Random Thoughts

Uh-oh. The first Allan King movie (about an institution for children) felt really exploitative. In the second one, the people participating were adults, at least, so there consent was less dubious. But it bombed at the box office.

So now we’re back to his… big hit movie, kinda?

Heh. The liner notes on the DVD notes how artificial this movie is: King selected ten teenagers to live on a farm and then filmed them all the time. So it’s like MTV’s The Real World a couple decades later.

Is that the guy from Rush?

Anyway, these kids are OK. Seems like a nice bunch. The movie does try to get all private and intrusive, but they seem to consider what they’re sharing.

I mean, even if some of that is about shooting up speed, it’s somehow distanced.

So this doesn’t feel as ethically dubious as King’s first movie… but it’s also not all that thrilling to watch.

This was apparently the reaction of people at the time, too — King had to shut down his production company and start doing TV (Avonlea etc).

The movie’s more interesting now. It really is a proto-MTV reality show. As you get to know the people, it’s getting intriguing, while at the start it was hard to care. I know! So shocking! But perhaps if this had been a six episode TV series, it might have been totally revolutionary, because Allan King is obviously onto something here. But in ninety minutes, it’s over just when we’re getting invested.

And it’s also better when we get to hear the music they’re making. But I think King had the guy in the hat pegged as the future star, when it was really the lanky guy.

It’s so close to being really fantastic. But I cannot lie: I don’t think this was a successful movie. So:

Come On Children. Allan King. 1973.

This blog post is part of the Eclipse series.

(I was going to watch the two final DVDs in this box set, but Dying at Grace is two and a half hours about dying, and the final movie is apparently even more depressing. So I’m skipping them — not just because I don’t want to watch documentaries on those subjects, but because I’ve lost faith in King.)

This is like… a reality TV show? I mean, before they became game shows. Or, as they might have been called back then, “a documentary”. But it’s people being very, very aware of cameras being in the room with them and hamming it up a bit.

But… is this non-scripted? I mean, more or less than other reality TV shows?

He’s really fond of that underwear.

So hamming it up for the camera. But I love that they’re really going for it — wanting to entertain the filmmakers (and the viewers).

I mean, I’d totally wear that vest, but pearls for dinner?

The kid and the dog are pretty chill, but the other two are arguing … so much. It’s like they’ve read a book about drama and learned that all scenes have to have a conflict, so they just improvise some stupid argument. Or perhaps King is just editing out most other scenes.

But then it kinda turns more genuine? And then it’s pretty interesting?

This is a really prescient movie, though. It’s in a format that would become a huge thing some decades later, but they’re covering all the tropes that would become a thing way before they became a thing.

You have to give them props for that, even though I didn’t really enjoy watching most of this, so:

A Married Couple. Allan King. 1969.

This blog post is part of the Eclipse series.

Wow. This is Canadian? I thought the Eclipse series was just Japanese and French movies.

These kids are very sleepy.

Oh, this is a documentary!?

These are really the sleepiest kids ever!

Uhm.

Autism?

So this is a documentary about some emotionally disturbed children at an institution where they have a thing about … holding the kids when they’re acting out. It’s kinda hard to watch. I mean, they seem really well intentioned and good people, but…

It just feels exploitative. I mean, these kids are being exposed to an extent that’s just way beyond any… ethics…

I know the 60s were a different universe, but I don’t think there should have been a camera crew inside this institution.

Well, King is obviously a talented filmmaker (fortunately, because there’s four more of his movies to go). But I just totally disapprove of the entire project here.

So:

Warrendale. Allan King. 1967.

This blog post is part of the Eclipse series.

Wow. Ôshima’s gone all late nouvelle vague? This starts off like a Godard movie from 1968…

But more Japanese, I guess.

I think this movie is about Japanese racism? Towards Koreans? But it’s … very odd.

And it’s also about Vietnam.

So… now it’s the entire movie all over again? Or… did this DVD skip?

No, this is different. So it’s the same movie all over again, but differently?

So it’s indeed very Nouvelle, but I’m not sure this actually works at all? There’s scenes that are quite interesting, but it all feels… kinda… undigested?

Oh, these Eclipse DVDs come with short essays inside the front cover… this one basically just recaps the plot (I hate that so much), but it’s got some interesting stuff nevertheless.

I love that quote.

I mean, I think this a really interesting movie, and I’m glad I’m watching it, but I don’t think it quite works? It’s very close to being a Godard movie, but … not.

The funny bits are quite amusing.

So:

Three Resurrected Drunkards. Nagisa Ôshima. 1968.

This blog post is part of the Eclipse series.