Siglitz Reviews

Blow-Up (1966)

There are two types of people who see this movie...

[10/10 · 10 January 2020]

Those who 'get it' and those who don't. Those who get it, love it. Those who don't, hate it. That is why you see either great reviews or horrible reviews. There is no middle ground for this film

I've been in both camps. My first time watching it I did not get it and as a result I didn't like it.

Saw it again about 10 years later and 'I got it' and I realized how incredibly brilliant it is.

Despite what other reviewers say, this film is not about a photographer who may have stumbled across a murder victim. Yes, that happens, but that's not what the film is about. If you think that's what this film is about, you won't get it.

This film is about "reality" and how it's perceived depending on your view of it. This filmed is summed up great by Antonioni's own quote "Reality is unattainable as it is submerged by layers of images which are only versions of reality." An 'image' or photo only sees 'reality' from one point in space and time. An image from another point in space and/or time may show that the reality the first image shows, is quite different when viewed from that different perspective. Both images capture what is really there, but they tell different stories. And as we try to examine them closer (blow them up) they become even more ambiguous. This is the theme that runs through the movie.

The best summation of this reality is determined by perspective is the scene with the Yardbirds when Jeff Beck trashes his guitar. The zombie-like crowd is suddenly thrown into a frenzy when he tosses the broken guitar into the crowd and everyone clamors to get it - with our protaganist David Hemmings getting it as he is chased out the club by the crowd. From the perspective of that crowd in the club, that broken guitar was valuable and everyone wanted it. But as soon as Hemmings is outside on the sidewalk it's just a 'broken guitar' and he discards it only to have someone else pick it up and also discard it. The two perspectives - inside and outside the club - gave that guitar two totally different 'realities'.

And one of the most pretentious quotes (or perceived as such) is actually one of the most critical, taking on new meaning when put in the context of the real meaning behind the film. Hemmings to girl: "I thought you were in Paris?", girl: "I am in Paris".

This film looks shallow, but runs deep.

Won't You Be My Neighbor? (2018)

Bring kleenex!

[10/10 · 12 August 2018]

Instead of writing a review I'm going to address comments of one of the negative reviews (if you want to see it, check out the 2 star ratings).

"Mr. Rogers would be upset if he knew how the writers turned his philosophy into a leftist agenda." Interviews with his wife say otherwise. She says he would be mortified by the way children are being torn from their parents (Today Show with Megyn Kelly)

"Despite some genuine insights into a wonderful man, the movie overall pushes liberal politics." The only thing it 'pushes' is basic human decency. I guess this conservative reviewer is admitting that is not part of the conservative agenda (I know that is not the case, I know some conservatives who are incredibly decent human beings).

"There is a cameo of a smiling Hilary Clinton" Yes, for an entire 1/2 second where she was incidental to a crowd where he was making an appearance.

"and soon after a clip with no context to it making a FoxNews host look nasty." There most certainly was context - the context that idiots at Fox News were blaming him for the entitlement culture, which was utter nonsense. The only thing that makes Brian Kilmeade (the host in question) look nasty is the nasty comments he makes.

"This is not a heartwarming movie."... unless you actually have a heart.

"This is a definite, deliberate political agenda in time to influence voters before the Fall midterms." Politics are never mentioned although there is a parallel with a scene from the first episode of MRN where King Friday the 13th fears changes and builds a wall. If anyone takes exception to that scene they need to think about the real reason it bothers them.

"Playing on emotions" Emotions are a part of being human. But I wouldn't say it plays on them, it evokes them. That's what good film making does.

"using people with disabilities to advance a political agenda." Jeff Erlanger (the person with disabilities in question) was a personal friend of Fred Rogers. Go to YouTube and watch "Fred Rogers inducted into the TV Hall of Fame" Fred's reaction to seeing Jeff (now an adult) is the most genuine human reaction you will ever see, prompting Fred to 'rush the stage' at his own honoring. If that doesn't make you cry you truly have no soul.

"It is insulting to Mr. Rogers memory." Mr Rogers would like you regardless.

Childhood's End (2015)

True to the spirit of the book

[9/10 · 30 December 2015]

When SyFy announced they were doing Childhood's End I was both excited and apprehensive. This is a story that is ripe for screwing it up royally. I was put somewhat at ease in the first 30 seconds which was a flash forward to the end - I knew that no matter the route the story would take, it would end where it should.

I was aware in advance that the part of UN Secretary General Rikki Stormgren would be changed to a Missouri farmer, so that neither surprised, nor bothered me.

While the series did divert from the book in many areas, that was to be expected - no book-turned-into-a-movie follows the book exactly. But many crucial plot points from the book were incorporated in one way or another, such as:

Rikki's kidnapping

Boyce's party

Rikki being allowed to sneak in a camera to get a glimpse of Karellen

The nuclear annihilation of New Athens

Milo (Jan in the book) Rodericks stowing away on the Overloads ship packaged with a giant squid

and Milo being the last human left and choosing to remain on earth and report back to the Overlords

Arthur C Clarke was not known for sentimentality or 'romance' in his books and the producers felt the need to add some, specially in regards to Rikki and Milo/Jan. Part three had an excessively long segment surrounding Rikki and his lost love that could have been reduced or eliminated in favor of elaborating on more novel-centric things such as explaining New Athens a little more in-depth.

If there is any real weakness it is that this should have had another two hours as despite, being broadcast over six hours, it felt a bit rushed.

The other thing is that in the novel, Jan assumes that humans had this Overlord/demonic depiction of the devil due to a previous encounter with the Overlords in human history which was passed down through 'racial memory'. Karellen (or perhaps it was Rashaverak - the other main Overlord in the novel) who informed Jan that it was not racial memory that led to this depiction but racial PREMONITION of the end of humankind and the Overlords involvement. This point was not made in the series.

The star of this however, was Charles Dance as Karellen. I could not have asked for a better portrayal. He perfectly captured the appearance and demeanor of Karellen that I remember from reading the novel decades ago.

Bottom line - if you are expecting an exact retelling of the book, your expectations are not realistic. If you are hoping for a story that is true to the essence of the book, I think you will like this.