New Year's Countdown...of Excellence: 3 - Chunking Express (1990's selection)

3
Chungking Express
1994, d. Wong Kar-wai - Criterion Channel

The Story (in two paragraphs or less)

He Zhi Wu (Takeshi Kaneshiro) is a police detective in Hong Kong, suffering from heartbreak after a recent split with his girlfriend.  He purges her memory after 30 days of collecting expired pineapple tins by eating them, and then vowing to fall in love with the next woman he sees.  The woman in the blonde wig and sunglasses (Brigitte Lin) is secretive, tough-as-nails, and in deep trouble after her Indian drug mules run away on her (and in tracking them down she shoots a few people).  At the end of her limit, she prepares to leave the country.  They meet in a bar with his newfound objective and her standoffish, fatalistic sense of her future.  He really does not want to be alone, and she's too tired to reject the company.  After an uneventful night together, she leaves him a birthday message and then goes out and kills her drug source, shedding her wig and life as she knew it.

Cool and casual Faye (Faye Wong) is just started working at the snack bar (owned by her cousin), and she is immediately intrigued by regular customer, handsome, charming police officer (Tony Leung) who is heartbroken after having just been dumped by his stewardess girlfriend.  When the ex stops by and leaves a letter for him, everyone at the place can't help but steam the letter open and read it, only to find it contains the apartment keys.  She starts spending time at his place when she knows he's not there, cleaning it up, decorating it, watering his plants, stocking up his fishtank.  It would be creepy and sinister it it weren't so damn innocent.  Things progress from there.

What did I think I was in for?
 It's from Wong Kar-wai, a masterful director of limited resume.  I've seen a few of his works (In the Mood for Love, Happy Together, Ashes of Time Redux) all which I remember enjoying well, but, well, don't really remember much about.  If I know anything from my limited exposure to his oeuvre, it's that he's both a visual craftsman and a romantic.  So while I may have wanted that, I wasn't certain that's what I would be getting.  I intentionally avoided reading too much about this when I selected it as my 1990's choice.

What did I get out of it?
Surprise, given that I didn't know there were effectively two separate stories here. The opening at 40 minutes, is fleeting, almost over before it began, like some relationships.  Kar-wai is more experimental in his filming, going for something more hard boiled with his production, heavier shadows and neons.  It's more dangerous and sad than romantic.  There's a technique he uses here, sort of a semi-slow-mo/motion-blur effect which he uses to open the film and introduce our two leads for the initial story, and does it again whenever there's something approximating action. I did not like the effect much at all, but I found the path to the two leads meeting each other intriguing enough, with just enough quirk, that I was disappointed when it crossed over into an otherwise disconnected second story.  

The second story, is a precursor to every turn-of-the-millennium 20-something romance movie which, were it made today, would seem like an upending of the manic pixie dream girl trope.  Faye is certainly pixie-ish in both appearance and attitude, but rather than being the ethereal object of affection for Tony Leung's Officer 663, he's almost completely oblivious to her incursion on his life and mindset. It's utterly charming in a way that I kept expecting to turn dark but never does.  Something about modern storytelling, perhaps the Black Mirror effect, is that anything sweet ultimately has something sinister underneath it... we don't trust that anything can actually be earnest.

I loved Tony Leung's recurring bit where he talks to things in his apartment as if they were alive, even so much as thinking that they have evolved on their own after Faye has swapped them out.  It's so cute.  The recurring use of "California Dreamin'" could have been grating, but it's constantly used with purpose, and clearly informs Faye's character so much.  It takes on additional relevance each time it's played.  I also loved Faye Wong's Cantonese rendition of "Dreams" by the Cranberries (which I didn't realize was by the actress until looking it up)

Do I think it's a classic?
Where certainly In the Mood for Love is a classic, I don't think Chungking Express gets classic status because of its less than satisfying first story.  The second story, though, is wondrous, and certain to be memorable.

Did I like watching this?
I did.  The first part, somewhat, the second part completely. 

Would I watch it again?
I'll likely watch the full thing whenever I get around to doing a Wong Kar-wai marathon...but I'll probably go back to the second story itself many time before then.

New Year's Countdown...of Excellence: 4 - Do The Right Thing (1980's selection)

4
Do The Right Thing
1989, d. Spike Lee - rental

The Story (in two paragraphs or less)

It's a sweltering hot summer day in NewYork.  The film traverses a block in the neighbourhood of Bed-Stuy over the course of the day, centering primarily around Sal's Famous Pizza, owned and operated by Italian-American Sal (Danny Aiello) and his two sons.  Mookie (Spike Lee) is Sal's delivery guy, with only a mildly contentious relationship with his employer.

The film is largely "a day in the life" of this neighbourhood, with Mookie as our main POV character, traversing its denizens, primarily Black, but also Puerto Rican, the white guy who signals gentrification anxiety, the Korean market owners, Sal and sons, and of course, the police. Most everyone gets along but there are people who have problems, and the attitudes are all very New York, a lot of aggressive, verbal confrontations.  But the heat only seems to be exacerbating the aggression, which spills out late in the evening into a racially charged confrontation.

What did I think I was in for?
Pretty much this, only I think I was expecting it to feel more of its time.  With the exception of a few touches (mainly the opening credits which features Rosie Perez dancing to the Public Enemy's "Fight the Power" in what is basically a music video for the song) this could very well be a contemporary film commenting on modern race relations, just set in 1989.  

What did I get out of it?
While it does sit in the uncomfortableness of race relations in America (in this multicultural microcosm of Bed-Stuy), it's not sermonizing.  Lee crafts a pocket world that, while stylized with its vibrantly painted backdrops, still is grounded in very tangible sentiments.  His street is populated with people with their own thoughts and minds and ways of being.  There's no hive mind here, no singular way of thinking, and everyone seems liberated to speak there mind, no matter what conflict it raises or what wounds they dig.  And yet, there's a sequence which Lee seems to signify that some (and perhaps the few are just stand-ins for the many) of these people are holding something back, mainly their most vilely racist thought and ideas about the people around them. Insinuating that underneath the bumpy, fragile surface, is rage.

The image of Malcolm X and Martin Luthor King, together, smiling, shaking hands, is used throughout the film, as is Radio Rahim's Love/Hate knuckle rings.  The film closes with quotes from both King and X, one condemning violence as a barrier to brotherhood and understanding, the other condoning violence as a method of last resort, as self-defence, at which point it is no longer violence.  This tug of ideologies is exemplified in the climax of the film, following the all-too-familiar choking death of Radio Rahim by the police (30 years later, it's still the same damn story) where a understandably emotional crowd cannot direct their anger at the real perpetrators, systemic racism and the police in power, so Mookie points it at Sal's restaurant.  For him, it is his most direct symbol of systemic oppression, and it becomes the outlet for hate, rage, and grief.

Is there still sympathy for Sal? Who aggrieved Rahim in smashing his radio, prompting the escalation that got Rahim killed?  Sure, but the point here, as was the same point in Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, lives should matter more than property, and yet the property gets attention, gets protection, gets value assigned to it where lives, Black lives, do not.

Do I think it's a classic?
It still feels so of-the-now it's hard (and very sobering) to be believe that it's over 30 years old, but yes, absolutely a classic.  Lee's direction, still in its early form, is so assured.  His in-you-face close-ups and from-the-ground perspective still feels like nothing else.  He only occasionally operates with these techniques today, but they're clearly still his own.

Did I like watching this?
One thing I was expecting, which didn't happen until late in the movie, was that I would feel uncomfortable watching this movie.  I did not feel uncomfortable until I started seeing Rahim being choked by the police, and I started tearing up instantly, knowing exactly where it was going, and knowing that it had nothing to do with George Floyd, Eric Garner or any of the all-too-many other Black men in the news who have been choked to death by the police in recent years, that this shit has been happening for decades, well before Do The Right Thing and well too long after.  Following the death and the destruction of Sal's, life just goes on in the film.  Sal and Mookie even come to terms with each other (and apparently there's little hints in subsequent Lee projects that Mookie's still delivering pizzas for Sal's).  

Would I watch it again?
Absolutely, and I'm kind of pissed with myself that this is the first time I've seen it. 

New Year's Countdown...of Excellence: 5 - Don't Look Now (1970's selection)

5
Don't Look Now
1973, d. Nicholas Roeg- Criterion Channel

The Story (in two paragraphs or less)

After the tragic accidental drowning of their daughter Christine in England, John and Laura now reside in Venice where John is leading the restoration of a church.  While at dinner Laura meets two elderly British sisters.  One is blind, but is gifted with second sight, and she tells Laura that she sees Christine with them and that she is happy.  Laura is shaken by this, but more elated than upset, and spends more time with the sisters much to John's dismay.  Yet, for all the psychotherapy and drugs that Laura has been taking this is the first sign he's seen of her feeling comforted, normal. 

But the sisters bring a warning, that John is in danger, and also that, perhaps, John himself contains the gift of second sight though he doesn't know it.  There is, afterall, a murderer loose in Venice, so there is definitely danger.  After their son, in a boarding school, has an accident, Laura leaves for England, yet John sees her mere hours later in a boat with the sisters.  He's shaken by this, and frantically looks around town for his wife or the sisters, even enlisting the police.  He finally talks to her in England at the boarding school, where their son is okay, and she will be returning to venice that night.  But a series of miscommunications has John,Laura and the sisters roaming the quiet streets of Venice alone at night, when John thinks he spies Christine running around and gives chase.

What did I think I was in for?
I'd never heard of it until I was looking for horror movies to watch for last year's "New Year's Countdown...of Horror", where it was pegged as a classic psychological horror.  At that stage I think I thumbed over it once or twice on whatever streaming service it was on at the time but never pressed the button.  I didn't know it or its reputation.  Plus the description was off putting:  "Death of a child" stories tend to be pretty dreary, and 70's "horror" has a pretty spotty record.  So I thought I was in for a placid drama that barely doubled as a ghost story

In searching through lists of "Best 1970s films" this one does come up in most of them, and it's a British director, mostly shot in Italy so it gets me out of the American pictures which dominate those lists.

What did I get out of it?
If there was anything considered "elevated horror" in the 70's this would be it.  While it can be pegged as a psychological horror, it is almost treated like it's a gauzy romantic drama by it's score, full of softly sweeping strings.  Roeg does a lot with thematic imagery, the colour red, pictures/photos/drawings, people falling, glass breaking, water... but it seems to me it's all done with both too much and not enough intention.  A lot of the symmetry it's trying to establish is clear in some shots Roeg has captured, but more of that type of synergy is attempted in the edit and it becomes too much, feeling too forced.  I think there was a lot of thought and care put into how this film would tackle its supernatural elements, but it was over thought and over caressed in the edit.

 Roeg's penchant for slow-motion plays what should be heavily dramatic scenes as pretty cheesy instead (like Sutherland popping out of the water with his dead daughter's body).  The performances are generally pretty natural and restrained, but whenever the situation calls for anything heightened, whether it's a shock or going into a trance, it's quite overplayed by all performers to the film's detriment.  It also features the weirdest sex scene I think I've ever seen. It's intimate and awkward and very unsexy, kind of like the real thing, but some of the moves are just...like...whaaaa?

There are edits on top of edits on top of edits, a lot of it meant to help the gordian knot loop around itself in forming the whole, but some of the edits are intentionally obfuscating what's happening, misdirecting the audience to make the story just a little less coherent, harder to understand, and I can't really get behind that.

I watched a few of the extras that Criterion Channel has supporting this film, including a long conversation with the film's editor, and there's a real self-satisfied sense of accomplishment with everything done here. I could sense that hit of smugness as I was watching Don't Look Now and it annoyed me.

Do I think it's a classic?
No.  I think it tells its story in and interesting way, and it's definitely off-beat, which I think is what the cult cinema crowd has keyed into, but if it gets lost in the mix of the many cinematic accomplishments of the 70's, it's because it's trying too hard, and thinks itself too clever.

Did I like watching this?
Not really.  I was never bored but I was more frustrated than intrigued.

Would I watch it again?
No, I don't think so.

But is it horror?
Not really, no.

New Year's Countdown...of Excellence: 6 - Breathless (1960's selection)

 6
Breathless
1960, d. Jean-Luc Godard- Criterion Channel

The Story (in two paragraphs or less)

Michel is a real shitheel of a person.  He's a Bogart-obsessed, chain-smoking,  womanizer, misogynist, a car thief, an aggressive driver, a backseat driver (merde!), and, quite early in the film, a cop killer after he shoots a highway patrolman.  On top of it all, he's broke, constantly hitting up the women he knows to borrow/steal money. But, Michel is also a romantic, I guess, in that he's in love with an American woman, Patricia, working for a New York newspaper in Paris (she's a reporter, but also peddles the paper on the streets?).

The movie, for the most. part follows the two of them over a two-day span as Michel ducks the police and tries to collect money he's owed while convincing Patricia to sleep with him again/that he's in love with her (there's kind of equal importance Michel puts into the two arguments).  Reports in the newspapers start posting his picture, the walls are closing in.  How will Patricia act when she finds out?  Does she love him enough to run away with him, or will she turn him in?

What did I think I was in for?
I seriously have never seen any of the French new wave cinemafilms, and I'm not sure why, except that they always seemed to me to be laborious, talky, and kind of pointless.  So I guess I was expecting that.

I was also expecting a lot of style, in the shooting, editing, and, as would be expected from the French, wardrobe, as well as plenty of attitude.

What did I get out of it?
Pretty much exactly what I expected, style over substance.  I both admire the film for its casualness, it's presentation of sexually (and seemingly emotionally) liberated French youth, but I also find it quite alien, and yet also cliche.  Michel conducts himself as if he is completely carefree, but underneath he's clearly panicked about the cops baring down on him, as well as utterly infatuated with Patricia whom he deviously tries everything from charming to negging to get her to like him.  In the end, Patricia's rejection of him wounds him to the point that he would rather die than flee.  

I can't help but think of The Third Man, where Anna loves Harry Lyme so much she can't help but tolerate his horrendous nature.  Here, it's clear Patricia is in the same position, but makes the opposite choice, understanding that loving Michel is bad for her and the only way to stop loving him is to hand him over to the cops, or force him to run.  But he will do neither.

Godard's style here, very loose camerawork with an intense amount of edits (a 20 second scene of dialogue may have up to a dozen edit points despite being the same shot) and irrational jumps between scenes that have no direct continuity or sense of the time that has passed.  The editing is more feeling than logic.  Since the story itself is so threadbare, the construction here is about mood, built out of the combination of editing, soundrack, visuals and dialogue.      

Do I think it's a classic?
Yes, clearly this does something that is so uniquely its own that it continues to resonate.  It's so keyed into the director's particular sensibility that it's impossible for someone else to replicate without seeming like a fraud.  

That said, this is exactly what I thought French new wave cinema would be and while I get the appeal, I'm not sure it appeals to me fully.  I don't know if it's the style or just the Frenchness that I didn't quite like.  I don't really have a strong desire after seeing this to dive into other films of Godard, Truffaut, et al.  The jazzy, experimentalism of the film is not unappealing, but it's not something I think I'll be actively pursuing when I want something to watch.  I kind of prefer an actual story over style most of the time.

Did I like watching this?
Comme ci comme ça.  I enjoyed it enough, as an exercise in style, and there's enough of a story to hang a fancy hat on.  But at the same time I vehemently disliked Michel when I thought the film was trying to tell me I should like him.  I found his obscene amount of smoking (and his penchant for just throwing cigarettes and matches on the floor) very, very gross.  His big, puffy, chapped lips also were a counterpoint that Goddard focuses on in his Bogart comparison, and they're very repellent to me.  There's a reputation of sexiness that French cinema has, but this never felt sexy.  Cool and aloof, sure.  Not sexy.  The kissing scenes were pretty weak, dryer than a Hallmark kiss.

My favourite moment was Michel's crime associate giving him a hard time about wearing silk socks with a tweed suit.  So French.

Would I watch it again?
If I ever do a more dedicated dive into French new-wave I might rewatch this just to see how it compares to everything else.  However, I find it highly unlikely I'll ever really do a dedicated dive into French new-wave. 

New Year's Countdown... of Excellence: 7 - Rashomon (1950's selection)

7
Rashomon
1950, d. Akira Kurosawa - Criterion Channel

The Story (in two paragraphs or less)
Two men sheltering from the rain in a massive, partially destroyed gate structure are joined by a third. The two men are shaken by their experience in court this day.  The first man, a woodsman, tells of his experience encountering a dead body.  The second, a priest, talks of encountering the dead man, a samurai, and his wife on the road.

The woodsman recounts the testimony of a captured bandit in court.  The bandit explains how he encountered the couple on the road, and his sudden cravings of lust for the bride overcame him.  He tricked the husband, tying him up, assaults the wife and then said she begged him to fight her husband, one of them must die to save her from the shame of two men knowing her dishonour.  The men fight, the bandit victorious but praising the samurai for his skill.  But the bride appears in court with a different story, one where the bandit rapes her and leaves her behind to the cold stares of an indifferent husband.  She frees him with her dagger and begs him to kill her, but passes out from her shame, she said when she awoke her dagger was in her husband's chest.  A medium tells the samurai's story from beyond the grave, one in which the bride agrees to be with the bandit even after his attacking her, but first she asks that he murder her husband.  But the men see the woman as villain and she flees, the bandit leaves, and the samurai says he killed himself with her dagger.  But the woodsman, knows they are lies for he saw what really happened.  It was not the bandit, the bride nor the samurai that were to blame but all three villains in their own story.  With these recountings, the woodsman and the priest have their faith in man shaken, but a baby left behind in the temple startles them into finding goodness in each other.

What did I think I was in for?
I've been hearing the term "a Rashomon-type story" bandied about quite frequently for the past year or two, and I thought it to mean a story only complete when told from different perspectives.  I didn't think it to mean a story told from multiple different perspectives with lies to shape how the audience feels about the character(s) in the story.

I watched many of Kurosawa's films in the early-2000s and couldn't remember if this was one I had seen. (It wasn't).  I was anticipating another big, long samurai epic (I was probably thinking of Ran).  I was also expecting more of a samurai story, not, essentially, a crime story.

What did I get out of it?
Kurosawa had made 10 films by the time he did Rashomon, what surprised me was how rough this felt as a whole.  The acting was very theatrical, very broad and unnecessarily melodramatic.  I thought the roving camerawork in the woods (where all the retellings take place) was often pedestrian and uninspired, though the lighting created some curious effects.  I liked much more his static shot compositions, particularly the court scenes.  The rain (tinted with ink) is beautiful on camera hitting the Rashomon gate.  The music is so overbearing which is odd given that Kurosawa wanted more stillness in the movie so there's not much gaffer work, no sounds the swords make swiping through the air and such.  He's emulating silent film, where the soundtracks are the storytellers, the difference here is we have four different storytellers within the film, a fifth being the director/editor, we don't really need the score to be yet another one.

I understand now the story structure being referred to when someone describes something as "Rashomon-like" now, which must be what is most celebrated about this movie.  I found, however, that the story itself was vilely misogynistic, and though in the eyewitness recounting it's clear the bride is exhausted being basically a pet for a man, it still vilifies her for even having such opinions rather than capturing any sympathy towards her.  The film's coda, with more than a bit of belabouring it's point about man's nature, seems egregious. A lot in this movie, both in what it is telling and how it is told, feels outdated.

Do I think it's a classic?
Personally, I think Kurosawa has many better works which I would put above this.  I like the story for how it is told, but if I don't particularly care for the story that's being told and I feel too brow-beaten by what it's trying to say to love it.  It's a classic in that it does something unique for its time that others borrow down the line, so it has lasting resonance, but just not a personal classic.

Did I like watching this?
Even at 88 minutes I found it tedious at times, especially up front.  Once you get into the storytelling it does get fairly intriguing but, by the end, once the storytelling resolves and it dips back into moralising, it's almost too much.  So, a liked it a little, but not a lot.

Would I watch it again?
I imagine I'm going to do a Kurosawa marathon at some point, and yeah, I'll watch it again for that, but it's not going to be a go-to for me. 

New Year's Countdown...of Excellence: 8 - The Third Man (1940's selection)

 8
The Third Man
1949, d. Carol Reed - Criterion Channel 

The Story (in two paragraphs or less)
Holly Martins, an author of American westerns, lands in Vienna to visit his old pal Harry Lyme, only problem is Harry is dead after a hit-and-run.  Holly's just arrived in time for the funeral, where there's only a few mourners and other on-lookers.  Holly is picked up by the British service and given a place to stay and a little spending cash, and an offer for a return ticket home, but the Brits' believe that Harry was into some illicit dealings and they're not really concerned about Harry much but ensuring that he's in fact dead.

Holly, wounded by the insinuation his best friend is a criminal, seeks to clear his name and find out what happened in his death.  He gets embroiled with Harry's business partners and his lover, Anna, who knew nothing about Harry's dealings, nor cares to know now. Holly falls in love with her, but it's clear it will never be reciprocated. When it suddenly seems like Harry is alive, Holly has a choice to make, about whether he betrays his friend, or sees that justice is done for Harry's past misdeeds.

What did I think I was in for?
I always kind of thought that The Third Man was a spy thriller.  With a few tweaks it could have been.  Instead it's more post-war Noir. I knew that Orson Welles was in it, based on that iconic image of him in the shadows with the light on his face.  Based on that, I basically knew that Harry Lyme was not dead because it's the most prominent name in the film and after almost an hour without seeing Welles, it just had to be him.  I knew I was in for some pretty stark black and white cinematography,

What did I get out of it?
I'm not well versed in classic cinema, nevermind classic noir, so whenever I do approach one that fully retains my interest and intrigue throughout, I'm surprised.  I was never bored.

I knew nothing of the setting of post-war Vienna, where Russian, British, French and Americans have divided the terrain.  It was an intriguing environment to operate a Noir in, or any kind of story for that matter.  The many languages (untranslated) throughout speak to it being a very British-produced film rather than an American one.  The environments Vienna provides, especially from that time period, are so captivating.  Buildings still functioning as offices or residences have sections that are partially destroyed from the war.  The aqueducts  that are utilised for the main chase sequence in the final act are so intriguing (although referring to them as the sewage system kind of grosses me out that everyone's just running through it so casually).

The cinematography in conjunction with the lighting is just lovely.  Really stark, black shadows, with intense light feeds to focus attention on a specific point.  It's not logical how the light works in this movie except as visual aesthetic, which is all that really matters.  I loved the use of shadows in this movie, really inventive and pleasing.

Thought it starts out as a mystery, by the start of the third act the mystery has been resolved and becomes much more a character study of Holly, Anna and Harry.

Just have to say, though, that Pinky and the Brain kind of ruined Orson Welles for me.

Do I think it's a classic?
Yes, absolutely.  Still holds up completely and could not be made in the same way today.

Did I like watching this?
I did, quite a bit.  I was intrigued by it's setting the most, but also appreciated how it toyed with Noir conventions.  I'm not certain about the zither music though.  It seemed a strange choice, but it certainly distinguishes it.

Would I watch it again?
I don't know that I need to, but when my memory of it fades, I'll give it another peek.

New Year's Countdown...of Excellence: 9 - M (1930's selection)

 After spending the past two months of rolling around in the deep fryer of the made-for-TV holiday romance genre, it's time to cleanse the palette, partake in some arts and culture, and build some brain muscle rather than fattening it up.  It's time to travel through time, and around the world, partaking in some of the best cinema I've never seen.  10 movies, each a certified classic from some "best of" list or another, almost each from a different country, and one from each decade of the past 100 years of cinema.

9
M
1931, d. Fritz Lang - Criterion Channel 

The Story (in two paragraphs or less)
There's a child murderer on the loose in Berlin.  There's little clues to go on, and eyewitnesses have conflicting statements, making the police's job difficult. The population is in a panic, and start making wild accusations about associates and neighbours. The murderer sends notes to the police, which, when ignored, prompts them to send notes to the newspapers advising that he's not finished yet.  What little forensics science is available is put to use, as is psychological profiling.  The police raid brothels and underground speakeasies, homeless shelters and aggressively patrol the streets.  The criminal underworld is unable to carry on, so they conduct their own search, utilising the homeless population as their watchful eyes.  There's no mystery as to who the murder is, as we catch an early glimpse of Peter Lorre assessing himself in the mirror as the police voice over discuss who he might be. We eventually see he's unable to control his awful impulses, it's only a matter of time before he makes a wrong move, and once he does it's like the whole city has eyes on him. Cornered in an gated off office complex, security guards patrol while the criminal underworld plan basically a heist to take him out themselves. But the silent alarm gets pulled and things get even more complicated.

What did I think I was in for?
I knew very little about this film. I thought for some reason it was a film either by or starring Orson Welles, but I get some of these old noir movies mixed up sometimes.  Only, M isn't noir.  I'm probably thinking Dial M for Murder.  I know Fritz Lang as an impeccable visual stylist, from his seminal 1925 silent science fiction masterpiece Metropolis, but I don't think I knew he had an extensive career beyond the silent era.

What did I get out of it?
This movie is a work of art, just  utterly unique and deeply engrossing,  and 90 years laters still full of the unexpected.

Following up on Eisenstein's theory of montages, Lang uses them so potently here, accompanied by  J-cuts (where the sound - in this case, dialogue- for the upcoming scene starts playing before the scene has ended) and L-cuts (where the dialogue of the current scene continues to play over the next), and no musical soundtrack at all, beyond the telltale clue of the murderer's whistling.

Lang experiments with camera angles, positioning, tracking in ways that feel experimental even by modern standards, but the technical accomplishments are just one part of this brilliant film.

The story here features no protagonist, and it's a labyrinthine nature means we keep moving back to certain characters - policemen, the criminals, the murderer, the victims - as necessary, but whole lengthy scenes are constructed around moments where there's no character of consequence, it's just exemplifying the impact the events are having on the town.  Is this the first instance where we can say "the city is the main character"? 

I was not expecting a quasi-procedural out of this (will need to read up on when the first procedural can be traced back to) nor to see any reference to forensics or psychology.  Even the final sequence, "the trial", where the murderer has is own impassioned plea for understanding has a strangely progressive view on sympathy for those suffering with mental health issues.  For all his almost comic bug-eyed reactions, Peter Lorre, once he gets into the moment, is riveting.  

Watching this, I can't help but feel that David Fincher worships at this altar.  Zodiac and especially season 2 of Mindhunter seem like they're borrowing a lot from this playbook (and both achieve their own levels of masterful greatness).

Do I think it's a classic?
Absolutely. 100%

Did I like watching this?
Immensely.  I love how it plays out, jumping in all sorts of different directions and weaving in and out of suspense, thriller, procedural, heist and courtroom drama genres, yet never losing a sense of itself.

Would I watch it again?
Maybe not right away, but yeah, I'll definitely be watching it again.

New Year's Countdown...of Excellence: 10 - Battleship Potemkin (1920's selection)

Another year is coming to a close, and though it got off to a very rocky start, and such a bumpy middle, we can all agree it's ending in an unceremoniously shaky fashion.  A return to normalcy was attempted, and it failed to take, but it was nice while it lasted, though the nagging sensation of gloom never completely dissipated. Pop culture is still a steamroller that won't let anything get in its way. Any threat of a slowdown in content has since been met with an aggressive new wave (not to be confused with nu wave) of seemingly endless new content to keep us distracted and, if not happy, at least placated.  If you were into playing sports or outdoor recreation or big live events or travel, yeah, things are pretty different, but if you just liked retiring at home and chilling out with new books, comics, TV, movies, podcast, music...it's just like old times, if perhaps even more overwhelming. 
After spending the past two months of rolling around in the deep fryer of the made-for-TV holiday romance genre, it's time to cleanse the palette, partake in some arts and culture, and build some brain muscle rather than fattening it up.  It's time to travel through time, and around the world, partaking in some of the best cinema I've never seen.  10 movies, each a certified classic from some "best of" list or another, almost each from a different country, and one from each decade of the past 100 years of cinema.

10
Battleship Potemkin
1925, d. Sergei Eisenstein - Criterion Channel 

The Story (in two paragraphs or less)
Circa 1905 as Marxism is rising in esteem, the sailors on the Battleship Potemkin are not happy with the quality of food.  There's no such thing as refrigeration and the meat has gone rancid.  The chef is forced to cook borscht but the men refuse to eat it.  They are all called on deck by the Admiral, asked to self-identify who did and did not have issue with their meal, and the those that object are judges as insubordinate and threatened with hanging and being shot.  But an appeal to the men with guns turns the tide and a mutiny ensues.  Though victorious the leader of the mutiny is killed.  His body put on display in Odessa with a note: FOR A SPOONFUL OF BORSCHT.

Thousands descend on Odessa in support of the men who rose up against their aggressors, bringing food and love. The rising anti-autocratic sentiment turns ugly as the Cossack host arrives and begins firing on the crowd of people.  A child injured.  In appealing to the Cossacks for help, the mother is slain.  In retaliation, the crew of the Potemkin fire upon the opera house where the Cossack leaders are headquartered.  A fleet of warships are on their way to support the Tsarist infantry, and the outsized, outmatched Potemkin heads out to face them only to find they too have become brothers in the revolution.

What did I think I was in for?
I honestly knew nothing about Battleship Potemkin prior to constructing my list to watch for this year's countdown.  I didn't know it was made in the 1920s, or that it was black and white and silent.  I didn't know it was Russian.
Frankly, I thought it was a 1960's war movie, maybe with a harrowing escapade about the sailors escaping it sinking or something.  I didn't know it was basically a story of the first Russian Revolution, but, then again, I barely know anything about the Russian revolution

What did I get out of it?
A lot of questions about what, actually, was going on.  Clearly the time period (shot in the mid-1920's but noted early on it's set in 1905) had definite significance, so I had to look it up, and then poked around the wiki-wormhole for a while digging into a bit of Russian history.

I was also curious about what the impact of the film was.  Was this actually communist propaganda? A lot of the film seems very aggrandizing towards the usurpers and demonising of their Tsarist superiors.  It was actually a commissioned film to commemorate the 1905 revolution, and I imagine was fairly celebrated. 

I did find the scale of its production fairly impressive, there are scenes in Odessa with likely thousands of extras which was pretty awe inspiring.  The scenes aboard the ship have hundreds of players, and it's evident that most of them are not trained actors.  It's also clear, though, that Eisenstein had an eye for both scene composition and dramatic flair.  There are some absolutely stellar shots in this.

The fabricated massacre at Odessa is easily the highlight, the film at its most epic, and clearly familiar as its been aped across TV and cinema for decades, most notably in DiPalma's The Untouchables borrowing rather liberally the deal with the baby carriage.

Do I think it's a classic?
There's obviously something to it that, without research, I know I won't get.  Just from a cold viewing, I can tell it's influential, many aspects throughout I can see aped in subsequent pop cinema, but having not studied film per se, I can't say specifically what it is that makes it a classic.  (Eisenstein is known for his theories of montage, and how editing influences the audience, so without knowing intimately how storytelling progressed before this, it's hard for me to say its specific impact).

The idea of revolution, of the subjugated masses standing up against those who think themselves superior is powerful, and surprisingly underutilized storytelling.  The only real example of this that sticks in my head are Conquest of the Planet of the Apes but I know there are others  (is Bravehart one? Never saw it.)

Did I like watching this?
It certainly swept me up after a certain point, though I find silent films generally struggle to hold my attention throughout.  I liked it's five act structure, and the Edmund Meisel score does a lot of impressive heavy lifting. I took a 10 minute intermission around minute 50, and it felt like a long-ish slog that should be over already, but I was also committed to finishing it, with no thoughts of abandoning it.  I definitely want to read more about the time period, the revolution and the pre-Communist historical events that led to modern Russia.

So, to answer the question, sort of.

Would I watch it again?
Unlikely.

10 for 10(ish): So This Is Christmas Leftovers

[10 for 10... that's 10 movie-like things which we try to give ourselves 10 minutes apiece to write about.  Part of our problem is we don't often have the spare hour or two to give to writing a big long review for every movie or TV show we watch.  How about a 10-minute non-review full of half-remembered scattershot thoughts? Surely that's doable?   ]

In this edition: Christmas things watched in December

1. Saying Yes to Christmas - 2021, d. Graeme Campbell - CityTV/Lifetime
2. Christmas By Chance - 2020, d. Andrew Cymek - Superchannel Heart & Home/Lifetime
3. Loving Christmas - 2021, d. Michelle Ouellet - Superchannel Heart & Home
4. A Very Murray Christmas - 2015, d. Sophia Coppola - Netflix
5. A Muppet Family Christmas - 1987, d. Peter Harris -  Youtube
6. Last Chance For Christmas - 2015, d. Gary Yates - Superchannel Heart & Home
7. Enchanted Christmas Cake - 2021, d. Robert Vaughn - Crave/Lifetime
8. The Christmas House 2: Deck Those Halls - 2021, d. Rich Newey - W/Hallmark
9. Under the Christmas Tree - 2021, d. Lisa Rose Snow - CTV Drama/Lifetime
10. 'Tis the Season to be Merry - 2021, d. Gary Yates - W/Hallmark 

Are you ready?
Good, 'cause I'm goin'

---

[Preamble]

It's December 22 as I (start) writing this. I've watched 32 Christmas movies or specials in full, and countless false starts and final 10 minutes of others.  I listened to every episode of Deck The Hallmark so far this season (over 40 episodes, including their coverage of every Hallmark to date and just over a half-dozen each of Lifetime and Netflix movies).  I even helped program GAK's (not to be confused with GAC) Christmas episode of Exploding Head Movies (go listen) by sifting through nearly a thousand songs he sent my way.  I also read all of the "I'll Be Home For Christmas Movies" book by the Deck The Hallmark guys (co-written with my favourite movie reviewer in recent years Alonso Duralde) which covers nearly three years of their viewing of Hallmark movies from Christmases 2017 through 2019 (Toasty, I got a copy to stuff in your stocking this year too... ;P ) I'm exhausted by it all.  

I'm so ready for Christmas, and then ready for it to be over, and to start watching some good quality cinema again (thankfully we had Hawkeye, Ted Lasso, season 2 of Saved by the Bell, and rewatching Parks and Recreation to counterbalance all the questionable Christmas content).  Plans to get a Criterion Channel subscription for Christmas.

What I noticed this year -- well, since Toasty pointed it out -- was that by December I seemed to be all but avoiding Hallmark movies for the Advent Calendar unless it was something I was keenly looking forward to, like (the disappointing) Nine X of Christmas sequel, or the (pretty fun) Christmas House sequel. With the glut of watching in November, the podcast and the book, I really wanted to step back from Hallmark a little bit.  

This year's Hallmark crop seemed to be taking definite steps to get away from being too formulaic, too quick and careless.  But as I pointed out in previous years, the comfort of Hallmark is the formulae, and if they're going to abandon it, I'm not sure if it's as fun, particularly when it doesn't fit as well into our "A Toast to HallmarKent" formulae.  Sure, they might be better scripted, better acted, better directed movies, but cranking 40 of them out a year on a shoestring budget means they're just never going to be real quality movies. 

 As such there's kind of this middle-land that Hallmark is residing in now.  Hallmark is now free to do more, say more, try more.  But they also won't let go of the formulae completely.  They're casting multiculturally and sexually diverse, and presenting the holidays as a reflection of such.  They're letting the Great American Country (GAC) channel taking the puritan route, with the lily-white, chaste, sober, straight casting, and are definitely better for leaving that tired, dry-kissing whiteness behind for a niche channel to deliver.  But it was the ironic side of Hallmark that kind of made them worth watching, those sad efforts at inclusiveness, or the thrill of a kiss that wasn't just a pressing and holding of lips.  The lack of budget means there's still plenty of wtf things to point out, but the balancing of Christian middle-America "values" and the pressures of the sudden uptick of ironic viewers-turned-fans (like Toasty and myself) means they seem a little aimless in their content.   

When I watch Hallmark now, what I see is a network trying to make good movies, not making formulaic content.  In trying to make good movies on a scant budget, there's more and more bad movies, which are, like, hard-to-watch bad, not fun-to-watch bad.  But at the same time, I recognize that some of the movies released this year are actually good.  Even if they're still not cinema-quality, they can be very enjoyable, and at times impressive.  I think some of the crop this year are the best Hallmark has ever made.  I've also seen some good movies get dragged down by having to be beholden to the Hallmark formulae rather than exist on their own terms.  A couple of films really teeter on the romcom line, which Hallmark in the past never truly approached, but the comedy seems to have its edges sanded off by having to adhere to their established holiday romance tropes.

They need to figure out what it is they want to do.  Netflix takes formulaic stories, but gives them a bigger budget for better production values, and more time to shoot.  Lifetime seems to be doing the same thing they've always done, just more of it: their "big-star vehicles" that are so very much steeped in the Lifetime formulae (which is basically the Hallmark formulae only cheaper looking and kind of trashier somehow) as well as their acquisition of the off-brand made-in-Canada content.  

And there is so much made-in-Canada content.  CBC Gem has a bit of it, as does CityTV, CTV and AmazonPrime, but there's a whole new subchannel, Superchannel Heart and Home, which is loaded with these Canadian-produced pictures from over the years which vary wildly from bad to unwatchable with the occasional "that would have been ok if it had a Hallmark budget".

If you count all the players in this Holiday Romance genre, you're looking at about 100 new movies this season, which, when put against the past 5 years of these things being churned out, is a lot of repetitive content, much of it unwatchable.  These movies start to become noise and very little of it stands out in any meaningful way (the generic titles don't help at all), to the point that I have a half dozen to review here and I don't even remember what happened in some of them.  Of all the cheap holiday romances, the only one I want to watch every year is Nine Lives of Christmas, and maybe Crashing Through The Snow has joined it on the rewatch list.

I predict a recession in these within the next 2-3 years.  The polish is going to come off, the ironic joy will wane, and people like me who started watching for the wrong reason will realise that watching these all the freaking time for two months is kind of a waste of time.  If the many various players involved in these films want there to be any longevity to it, they need to seriously cut back, at least by half, next year.  Invest more per film, make less of them.  Try harder to be better.  

That said, let's tear into these:
---

There were many ways that Saying Yes to Christmas could have been a standout, especially given the premise, but it only really succeeds in two: cultural representation and aesthetics.

The magical element forcing June to say "yes" to every Xmas event was more annoying than cute, and then abandoned halfway through only to become a running topic of discussion as if it wasn't anything at all...it took me out of the movie each time. It would have been much more intriguing for Rose to have lost the bet and force herself to say "yes" to things. Christmas magic rarely works for me in film unless absolutely steeped in it, or it's so subtle you almost forget it's even there. This is sort of middle-of-the-road, non-committal Xmas magic I just find stupid.

The food and drinks in this movie really looked amazing (and there was a lot of food and drinks). I loved the Japanese-American (/Japanese-Canadian) touches, not just in the food but throughout. Easily the best part, just wish these moments were in a better movie surrounding them.

Representation does matter, I wholeheartedly agree, but as a message for this film it was used like a bludgeon, not a scalpel. June is a associate editor at a big publisher who would like to publish more representative children's books but her boss always pushes back. June is constantly social media posting "representation matters" and it's pretty heavyhanded.

The main plot for June is she's coaxed by her boss to befriend newly freelance bestselling children's book author who just happens to be visiting her parents very Christmassy PST. Meanwhile she runs into her childhood best friend/crush who is having trouble convincing his dad he's capable of taking over the family brewery.  The "love story" and the magical "forced to say yes" stories are strangely secondary to these other two arcs.

The set decoration, the art for the books, the wardrobes, all looked really, really nice. The production values here generally looked above the usual Lifetime or Hallmark standard.  But, the story itself was thoroughly predictable, and kind of tedious, both of which made it hard to sit through save for a few bright spots.

The leads were not lacking charm individually but they had no romantic chemistry together. Their intimacy felt very unnatural and forced. 

There was one bright moment where Romaine Waite pops a bottle open and it makes a much louder and mistier pop than he was expecting and he breaks from his character for a second and does this absolutely fabulous ad lib, a very sultry "ooo-ooh" that I must have rewound a half dozen times just to delight in it. Some beer company needs to hire him for big bucks just to crack beers on camera and give that very same "ooo-ooh". But in that moment Waite showed such immense charisma that he didn't quite bring to just the words that came from the script. I bet he's probably a better performer when allowed to bring more of himself to a role.

 

Maybe say "no" to "Saying Yes To Christmas"

---

Christmas by Chance is a stupid movie shouldn't work, like, at all, and yet I found myself completely invested even though I knew practically every beat it was going to strike before it made it. 

Lead actor Winnie Clarke plays Chance with what I call "perky aunt energy" in this movie and it's kind of amazing to watch her just turn it on.

The deal here is "famous entrepreneur", local celebrity, and "most eligible bachelor" William (Jacob Blair) is getting ready to propose to his model girlfriend, but he wants it to be just perfect.  But William's bundle of nerves assistant Ryan (Sharjil Rapool, being a lot, most of the time, but also pretty funny...I think the bow tie was just too much though) isn't up to the task, so he outsources the job to Chance who owns a suspiciously still-in-business antiques/curio shoppe.  It's a real small time shoppe, that Chance took over after her father passed away and is struggling to keep it afloat, so she leaps at the opportunity to make some money doing this side gig of arranging a wedding proposal.  In the multi-day process of doing so, Chance's positivity positively infects William, as he starts to realize he and Chance are much more on the same wavelength than he and his snooty model girlfriend.

It's not good, but it's strangely charming, and Clarke really does have infectious energy.  It should be annoying but it's not.   I liked that William, despite his riches, fame and success, is a real down-to-earth character.  I like that this film turned an actor with a cleft palate  like Blair and made him the straight up, handsome, desireable leading man, from the beginning, never once giving him any averse character traits. 

Chance's employee/best friend Becky (Celie Tsai) winds up having a nerdy B-plot romance with Ryan which is really quite adorable.  I think this would have been really great movie had their romance been the A-plot and having their bosses romance and weird proposal arrangement be the B-plot. 

Model girlfriend Leyla (Celeste Desjardins) is the typical piece-of-work, self-centered stereotype that models get portrayed as in these movies. One of these days one of these Christmas romances will have a model character as their lead who is a genuine human being and not a soulless monster.

Maybe take a chance on Christmas by Chance?

---

Of all the Hallmark and Hallmark-like holiday romances I've seen this season, I can honestly say Loving Christmas is the first one I'm legitimately embarrassed at admitting I watched. It has a leaden script, acted without any enthusiasm, lacks any sense of charm, and, yes, it is direly boring. It's not even fun bad, despite this major department store having, like, four rooms, and two of them are offices, or their being hot cocoas that can be swung around like Poi Spinners without spilling a drop.

Being so obviously Canadian, it actually has real snow and visible breath and a horse drawn sleigh (not a carriage), but that's kind of the only thing it has going for it.

The plot here finds department store employee Ashley, the so called "Christmas Queen", running into the boss' estranged son Ben who has a few Christmas tricks up his own sleeve.  Ashley is up for CEO position of the department store, but with big-time business guy Ben in town, that's called into question.  But the two hit it off like gangbusters since they both love Christmas so much.  But they love Christmas differently, so they have things to learn from each other, I guess. And then Ashley overhears that Ben is getting the CEO position, but only hears part of the conversation, not understanding that it'll be a co-CEO position.  Dry kisses and Christmas for everyone.

I'm not loving Loving Christmas, like, at all.

---

I've had A Very Murray Christmas in my watchlist on Netflix since it debuted in 2015.  Every year I think "I should watch that this year" and, obviously, this was the year.  

As might be expected from something starring Bill Murray, it's a simultaneously sardonic and earnest Xmas special that's pretty hep for both 1978 and 2015.  For 2021 it seems already to be of a certain vintage.  I think it 2015 it might have felt a bit underwhelming and 2016 through 2019 it may seem a bit passe.  Now it just seems like it's kind of a corny, classic special, like back in the silver age of 3-channel television when any multi-disciplined performer could host a one-off variety show.

Of course, none of those ever had someone like Sophia Coppola at the helm, and it looks like a beautiful Sophia Coppola movie, with its heavy shadows, and amber palette. 

There's a very silly framework to this that it barely even tries to hang off of, which is Bill Murray (as himself) with his live-in piano accompanist (Thunder Bay's own) Paul Schaffer hosting a live Christmas special at a downtown Manhattan hotel, only for the crowd to be snowed out and the power cut.  Honestly, it's all just pretence for songs to sung.  And songs do get sung.

What I realized in watching this is I really like watching celebrities sing, whether it's Chris Rock really emphasizing that he can't sing, Maya Rudolph belting one out (god I love Maya Rudolph), Jason Schwartzman and Rashida Jones sharing a duet, or George Clooney just popping out of some fake bushes like he's in a Muppets sketch, it's harmless fun. Actually this whole thing feels like it could just be a Muppets special.  There's also real musicians like Jenny Lewis, Miley Cyrus, David Johansen and the band Phoenix in the mix.

There's a real shaggy (shag carpet?) energy to all this (which is Murray's stock-in-trade) and it tickled me. It's not an instant classic, but I could see revisiting this every few years.  

--- 

I've been a Muppets fan since childhood.  I don't recall if I knew about Sesame Street first or The Muppet Show or if I kind of discovered them in tandem, but I loved them both.  My love for the Muppets as a child included a Rolph puppet I adored, the "John Denver and the Muppets" Christmas album which was played every year, the Muppet Babies cartoon was a favourite Saturday morning watch (despite animated Muppets just kind of missing the point), and while I'm not sure I ever truly understood Fraggle Rock, I did watch it religiously.  I've never really left the Muppets behind, even in their waning years before Disney acquired them.  Muppets From Space is still probably my favourite Muppet movie, thought the original Muppet Movie and 2011's The Muppets are admittedly better films.

But, honestly, A Muppet Family Christmas is perfection, the best Muppets there has ever been, and it only gets better for me with each rewatch, an annual tradition for me, and me alone in my household.  It's just not Christmas yet until I give it a view.

It's not just the blending of the Muppets, the Sesame Street gang, Fraggles, and even the Muppet Babies, although that's a big part of it.  It's both a festive party and family gathering.  There are carols, starting with a big group chorus of We Need A Little Christmas (which I only just now learned is not a Muppets original but from the Broadway Show Mame, book by Jerry Herman... a recent Sufjan Stevens version, however, seems to be completely a cover of the Muppets version), and some pretty solid jokes, like the running gag of the icy patch in front of the door, or the Swedish Chef chasing the turkey around the house, only to be seriously distracted when Big Bird arrives.  

Every beat, every moment of this special is just so earnest and heartfelt and lovely and joyful and entertaining.  It's the Muppets firing on every conceivable cylinder, every character completely acting in character, even as the worlds blend as they do.  Despite Sesame Street being for younger kids and Muppets being for older kids (and Fraggles being for stoner hippies, I guess) they all fit together beautifully, the Henson team taking great effort to make sure that the sensibilities of each of their realities isn't lost in doing so.  

The finale has a brief cameo from Jim Henson himself, admiring his creations, then moving on to clean up after them.  It makes me tear up every time.  Just that beautiful man who has brought so much joy into my life and so many others... A Muppet Family Christmas, if it does anything (and it does a lot) acts as a beautiful tribute to him.

Of course, the rights to Muppets, Sesame Street and Fraggles are divided across the media landscape, so A Muppet Family Christmas only exists now on old videocassettes and on the kindly souls keeping it alive, facing copyright strikes, on youtube.   It's 48 minutes of sheer delight, my all-time favourite piece of Christmas pop culture.

---

The magic of Santa and his flying reindeer is mixed with the early stages of formulaic holiday romances (and the meagre budget to match). I won't lie, Last Chance for Christmas is a weird one, and not totally unlikable.  It looks like it was shot in the early 2000s, not the mid-twenty-teens and as such feels more like those ABC Family made-for-TV movies, and not at all like a glossy Hallmark.

The story finds Santa's reindeer wrangler, John (Gabriel Hogan), discovering one of the reindeer's hooves has a fracture and therefore he needs to secure another reindeer for Christmas Eve, or else Christmas might be cancelled.  He goes to an Alaskan reindeer preserve run by Annie and her young daughter, but she assumes he's either a debt collector from the bank or working for the Scroogey Reginald Buckley who is trying to buy up her farm and transform the whole town into a big ol' resort.  Sounds kind of nice actually.

But the reindeer preserve is a sentimental family business, and, you know, sentiment trumps progress.  I mean, yeah Buckley would be doing some environmental damage and a proper environmental assessment would reveal that, but his big resort does seem like a nice thing for the community.  Anyway, Annie's not interested in whatever John is there for until her daughter takes a shining to him and she just trusts that his weirdness (like, really, you actually think you work for THE Santa) won't harm them in anyway.  Which it ultimately does, when Mrs. Clause sends her elf goons to kidnap one of Annie's reindeer.  John steals Dasher, Dancer and the crew and Santa's sleigh, on Christmas eve, to proves to Annie Santa's magic exists only for Buckley's goons to kidnap all of Santa's reindeer.  In the end everything of course works out, because Buckley's heart grows three sizes.  So everyone wins, except the town, which loses out on this great resort and all the jobs and tourism it would bring.

This really needed a bigger budget for more magic, better special effects, prettier sets and shinier props (there's no reason Santa, Mrs. Clause and all their workers should be using standard cel-phones and Dell laptops and not something far more fanciful). 

I really like Hillarie Burton's performance here.  Her exhaustion, being a single mom and struggling to make ends meet, is palpable.  That Annie kind of gives into entertaining, then falling into like with this weirdo pretending to be Santa's reindeer wrangler happens far too easily (but that's a script issue, not a performer issue).

I don't know why the title doesn't have anything to do with reindeer, as the whole movie centers around them. "Last Chance for Christmas" doesn't really ring true, especially when there seem to be three our four last chances.  Something like "One Reindeer Short of a Sleigh" or something?  You could even have Buckley saying "you're one reindeer short of a sleigh, aren't you?" to someone.

---

Durance's hair never looks like this

I thought former Lois Lane Erica Durance was pretty good in the B-plot for Hallmark's Open By Christmas (the A-plot was a dog's dinner though, woof), so I was looking forward to her starring role in the off-brand-by-way-of-Lifetime The Encanted Christmas Cake, despite it's less than enticing title.  I should have taken it as a warning.

The story finds frizzy, dry-haired Gwen (Durance) having taken over her beloved Grandmother's bake shoppe in the year following her passing. One of Meemaw's signatures was a Christmas cake that wound up being featured in Oprah's O Magazine.  It was Meemaw's closely guarded secret, and the only copy of the recipe has a tear in the bottom corner missing the final, secret ingredient, only with the letters "ma" left.  It's a mystery!

Meanwhile, nice guy, frosted-tips Gavin (Robin Dunne) is a producer of a cooking show with famous, raging, egotistical Chef Dante in a very bad wig (nicely foreshadowed).  They are in town to host Gwen's grandma who they hope will reveal this Oprah-famous cake recipe on the air... only, they didn't get the message that Meemaw's dead, and Gwen's not interested.  Gavin just starts tagging along with Gwen's daily business and they start to get close (it's among the worst pretenses for getting close I've seen and its progression is not natural at all).  

Eventually Gavin and Gwen stumble on the secret ingredient (it's marzipan...you're a fucking baker and for months you've been trying to figure out an ingredient that starts with "ma" and you haven't tried marzipan yet?  Shame.  Shame!).  Then Gwen's sister-mom shows up and causes trouble, and there's a thing with the tv show, and a late stage diversion to someone Meemaw sent the recipe to that seems inserted to fill out the 90 minutes and Gavin quits his job while Chef Dante doffs his wig and goes to Boca Raton with Gwen's mom.   It's all nonsense this one.  

Tonally it's all over the place with some decent bits of comedy which should be funnier but they're shot like they're not meant to be funny.  The romantic relationship progresses unbelievably fast and never really catches fire.  The hair, makeup and lighting department all seem to have given up on really trying, I'm not sure why people look as awful as they do.  I thought maybe it was so when they give Durance her dressed-up beauty moment she comes out looking knockout gorgeous, but no, it's all a disaster. Acting-wise, everyone is fine, Durance is an likeable enough lead.  It's got little moments of charm, and humour (Paulino Nunes as Chef Dante, seems to be doing a Michael Showalter thing, if Michael Showalter can be said to have a thing), but that can't save it from being kinda boring or inane most of the time.

---

One of the big surprises during last year's XMas Advent Calendar was Hallmark's The Christmas House (Toasty thought so too).  While it wasn't necessarily all that different from formulaic Hallmark, it stood out with actual comedic sensibilities, winning performances all around, and it's very flirtatious nature (sexy even), plus a little nod to LGBTQ++ representation.  So, when it comes to wading through the slog of new holiday movies, where the titles and descriptions and cast don't ever indicate quality, I knew that a sequel to The Christmas House was going to be one to watch.

Lead actor Robert Buckley is also very invested in these movies, serving as co-writer.  As such the sequel carries much the same sense of humour as last year's.  If anything it even doubles down on it.  With the romance plot out of the way, which is what these films are always supposed to be about, what's next for our "Handsome Justice" star and his family?  Well, how about Mike getting roped into a house decorating contest reality show, competing against...his brother Brandon (Johnathan Bennett)!?  

The reality show itself makes no sense, so don't think too much about the logistics of it, but it's a good set up to highlight the brothers' competitive natures and the sibling rivalry that's lived on long past them living together.  Both Mike's subplot of wanting to marry Andi (plus her ex showing up wanting to finally be a dad to Noah is handled very maturely by the script), and Brandon's sub-plot about not feeling certain about where he belongs, are both really good, meaty material for the supporting cast to dig into.  We get a lot more of Brandon and Jake's relationship (though Jake seems to have no real internal life of his own, he seems to just be there to fully support Brandon in everything) which is perhaps the most LGBTQ++ representation we've ever gotten in a mainline Hallmark.  It's a step forward for sure.

Sharon Lawrence and Treat Williams are back as Mom and Dad and they get to be a lot more playful (last year's storyline had them bordering on breaking up) and have a lot more fun.  They're very lively and give this a big shove over the line into holiday comedy territory (if only we got to see more of their decidedly odd two-person local theatre show).  You can't really even call this a holiday romcom, it's really just a straight up holiday comedy, which I think is a first for Hallmark.  They even sell it with Modern Family-style couch confessionals which play with that formula in a nicely meta way (thought it's not so explicit, we're to gather it's part of the reality show filming).

As fun as it was, there's still flaws, which, like all the good Hallmark movies, directly has to do with budget.  Continuity suffers, the big "accident" that ruin's Brandon's house decorating is basically just some lights torn down, and the TV show really needed to stunt cast its host (not that decorated Hallmark mom Teryl Rothery isn't good, but this needed a bit of goofy celebrity oomf).  There's a little bit of Christmas magic also in this one (which there wasn't really in the last one), which I can't decide if it's too subtle, or just subtle enough.

I like this family as a whole entity and could definitely watch more with them. I could actually see a multi-cam sitcom featuring this cast.  Maybe next year, rather than a 90-minute movie, how about a 6-episode 1/2-hour comedy?  Really dare to do something different Hallmark.

---

Before I start my holiday romance viewing each year, I sift through the advance release list to see if anything strikes my fancy, whether it be the story, the cast or something other.  The description for Under the Christmas Tree was eye-rollingly trite:

"Marketing whiz Alma Beltran (Elise Bauman) and Christmas tree whisperer Charlie Freemont (Tattiawana Jones) cross paths when Charlie finds the perfect tree for the Maine Governor’s Holiday Celebration – right in Alma’s back yard. While they initially spar, romantic sparks soon begin to fly between the two women as the enchanting tree and some Christmas fairy dust from the town’s pâtissière extraordinaire (Ricki Lake) bring out the best in them and spark each other to take leaps of faith and fight for love and Christmas magic."

Sounds like a bog-standard holiday romance with some stupid conceit to get the leads together...wait a second, "romantic sparks soon begin to fly between the two women"?  Well now, I thought, this just differentiated itself.  My expectations were bog standard Hallmarkie with two women subbing in for the guy and the lady.  It's mercifully more than that.

I'm not a holiday romance die-hard, but I think at this point I've seen enough of them and written about them enough to consider myself an armchair expert, and I have to say that, after watching Under The Christmas Tree, it just may well be the best ever execution of the bog-standard holiday romance formulae. 

Yes, we have lesbians, and we have the traditional fading celebrity supporting cast member in Ricki Lake to make it stand out, but that's not what makes this movie special. 

A lot of the basic conventions are there, but they're mostly worked in as part of the fabric rather than just stitched on top. The family and best friend supporting cast are amazing.  Ricki Lake is really, really teriffic as the best friend/local patisserie owner who is friend to everyone, Wendy Crewson as the mom is freaking great, and - bury the lede - but Enrico Colantoni is the dad[!] and may just be the best holiday romance dad of all time.  Each of these characters do a lot more than the usual family and best friend b.s. that these movies tend to give them.  They're not just there to support the leads but also to challenge them. 

Even the job storylines for both leads had a grounded throughline that was meaningful to both the characters and in the development of their relationship, rather than just being annoying background noise.   Where the set-up should have caused tension between them, their attraction overruled, and they both were certain an amicable solution could be found.  And there's even a little bit of Christmas magic, in the form of an owl...Ahsoka approved!

The 20-minutes-to-go complication, that ol' chestnut, is no less annoying here than any other film in the genre. I wish the characters handled it better than they do, even though they still handle it somewhat maturely, which is better than most.

Bauman and Jones handily have the best chemistry of any romantic leads I've seen this year (chaste though it is, as the formulae demands), and contenders for best all-time holiday romance leads. Aline's initial meeting of Charlie and her slack-jawed stammering was a bit too much of a cartoon moment, but every subsequent second the attraction is palpable and their dynamic is just fireworks. I immensely enjoyed watching them together as their relationship progresses from jovial to flirty to romantic, but also it was great how they interacted with the other characters in a way that informed their characters. There's no sag in this one. 

The best moment of the film was the first deep, meaningful backstory conversation, and it wasn't between Alma and Charlie, but between Charlie and Alma's father, at the piano. It's such an atypical scene to have a moment between the romantic interest and the lead's parent but it is such a soulful moment, a welcoming to the family very, very early in the film. Colantoni just crushes moments like this.

I loved this.  It's charming and romantic and gay.  

---

I was really hoping to end this 10-for-10 - and Christmas movie watching in general - on a high note, with the greatness of Under the Christmas Tree being the surprise, feel good conclusion to it all.  Unfortunately I was one movie short of 10.  

To the rescue comes 'Tis the Season to be Merry, one of Hallmark's final movies for the season, starring former romcom queen turned recently minted holiday romance regular Rachael Leigh Cook.  I saw the commercials advertising this over the past week or two.  It looked not so good. 

Come to find out today, though, it was written by Jen Kirkman, who is one of my favourite stand-up comedians (and Drunk History guests) and a noted unironic lover of Hallmark movies.  She's finally gotten the chance to write one, that's exciting!  Of course, there's another name attached on the writing credits, which, from my mild research implies Hallmark wanted the script to be more like a Hallmark and less like Jen Kirkman's sensibilities.

'Tis the Season... is enjoyable enough, but there are so many sequences and scenes which feel like they're supposed to have comedic overtones, but the edges are all dulled down by their Hallmarki-ness.  There are some good lines in this, and a few moments which are pretty close to being hilarious, but Hallmark doesn't do comedy very well.  Comedy requires the timing to be just perfect, and Hallmark doesn't have the time to get the comedy just perfect.  So we get some physical comedy bits from Cook which (no pun intended) fall a little flat, some line reads which don't have the right accompanying reaction, or are just not hitting the right emphasis for comedy.  

Moreover, I don't know that Hallmark's draw-from-a-hat, mix-and-match style of attributing leads to a script (hey we got a Rachel Leigh Cook and Travis Van Winkle match up this year) was the right way to go about making this one.  There's voice over work required here from Cook, and it's rough stuff.  Van Winkle looks great with his shirt off (a rare slice of beefcake from Hallmark) but his comic timing is for shit.  So much of this falling flat does have to do with budget and shooting schedule, but the leads just aren't the right fit either.  That said, Amy Groening as Cook's best friend/editor was wonderful and is due for a leading lady shot.  I kind of wish she was the lead here with the roles fiipped.  Hallmark staple Canadian dads John B. Lowe and Paul Esseimbre bring some good supporting weight, and I liked Karen Malina White as Cook's not completely hard-ass publisher (clearly there was more to that role in Kirkman's draft).

This movie is just a case in point to what Hallmark is doing.  Either shit or get off the pot Hallmark.  Either invest in doing a variety of different movies, or stick more rigidly to the formulae.  This middle-ground territory only makes the end product unsatisfying.

---

I was planning to do a top 5 list or something here (just to make this post even longer) but do I do a top 5 on movies and specials that I watched this year, or a top 5 on just the new releases from this year, or a top 5 of all time?  I don't know know how to shape it so here are a bunch of lists:

Top 5 All-Time Christmas Viewings:

1. A Muppet Family Christmas
2. Community Seasons 1-3 Christmas Episodes
3. Father Ted: A Christmassy Ted
4. Holidate
5. Dash and Lily (new)

Top 5 released in 2021 Viewings:

1. Crashing Through The Snow
2. The Bitch Who Stole Christmas
3. Under The Christmas Tree
4. 8-Bit Christmas
5. The Princess Switch 3: Romancing the Star

Top 5 new to 2021 Actual Hallmark Viewed:

1. Crashing Through The Snow
2. 8 Gifts of Hanukkah
3. The Christmas House 2: Deck Those Halls
4. Christmas Sail
5. A Kiss Before Christmas

Top 10 fave bizHallmarkies of all time (seen so far):

1. The Nine Lives of Christmas
2. Crashing Through the Snow
3. The Princess Switch trilogy
4. Under the Christmas Tree
5. Dashing in December
6. The Christmas Club
7. On the 12th Date of Christmas
8. The Christmas House duology
9. 8 Gifts of Hanukkah
10. A Christmas Movie Christmas

T&K's XMas (2021) Advent Calendar: Day 24 - The Enchanted Christmas Cake

2021, Robert Vaughn (High-Rise Rescue) -- Lifetime/Download

The Draw: 

I might have a new trend. I turn on the TV, tune into a movie about 7 minutes after it starts, and decide I really want to watch it. Of course, it aired on some cable channel before whatever channel I saw it pop up on, so its up on the pirate web. I saw this Canadian-based one, obviously not Hallmark actually, and ALSO it was about a bakery, and specifically about a special Xmas Cake that the main character is supposed to be an expert on. Alas, she is not.

HERstory: 

Yeah, so Gwen (Erica Durance, Smallville) is the granddaughter of the (late) town baker, who was famous for her Enchanted Christmas Cake that inspired love in all who ate it. It felt like there was a previous movie where the cake actually played a part in the romantic entanglement at the heart of a Hallmarkie. But no, its just that Gwen is a baker, but not able to recreate the extra special recipe her grandmother was famous for, a single ingredient missing from her hand written not-recipe card for lebkuchen cake. An ingredient starting with the letters M and A. 

Gwen has been attempting to recreate the cake, by adding in many "ma..." ingredients, but it always seems to lead to a disastrous cake, not just a cake that doesn't quite taste good, but a truly, burned, fallen cake that kind of tells us Gwen ain't such a good baker. Likely she relies on assistant Becky (Kyana Teresa, Good Witch) to do all the heavy (batter) lifting.

Coming into town is TV Producer Gavin (Robin Dunne, Sanctuary) for terrible TV chef Cooking with Dante (Paulino, The Expanse). He is hoping to connect Dante to the legacy of Gwen's grandmother, but at the very least they will shoot in this typical PST. Sorry, typically Canadian PST. The thing is that Gwen is not exactly ready to be talking up her grandmother's legacy on syndicated TV considering she cannot recreate it, and really, is not sure she should be.

Upon literally bumping into Gwen, Gavin is instantly taken with Gwen. This was the entry point for me on whatever channel it was airing. And at this is the point, I got all judgey on an actor's appearance. Sure, I am rather partial to Erica Durance since Smallville, but whoever was doing her hair on this movie needs to be ... retrained. On OTA TV it looked all grey and haggard, but at least on the downloaded copy, it was just a bit frazzled and dry looking. I admit, I am rather challenged by what aging female (for the most part) actors feel they have to do to retain the level of interest in them. 

ANYWAYZ, she doesn't quite rebuff Gavin but she doesn't like what he represents. I mean, all you have to do is take one look at Dante, and his amazingly fake looking toupee to know what he is all about. But soon after, she bumps into Gavin again, and again, and he is really pressing her on the TV appearance, but he calms down and he settles on asking her to be his local guide. He has to make sure this episode goes the way Dante likes things, starting with finding him an "authentic" place to stay, that has a hot tub. She suggests her mom's house -- while she is in Boca, she rents the place out. Apparently the overdone overwrought fake loghouse look is exactly what Dante would go for.

On that note, again I notice the level of income present in many of these movies. Gwen's dad grandfather runs the incredible looking Inn that Dante rejected. This is in an astounding massive stone structure that looks just wonderful. If I was wealthy I would choose to stay there. And her mom has this house, this INCREDIBLY big faux log cabin McMansion. Ignoring her taste, she must have money.

ANYWAYZ, they bounce around a bit doing Hallmarkie things, and Gavin is more than being obvious he has a thing for Gwen. He even wants to introduce her to his daughter Michelle (Sarah Abbott, V-Wars) who catches on instantly, and begins hanging with Gwen, even inspiring her to create her first acceptable cake. Its not THE cake but it's a pretty damn good bake. And the "ma" is "maple syrup".

Eventually Gavin and Gwen bake together, and THEY discover the real secret ingredient -- "marzipan" which is kind of obvious considering the German roots of her cake. Interestingly enough, Lebkuchen is more often a gingerbread style cookie than a cake, but TV, so whatever. Once the ingredient is known, she tells Gavin she still doesn't really feel secure sharing it with douche chef Dante, as this recipe was her grandmother's and she feels it should stay in-family. But when she agrees to do the show segment, Dante plays at knowing the ingredient already, and Gwen immediately falls for the 20-minutes-to-go misunderstanding, assuming that Gavin shared it with him. He didn't; it was actually Gwen's mom who has returned from Boca and kind of wants to impress the douche chef, so she tells him its marmalade. But Gwen is hurt and rushes off.

BUT she gets a letter which comes from one of her grandmother's fans, who tells her that she already got the recipe. Apparently Gwen's gramma was pretty open with it at the end of her life, not considering it worth keeping a secret. So Gwen rushes to find Gavin to tell him she overreacted and he tells he quit being a doormat Producer for douche chef Dante. 

MEANWHILE Dante has had his own revelation, in that he never really wanted to be a TV chef. He wanted to do what he grew up doing -- running a cheesey (pun intended) themed Italian resto. He connects with Gwen's mom and decides he's dumping the show. EVERYONE is going to live Happily Ever After including Real Housewife Mom and Douche Chef Dante.

The Formulae: 

Does Lifetime subscribe to the Hallmarkie trope recipe as much as actual Hallmark? This one does do the Xmas Tree hunting & decorating, and Gwen does take Michelle to an Xmas Fair, but that's pretty much it. 

Unformulae: 

Neither of them are vying for a great job that will appear or not appear on Xmas Day, like in most. It really is just a moment in time for the two that happens to be happening around the holidays, allowing for some of the Xmas tropes to seep in.

True Calling? Well, that's the thing. The cake is supposed to be enchanted, as in it has been making people fall in love for years and years. But that is not really the point of the movie. If it had been, then there would have been a star crossed couple playing the secondary plot, who would have fallen astoundingly into love once they tried the "real recipe". Alas its more just how the recipe seems to be everything to Gwen, until she realizes that Gavin and their potential relationship means more. So, no not an enchanted cake at all.

The Rewind: 

Seeing Dante's terrible toupee for the first time was a chuckle, but not really worth rewinding. Instead, have a look at mine !

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by David Petite (@tbit)

The Regulars: 

Since leaving Smallville Durance has alternated between doing these kind of movies and other TV series in the Vancouver area. Meanwhile Dunne has been doing a LOT of these movies. Kyanna Teresa has been alternating between these movies and Canadian TV for a long time, so I guess its her niche. I wonder if its a supporting actor's inevitable niche in Canada?

How does it Hallmark?

The movie is less about the tropes and more about the general romcom direction being taken. I need to do more research to see if the Lifetimies have their own beats and notes.

How does it movie? 

TBH, I am running out of steam on saying whether these have any merit outside their genre....