around that. Yet, Speed Racer is the one that people keep coming back to and feel the need to write about.

I suspect part of the issue was marketing. Supposedly, this film is targeted towards kids, yet in one scene a character curses and it’s bleeped out. Is that a kids film trope? There are a lot of scenes and style choices that seem targeted towards adults. What this does share with kids films is a very simple story, direct characters, and bright colors.

One thing kids films often share is a lack of subtext. Adults understand that people often lie, say things they don’t mean, and have motivations that are hidden from their peers. In kids films, even when a character lies, it’s very clearly indicated to the young audience. They might even look away from the other characters and say something about what they’re doing. This film takes that stylistic choice to it’s locigal conclusion with every stylistic choice pushed to the max.

Even though this has the trappings of a kids film, I’m not sure it’s actually for children. But then again – why shouldn’t a kids film be as ground-breaking and stylized as any other film? If I was an overactive hyper kid, I’d probably think this movie was the coolest.

I mean, it’s a film about an overactive kid with an autistic special interest in his artform, that itself pushes the limits of it’s own artform, with a message that love of the artform is more important to than the business and politics around it. Kind of fitting that it’d make bold choices that didn’t lead to finiancial sucess, but pushed the medium forward.

Speed Racer treats shots not as individual edits, but as elements to arrange in the timeline. It’s hard to tell where one shot begins and another ends, because green screen shots pass across the screen wiping between them. Even if you find it a bit much, if you’re interested in film as a medium, this is one you should check out.

Also – weird aside – is it just me or does the plot here have some similiarities to last weeks recommendation, Thief (1981)? A master of his artform has a powerful man demand he work for him, or have everything taken from him. Seems to be one of those universal stories, played through many artforms and mediums.

• Watch Speed Racer (2008)

Previous Movie Reocommendation: Thief (1981)

I’m changing up the format of these recommendations. Let me know what you think on social media.

Synopsis: Theif (1981) is about a professional safecracker who has the chance to acheive his dream of a normal life by working for a mafia boss who has other plans for him.

Who Should Watch This: Theif (1981) is a great film for anyone making their way in the world, trying to build a business, or start a family. This is a great film for young men going places. Also a great film for anyone who loves 80s, synthwave music, or new retro style. This is the stuff all that 80s revival is drawing from.

Things To Look For: 

• The diner scene, which James Caan has said is the best scene of his career.
• Tangerine Dream synthwave score.
• First film if Micahel Mann (Collateral, Heat).

Commentary: 

Thief is a story we’ve heard many times before, in many other industries. A guy has a chance to make one big score and get out of the game. But it is that story told in a way that is beautiful, grounded, and felt.

Whereas other heist films would  blow through the heist with montage, this shows the painstaking process of a single break-in. This is a heist film on par with Rififi (1955) (also recommended, for different reasons) in it’s willingness to just  show the process.

I realize this description may sound underwhelming, given how common this story and genre is, but Thief is one of those hidden favorite films for many people, myself included. What makes it great is it’s willingness to play things straight and just let you feel them. In one scene – which James Caan lists at the best of his career –  a man sits down and tells a woman what his life dreams. That’s it. There’s no flash, no embellishment. It’s just a human being sharing their feelings in an incredibly intimate and vulnerable way. And it’s a thousand times more watchable than anything else a modern filmmaker might have done.

The other thing that makes this film great is how universal the story is. A guy getting his big break, or getting screwed over by the boss is a story told in many industries. This could easily be a film about artists, and the way they’re treated by studios heads, or a programmer working with a big tech company. The feeling, and the relationships are the same. If you’re an ambitious person, or a professional who values your work, you’ll be able to relate to this film.

This simple and vulnerable beauty translates to every aspect of the filmmaking – from the beautiful colorful noir cinematography to the Tangerine Dream synthwave score. Each moment isn’t trying to be anything other than what it is, as honestly as possible. The film runs long – over two hours – but I think it needs to, in order to feel everything there is to feel here.

Highly recommend this film if you’re trying to do something in the world, and want to feel another character explore every emotion of that journey.

• Watch Thief (1981)

Previous Movie Recommendation: The Libertine (2004)

Get these posts by email by subscribing here.

I have no idea how this movie slipped past audiences. It is possibly the greatest performance of Johnny Depp’s career.

Actually, I have some idea. In film, distributors are always asking “who is the audience for this?” I don’t know who the built in audience is for a film about a self-destructive 17th century artist, other than other artists. But if you are an artist, or if you’ve dealt with feelings of self-destructiveness, or the burn-out the comes from using pleasure as a way to avoid your real issues, this movie is for you, and you will be deeply moved by it.

It takes a lot of balls to open your film with a two-minute monologue from your main character that begins “you will not like me.” The brilliance of this monologue is that it manages to main the main character likable if you pay attention, as he tells you exactly the opposite. That’s the key phrase though – pay attention. This a complex film, a work of art, that will fly over most audiences heads. It continually makes the unconventional choice, which I believe most critics mistook for the wrong choice.

I remember when this film came out, that the reviews were fairly bad. Critics complained “it’s called the Libertine – why is it shot so dark and muddy?” – clearly having never heard the phrase “hedonic treadmill.” The title character is a man who feels unloved and inadequate, who uses pleasure to avoid those feelings. He has an artistic gift, but squanders it, seeking increasingly greater sources of pleasure to try to feel, like a junky chasing a high. Doesn’t that sound dark to you?

The cinematography is beautiful in an unconventional way. It is lit entirely with candles, so every shot flickers. The grain of the film is visible, and some scenes have just enough exposure to be visible. What on any other film would be a “mistake” is perfect for the subject matter of this film. All the imperfections of the camera are on display in this film, just like all the imperfections of the character. Had this film been lit “correctly” is wouldn’t have been nearly as powerful, and the fact critics didn’t see that means they have no one to blame but themselves after a string of sameness came out of most blockbusters for the next decade.

Not enough can be said about the performances. I can’t think of a single scene where every actor isn’t giving it their full. The relationships are complex, but clear. There is the title character’s wife in the film, who struggles the way a woman in relationship with an addict struggle. His mother, who clearly instilled his self-hatred in him. The King, who sees his genius, yet has his own problems that cause him to commission a work. The actress, who Depp’s character Rochester choses to develop rather then use his own artistic talents.

Actually, that relationship between Depp’s character and the actress shows what happened with this film, and what many artists go through. The first time we see this actresses, she is booed off stage for being too quiet to hear. However, Depp’s character sees a genuine spark in her and offers to train her. When she performs for him later, she gives a loud fake performance. He calls her out on it. She says she was booed off stage for the genuine thing. He makes her train until that genuine spark can be heard. Likewise, the film itself has a genuine spark, one that critics booed off stage because they couldn’t hear, and one that I hope future audiences can appreciate.

I didn’t link the trailer for this film, because I felt it didn’t capture it’s power. Go into this film seeing as little possible about it beforehand. The only warning I’ll give is that this film gets dark, and is full of nudity and sex. Depp allows himself to look ugly in a way that is brave and rare for actors. His performance is deeply layered. It might be his best ever.

Despite all this, I struggle to figure out how to summarize who this is for. It’s just a genuinely great film, but one that is complex. Not that kind that can be boiled down to a tagline or genre, but one that deserves to be seen. So here’s a suggestion – if you have an artist friend, or someone who you think would enjoy this film, send them this post or tag them in a link to it on social media. Films like this spread through word of mouth. Like the title character, it may only be appreciated after it’s time has passed – but it will be appreciated.

• Watch The Libertine (2004)

By the way, I’m thinking of moving this series to email only. If you want to keep getting these recommendations, subscribe here:

---

Read More: Lake of Fire (2006) – Movie Recommendation

If you’d like these movie recommendations delivered to your inbox, sign-up here.

Lake of Fire (2006) holds a special place in my mind because it was one of the documentaries I looked as a style reference when beginning my own film American Circumcision. It is impossible for me to talk about this film without talking about the lessons I look from it.

Lake of Fire is a two and a half hour documentary on the abortion debate shot over fourteen years on 35mm black and white film. If that sounds fascinating to you, you’ll probably like this film. If it sounds heavy – yes, very much so. But the above description should be enough for you to know if this film is right for you.

I’ve shown Lake of Fire to friends on both sides of the abortion debate, and they’ve all said they found it fair and interesting. That is an incredible accomplishment, that comes from the documentaries willingness to let its interview subjects talk and share a complete thought with nuance. Given the amount of footage they had for this film, it must have taken incredible discipline in the editing room to keep those long ideas, and not hack them down to a soundbite.

That willingness to let interview subjects on both sides speak is the biggest thing I took from this film for my own. So much of the abortion debate – maybe even all public debate – has devolved into people screaming at each other. This film listens. Even when we see scenes of protestors screaming at counter protestors, the camera just watches, giving us the distance to process what we’re seeing.

The second takeaway I took was interviewing a range of perspectives. Lake of Fire share perspectives from fundamentalists, feminists, academics, performance artists, people who do abortions, women who’ve had abortions, and even the Roe of Roe v. Wade herself. That range of perspectives is part of what keeps the film feeling fair.

There are certain moments you could only catch by shooting for that long a time. For example, one man in a man on the street interview goes on to bomb an abortion clinic. His interview is fascinating, because it reveals the seeds of a mindset that will lead to an awful crime. While there’s no way to plan or predict a moment like that, if you shoot for hundreds of hours you’re bound to catch lightning at some point.

This brings me to the third takeaway. This is a heavy film. People die. A woman talks about how the last three abortion doctors she worked for have all been killed. Subjects cry on camera. They face life changing decisions. But the camera allows us the distance needed to process it all. Even the choice to make the film black and white puts old images we’ve seen before in a new context.

With so many bound to enter the film with preconceived ideas, these stylistic choices allow us to see what the film presents as new. Even the music, which features an almost heavenly choir, gives that little bit of perspective needed to pull the documentary from the level of news and politics to the level of art.

You’ll notice I haven’t said much about the film’s politics. With a regular documentary that might be the focus. Here, it’s almost secondary. The film isn’t really interested in pushing an agenda – just listening. Even though many of the specific political events it covers are no longer relevant, the film still is, because human emotion and listening to peoples experiences will always be relevant.

If you feel like listening to peoples thoughts and feelings around this issue is worth your time, this film is a good recommendation. If that sounds too heavy to you, or you don’t have the space to process it, pass.

• Watch Lake Of Fire (2006)

If you’d like more of these film recommendations, sign-up for my email list here:

---

Previous Movie Recommendation: Dark Days (2000)

P.S. Check out the film I’m working on here, because it’s been influenced by a lot of great films.

This is the first of an upcoming movie recommendation series. If you’d like these recommendations delivered to your email on a regular basis, sign-up here.

Dark Days (2000) is a powerful film, made even more powerful by the story behind it.

Often great filmmaking is the result of “happy accidents” – moments where the conditions come together to create something you couldn’t have planned. Dark Days is the result of nearly a decade of happy accidents. It is the rare case where a filmmaker with zero filmmaking experience managed to pick up a camera and create something that is not only beautiful, but actually accomplished the intended social change – getting housing for it’s subjects – the homeless people living in the tunnels underneath New York city.

The cinematography is gorgeous. A friend of director Marc Singer told him, “if you shoot color and you don’t know what you’re doing, you’ll fuck it all up and it will come out looking all green or red.” 16mm b&w is the cheapest film stock there is. The director knew films had moving shots and wanted some for his film – so he built a dolly rig that could glide along the tunnel tracks underground. The result is long beautiful black and white shots drifting through the darkness of the tunnels. They shot film for years before having the money to develop it, fingers-crossed that it would actually come out good. How many happy accidents is that for just the cinematography alone?

Because the director lived underground with his interview subjects – how’s that for commitment? – they are completely at home around him. We are a fly on the wall for a world most of us will never experience. It doesn’t patronize or look down on the homeless. It humanizes them. We feel for them, and feel with them by the end when they finally find housing.

Speaking of feeling, Dark Days is known for it’s music by DJ Shadow. In another happy accident, the filmmakers were able to license his music. Shadow is known for being protective of his music rights. In interviews, he said he sat down to watch the film expecting to say no, and then being blown away by the film. He not only gave them music rights, but remixed his work for them and composed an original theme. So those hypnotic black and white images are accompanied by moody instrumental hip-hop beats.

What inspires me about Dark Days is that it’s a testament to what you can create by just moving forward with what you have. At every stage it seems like the director just thought “films have moving shots… We need moving shots… Somehow we’ll be do that… We need this music… Somehow we’ll get it… We can’t afford film stock… Somehow we’ll get it.” This attitude of just moving forward and knowing you’ll find a way has definitely informed my own filmmaking process.

If you’re looking to be inspired by the journey out of a dark place, this is a good film to see.

• Watch Dark Days (2000)

If you’d like more of these film recommendations, sign-up for my email list here:

---

Read More: How To Recommend Movies