Maiden's Voyage

[Rock]

I want your love (love, love, love). I want your love!

Nicolas Roeg’s Bad Timing can’t match the previous film in complexity, though it’s extremely entertaining (and harrowing) in its own way. Russell is phenomenal, a force of life. (She reminded me of Kathleen Turner in Crimes of Passion.) And Garfunkel is a real eye-opener. (I don't think I've seen him in anything before.) The affair is a crazy, giddy, passionate, miserable thing. Of course, the way the film is cut (and scrambled), we see the disaster approaching, and even the central mystery, very early on. Still, nothing quite prepared me for how horrifying that missing piece was. It’s a hard watch.

Liked this one a lot when I watched it earlier this year and your thoughts echo mine. I think Keitel's performance is probably the movie's weak point, but he seems to be internalizing the movie's dynamic of cold exteriors hiding volatility underneath, so it's interesting at least from that perspective.

[Rock]

I swear I saw a picture on the 'Net of someone with a tattoo of Art Garfunkel's character. I can't find it but unless that individual got it removed, it's out there, somewhere.....

Uh, was it a tramp stamp?

[Oxnard Montalvo]

Uh, was it a tramp stamp?

I can't remember, it might have been on a leg or arm or something. I feel like if it were anywhere unusual I'd have remembered that.

[wigwam]

I recently watched a double feature of bad romance

I want your drama, the touch of your hand.
I want your love (love, love, love). I want your love!

[Shieldmaiden]

[Eminence Grise]

Sure, that's great. But, have you seen The Other Side of the Wind?

[Shieldmaiden]

But, have you seen The Other Side of the Wind?

No! Have you? Is it in theaters?

[Macrology]

It's only playing in a handful of theaters, unfortunately. But Netflix is streaming it.

[Eminence Grise]

I had the unfortunate pleasure of seeing it on Netflix.

[Macrology]

I downloaded a rip because I can't stand the thought of watching it on Netflix and having the internet cut out or force a buffer in the middle of the film. Probably gonna watch it tonight. If I ever get the chance to see it theatrically, though, I'm jumping on it.

[Shieldmaiden]

I don't have Netflix anymore. I'll see it eventually though, I'm sure.

[Shieldmaiden]

I finally got around to Fassbinder’s favorites list again. In the last couple months I've watched the Curtiz, the Hawks, the Sternberg, the Ray, and the Shukshin. It's been fun! I think I'd rank what I've seen like so:

The Damned – Hyper entertaining. Wrote about this here.
.
Lola Montès – Still fills me with admiration. Best framing device ever?
.
Dishonored – Dietrich is amazing. Every step she takes, every expression is just… sex personified. Yeah.
.
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes – For years I had this confused with How to Marry a Millionaire, but there’s no comparison. Smart and very funny!
.
Flamingo Road – Crawford is great (and likable) here. This is pretty much the peak of good, soapy melodrama.
.
The Night of the Hunter – Can't beat the book, which scared the pants off me when I was a kid. But it's still a chiaroscuro marvel.
.
The Red Snowball Tree – Colorful culture and strong central characters make up for its heavy-handedness.
.
Johnny Guitar – McCambridge is so strident, the story so cartoonish. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood?

This leaves me with The Naked and the Dead and Salo, which obviously won't be quite as fun. Truth be told, I need a little encouragement to watch these, especially the latter. Are they worth it?

[crumbsroom]

This leaves me with The Naked and the Dead and Salo, which obviously won't be quite as fun. Truth be told, I need a little encouragement to watch these, especially the latter. Are they worth it?[/box]

I would never think to recommend Salo to anyone, but I do think it is at least a good movie, if not a very good one. Fair criticisms could be made that the points it so stridently makes are much too one dimensional to warrant shoving its audiences nose in them, but I find the exploration of every nook and cranny of its one dimension pretty affecting. It's a hard watch (although, maybe not as much as its reputation may lead one to believe) and it doesn't pull any punches, but the contrast of the stark brutality of the film, with its gorgeous production, all leading to one of the more singularly overwhelming finales I've seen, makes it more than worth the chance.

But it will leave you with some very bad vibes, regardless of if you approve of disapprove of the film in general. And it is a movie that could make one very very angry if you aren't willing to let it abuse you a bit.

And, yes, Johnny Guitar deserves as many chances as you are willing to give it. It's a really weird film tonally, but once you get on its vibe, it is just pretty incredible. Fassbinder's taste would never lead anyone astray. I clearly should get on some of the movies on his list, since I don't think I've seen half of them (The Damned is the best of what I've seen)

[Wooley]

I finally got around to this last week, and I can probably only be similarly as 'generous'. Whatever it does right, which really wasn't much, I pretty much just remember everything it did wrong. Pretty close to one of my least favorite movie from Carpenter.

I can only say that the more I've watched it the more I've liked it and now it's gone from being one of my less-favorite Carpenters to being one of my top second-tier Carpenters (after Halloween, The Fog, Escape From New York, and The Thing).

[Wooley]

As a fan of Lovecraft and Carpenter, I've tried 2 or 3 times to love this as much as I'm convinced I should but it isn't happening. Every 5 years or so I give it another shot, hoping it has somehow gotten better since the last viewing. Lots of people love it, I'm just missing it I guess.

Exactly how I feel about Prince Of Darkness.

[Shieldmaiden]

Fair criticisms could be made that the points it so stridently makes are much too one dimensional to warrant shoving its audiences nose in them, but I find the exploration of every nook and cranny of its one dimension pretty affecting. It's a hard watch (although, maybe not as much as its reputation may lead one to believe) and it doesn't pull any punches, but the contrast of the stark brutality of the film, with its gorgeous production, all leading to one of the more singularly overwhelming finales I've seen, makes it more than worth the chance.

Thanks. I read about it, I feel prepared... but then I chicken out.

And, yes, Johnny Guitar deserves as many chances as you are willing to give it. It's a really weird film tonally, but once you get on its vibe, it is just pretty incredible.

Noted. I'll try again.

[Slentert]

Dishonored – Dietrich is amazing. Every step she takes, every expression is just… sex personified. Yeah.
.

Saw this a few weeks ago on the big screen. It was my first movie starring Dietrich. She is... quite the revelation.

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes – For years I had this confused with How to Marry a Millionaire, but there’s no comparison. Smart and very funny!

.
Very funny indeed. A friend of mine considers this her favorite movie of all time (pretty notable choice for a 15-year old) Everyone always talks about Marylin Monroe, but what I mostly got from the movie is how phenomenal Jane Russell is (definitely watch her in His Kind of Woman (1951), a weird noir with Robert Mitchum and an all-time comedic performance by Vincent Price)

The Night of the Hunter – Can't beat the book, which scared the pants off me when I was a kid. But it's still a chiaroscuro marvel.

Thanks for making me learn the word "chiaroscuro". And yes, great movie, have never read the book 'though. The podcast Switchblade Sisters recently did a great episode about this. http://www.maximumfun.org/switchblade-s ... dana-spiro

Johnny Guitar – McCambridge is so strident, the story so cartoonish. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood.

I'd say you should keep rewatching this until you're in the right mood. This is easily my favorite of all the movies listed above. That scene between Sterling Hayden and Joan Crawford in the kitchen is one of the greatest scenes in cinema history if you ask me.

[Oxnard Montalvo]

how much of Pasolini's other stuff have you seen? 'cause at least you could focus on how Salo fits into his oeuvre.

and yeah, Salo is a bad time but at least if you're having a bad time watching it, you can be assured that you are normal person. I'd argue it's more depressing than outright disturbing. and to go off what crumbs said, you're more likely to feel angry than sick (or at least that was true for me).

[crumbsroom]

I can only say that the more I've watched it the more I've liked it and now it's gone from being one of my less-favorite Carpenters to being one of my top second-tier Carpenters (after Halloween, The Fog, Escape From New York, and The Thing).

You never know, but I can't imagine myself turning to putting it anywhere near the companies of those movies, or really any of his early films, including Christine or even Dark Star. It's not like I hated it or anything, but it just seemed that this is the movie where the magic of Carpenters earlier films begins to dim. It's kind of an ugly looking movie, all of Carpenters stylistic choices seeming forced, flat or garish. The story felt underdone, the semi campy dialogue not really something he knows how to work to his advantage, and it really didn't get the Lovecraftian potential of the material. AS others have stated, Neal is good and was the right choice for this sort of role, and some scenes (like the kid on the bike) work really well. But as a whole, the feel of the film, along with its dull probing of the standard trope regarding the nature of reality, just seemed so underwhelming. I was expecting more.

[crumbsroom]

I'd argue it's more depressing than outright disturbing.

This is probably a good way to put it. Most extreme films focus on the horror of the actual violence, and the battle of its victims trying to escape the harm violence can create, an approach that has a visceral way of searing itself into your brain. But Salo opts to instead display a passivity towards violence, and it is this where the horror of the film can be found. It is a very still, almost meditative film on human atrocitiy. It can have a very weird effect on those who view it, being almost simultaneously hypnotic and repellent.

[Wooley]

You never know, but I can't imagine myself turning to putting it anywhere near the companies of those movies, or really any of his early films, including Christine or even Dark Star. It's not like I hated it or anything, but it just seemed that this is the movie where the magic of Carpenters earlier films begins to dim. It's kind of an ugly looking movie, all of Carpenters stylistic choices seeming forced, flat or garish. The story felt underdone, the semi campy dialogue not really something he knows how to work to his advantage, and it really didn't get the Lovecraftian potential of the material. AS others have stated, Neal is good and was the right choice for this sort of role, and some scenes (like the kid on the bike) work really well. But as a whole, the feel of the film, along with its dull probing of the standard trope regarding the nature of reality, just seemed so underwhelming. I was expecting more.

Well, I have those bolded films from my post in a tier completely separate from the rest of his filmography.
Then I have the second tier, which includes Assault On Precinct 13, Christine, Big Trouble In Little China, In The Mouth Of Madness.
Then there's just a half-step down to They Live and then another half-step down to Prince Of Darkness before we fall right off the fucking cliff with Memoirs and the just laughable Vampires, and then there is the unbelievably awful Ghosts Of Mars so far down that I will certainly never even know how far it is because I will never watch it again, even at gunpoint.
Village Of The Damned was just so unmemorable, I saw it 30 years ago and never bothered again, and I can barely remember anything about it except that even as a teenager I thought it was just terrible.
I've never known what to do with Starman.

As far as ItMoM, I had an odd run with it. I saw it in the theater and we left a little stunned. We hadn't seen a horror movie finish with the literal end of the world before I don't think and certainly not in a way in which Lovecraft always hinted at but never actually put to paper. When I went back to watch it on DVD eight or so years later, however, I found it lacking in many, many ways, which surprised me. So I wrote it off. But then, like 8 years after THAT, I went back and watched it again and I was like, "Holy shit, this movie is really good. Like this might be the best Lovecraft movie I've ever seen." Like, I couldn't even imagine what my criticisms had been. Everything I thought didn't work, did. And there were SO many little scenes that just absolutely rocked for me. So I watched it again a couple years later and I had that experience again, totally wondering why I hadn't like it at one point. So that is what I go with now. But I have also had the other experience.
I'll watch it again next October and tell y'all what I think.

Edit - After re-reading your last sentence, I wonder if that's what shot it back up for me: expectations. After thinking it sucked, I really dug it on revisit.

[crumbsroom]

Ghosts of Mars is definitely a slog, and a predominantly boring one at that. It too is also a really ugly looking movie. But I think the central idea of the film, that there is this threat of ghosts of some long dead alien civilization, is an interesting enough concept, even though he doesn't fully explore it. And the fact that he uses the final reel of the film to almost turn the film into an action packed, absurd B-Movie works just at the right time when the film seems like its going to disappear up its own ass with the straight faced seriousness it presents its goofy, weird plot.

It's not good. And I have no real interest in watching it again. And I would never recommend it (unlike the owner of the video store I go to who defiantly claims it is Carpenter's best film, which is of course madness, and which I need to scold him for in the future). But I didn't walk away from it with nothing. And I think I prefer it to Vampires, which I'm pretty sure I couldn't even finish because I hated it so much. I was embarrassed for Carpenter with that one, and despondent to see a man with so much talent, doing absolutely nothing with it anymore.

I've never seen Memoirs. I probably never will.

[Wooley]

Ghosts of Mars is definitely a slog, and a predominantly boring one at that. It too is also a really ugly looking movie. But I think the central idea of the film, that there is this threat of ghosts of some long dead alien civilization, is an interesting enough concept, even though he doesn't fully explore it. And the fact that he uses the final reel of the film to almost turn the film into an action packed, absurd B-Movie works just at the right time when the film seems like its going to disappear up its own ass with the straight faced seriousness it presents its goofy, weird plot.

It's not good. And I have no real interest in watching it again. And I would never recommend it (unlike the owner of the video store I go to who defiantly claims it is Carpenter's best film, which is of course madness, and which I need to scold him for in the future). But I didn't walk away from it with nothing. And I think I prefer it to Vampires, which I'm pretty sure I couldn't even finish because I hated it so much. I was embarrassed for Carpenter with that one, and despondent to see a man with so much talent, doing absolutely nothing with it anymore.

I've never seen Memoirs. I probably never will.

I feel like it is a demon I must face again someday. When I have the courage.

[wigwam]

I cant search your thread specifically --- have you seen Track 29 by Roeg yet? can you link to review if you have one and share thoughts if not?

Thanks!!

[Shieldmaiden]

I cant search your thread specifically

That's strange. Search (box at bottom left) inside a thread still works for me.

Have you seen Track 29 by Roeg yet? can you link to review if you have one and share thoughts if not?

I have not! But now I'll add it to the list.

[Shieldmaiden]

Very funny indeed. A friend of mine considers this her favorite movie of all time (pretty notable choice for a 15-year old) Everyone always talks about Marylin Monroe, but what I mostly got from the movie is how phenomenal Jane Russell is (definitely watch her in His Kind of Woman (1951), a weird noir with Robert Mitchum and an all-time comedic performance by Vincent Price)

Russell is really perfect in what could have been a thankless straight-man role. The scene pictured above (where the two of them walk through the dining hall) could have been just a throw-away gag, but she elevates it to comic genius. I'll get to that noir soon.

I'd say you should keep rewatching this until you're in the right mood. This is easily my favorite of all the movies listed above. That scene between Sterling Hayden and Joan Crawford in the kitchen is one of the greatest scenes in cinema history if you ask me.

OK, OK! I'll watch it again.

how much of Pasolini's other stuff have you seen? 'cause at least you could focus on how Salo fits into his oeuvre.

I've only seen Teorama, so...


Thanks to everyone for taking my Salo question seriously. I'll get up the courage eventually.

[Macrology]

Pasolini is worth delving into. I suspect you'd like his Oedipus Rex, if you're not ready to dive into the deep end with Salo yet. But even Salo isn't as viscerally upsetting as most "provocative" films -- it's more psychological but in some ways more unsettling.

[Slentert]

[OK, OK! I'll watch it again.

Rereading my original post, I realize how rude I sounded, this wasn't my intention at all and I apologize for it. I just really like Johnny Guitar, and I can completely understand not liking it when you were expecting something more serious.

[Shieldmaiden]

But even Salo isn't as viscerally upsetting as most "provocative" films -- it's more psychological but in some ways more unsettling.

OK, thanks. I think I can handle psychologically unsettling. Though sometimes I get grossed out over things considered pretty tame. I'll just have to try it!

Rereading my original post, I realize how rude I sounded...

Oh, no! I don't think you sounded rude at all. I was just reacting to the fact that crumbsroom had said almost the exact same thing: "Johnny Guitar deserves as many chances as you are willing to give it." I don't usually dislike a movie people love that much, so I'm going to rewatch it soon. More than that, I can't say...

And I appreciate all your feedback -- the recs, the podcast, the opinions. That's what keeps me coming back to this place!

[Oxnard Montalvo]

but I'd still recommend watching more Pasolini before you watch Salo if you're still uneasy so at least you can have a better idea of who Pasolini is and why he might want to make that sort of movie.

[Shieldmaiden]

OK, good point. I'll look into Oedipus Rex.

[Macrology]

Maiden! I finally watched Visitor to a Museum last night. While I'm afraid my praise isn't as unqualified as yours, I'm glad I finally got around to watching it. This may be the most harrowing depiction of ecological cataclysm and its ramifications that I've ever seen. At its best, it's on par with the apocalyptic hellscapes of Bruegel and Bosch: the glimpses of the Reservation, the candlelit procession of degenerates, the final shot. My only qualm is that most of the material joining these sequences together feels disjointed and vague.

(I think it would help tremendously seeing this on 35mm though: digital copies, especially the middling quality rips available on KG, render the darker shots illegible.)

Watching it also reminded me that I watched Russian Symphony some time ago and
A. Forgot to post after I saw it. And
B. Totally forgot that I had even watched it. (Sometimes with dreamlike films I find myself forgetting them the way I forget my actual dreams.)

It's coming back to me now, but it didn't impress me as much as Visitor to a Museum. It has some strong material, and I liked a lot of it in theory, but this one needed a stronger narrative sense to really bring home its ideas and I just don't think Lopushansky is capable of that.

[Shieldmaiden]

This may be the most harrowing depiction of ecological cataclysm and its ramifications that I've ever seen. At its best, it's on par with the apocalyptic hellscapes of Bruegel and Bosch: the glimpses of the Reservation, the candlelit procession of degenerates, the final shot. My only qualm is that most of the material joining these sequences together feels disjointed and vague.

Good call on Bruegel and Bosch! I think I'd consider that enough. But that rest is where the vicious satire lies – the oblivious cruelty of his hosts, the pseudo-mysticism of the man with the Bible. Plus, I assume there's more than what I picked up. Pretty sure that's true of Russian Symphony, at least. The humor in that one is so pointed and harsh, and I'm sure a Russian audience would recognize more allusions than I did and feel the cuts deeper, too. Anyway, I'm glad you saw both of them!

P.S. Would you agree that Blade Runner 2049 was more Lopushansky than Tarkovsky? I saw the latter mentioned in reviews, but the former seemed a better fit. And I wouldn't put it past Villeneuve.

[Macrology]

Neither of them exactly sprang to mind, but I could see traces of both: Lopushansky more visually, Tarkovsky more thematically.

Also, have you heard of The Homesman? I posted about it here. Aside from being curious what you might think, it reminded me in ways of Slow West, which I watched at your recommendation.

[Shieldmaiden]

Also, have you heard of The Homesman?

Yes! I read your post last week and promptly bookmarked it on Amazon. I'll get to it soon!

[Shieldmaiden]

I just finished two more by Ken Russell: The Boy Friend and Mahler. The former (pictured above) is an overstuffed feast of choreography and backstage banter. Apparently it wasn't enough to simply film the musical; no, Russell had to film a fictional performance of it by a down-on-its-luck company, plagued by: an understudy in the starring role, a scouting visit by a film director, and heaps of personal off-stage drama. Plus, while the numbers start on stage, most are re-imagined mid-scene by various characters as fantastic, impossible extravaganzas. It's a lot of fun!

Mahler (pictured below*) is a half-serious-half-camp biopic that bears an uncanny resemblance to Schroeter's Eika Katappa (which I wrote about for wigwam's New German Cinema thread here). In other words, histrionic quarrels and dreams have been matched up with Mahler's own dramatic music. Which, to be clear, is quite entertaining!

*That first Mahler pic has a story. Seen during the dream sequence where he imagines his own funeral, it stands among photos and drawings that represent Mahler's life. Of course, they have to match the actor, not the real man. This one looks like a portrait by Egon Schiele, who, I learned, actually did paint a portrait of Mahler, but in a rather uncharacteristic style**. This one, obviously made for the film, is much more typical of Schiele, coming closer to his portrait of Eduard Kosmack, for example, than the one he made of Mahler. Anyway, pretty cool attention to detail!

**Argh. I was looking at the wrong portrait of Mahler! Despite several references to a Schiele portait, I can't find an image of it anywhere, though there are plenty of misleading uses of other Schiele portraits. So, it's possible this was a more straight-up imitation of the original. Who knows?

[Shieldmaiden]

And that brings me to the realization that, for some reason, I ended up watching at least sixteen musicals this year, though you may disagree with my definitions. For example, is Young Frankenstein a musical? I know it was made into an actual musical later. But, as it is, it has a dance number and multiple instances of music as a plot device, And if I count that one, surely Lair of the White Worm meets those same criteria. Well, it's my list (and my thread), so I'll count them both!

Top ten musicals seen in 2018:
.
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
Boris Godounov
The Boy Friend
Young Frankenstein
Eika Katappa
Cat Ballou
The Lair of the White Worm
Mahler
Bessie
Little Shop of Horrors

And, though I wasn't too fond of it, I have to give an honorable mention to Lemonade Joe because it's a such an odd thing – a ridiculous spoof of Westerns and Western commercialism from the Czech New Wave.

[Shieldmaiden]

Wow. I had extremely high expectations going into Zama, and it exceeded them! Martel has carefully built a world that's easy to sink into, to experience, with loads of information in the background (visually and aurally). It's spooky, terrible, hilarious, baffling. And such a pay off! From Zama's point of view, he's Kafka's K.: he thinks he knows the system, though he's mysteriously thwarted at every turn. And to an extent he's right. From one step back we see the lies and pointed glances; everyone around him knows things he doesn't. But we also witness his social cluelessness, his oblivious pride. We watch his fragile sanity fray like his clothing. And, then—just when we think we understand—it starts to get very weird. This film is amazing, and I can't wait to read the novel now!

More about Zama.

[Slentert]

I have high expectations of Zama. I have a copy of it lying around somewhere. I'm going to binge watch a large amount of 2018 titles this december.

[Shieldmaiden]

My plan as well, though my binge-watching tends to be more in January. I'll be astonished if anything knocks this off the top of my list, though.

[Rock]

I got a chance to see that at TIFF, and having stayed up the previous night playing violent video games, fell sound asleep maybe thirty minutes into my screening. Martel told us it was okay to fall asleep during her movie due to the soothing soundtrack, and let me assure you, I took her up on her offer.

Her glasses were very pointy.

[Macrology]

Zama is high up on my Netflix queue; I'll probably get it in the next week or two. Been itching to watch it since reading the book earlier this year, and somehow missed the only screening that happened here in town. Will revisit this post once I've seen it!

[Shieldmaiden]

Her glasses were very pointy.

Haha! She does look like quite a character. I hope you give the film another try after plenty of coffee. You missed so much goodness!

Will revisit this post once I've seen it!

Do, please! I could use some discussion about this one. (Though it may all have to be in spoiler tags.)

I've ordered the book from my library.

[Macrology]

I posted about the book in the Lit thread back when I read it. Maybe we can trade thoughts!

[Shieldmaiden]

I posted about the book in the Lit thread back when I read it. Maybe we can trade thoughts!

I remember. It may take me a while to read it, but yes!

[Popcorn Reviews]

I thought I'd copy and paste my thoughts on Zama in here.

A remarkable film which is, at times, funny, absurd, and infuriating. Zama, a Spanish officer who's awaiting a transfer to Buenos Aires, thinks he has authority in his current residence, when in reality, he's commonly disrespected by the governors who have a way of ignoring his requests by trying to dodge around them or requiring for him to do other tasks first. As the film progresses and the passage of time is shown by how he slowly ages before our eyes (shown by his hair turning gray and his face developing wrinkles), his life begins to feel like an inescapable, absurdist nightmare. Martel doesn't attempt to paint him as a sympathetic character though as scenes such as how he had an affair with a native woman or an early scene where he spies on a group of naked women by the beach only to slap one of them after he's discovered reveal his character flaws. The visuals and the sound of this film are also pretty interesting. Martel often fills the film with disorienting sounds and visuals which feel like they don't belong in the setting the film takes place in. Instead of coming off as jarring, however, they reflect Zama's state as being a man out of time. Then, there's the shocking final act. It's a disturbing outcome for Zama, yet still darkly humorous as he wouldn't have had to endure any of it if he had been allowed to transfer. Overall, I found this to be a complex and compelling film, and I imagine that I'll pick up on new details once I rewatch it.

8/10

[Shieldmaiden]

As the film progresses and the passage of time is shown by how he slowly ages before our eyes (shown by his hair turning gray and his face developing wrinkles)

I loved the way we saw his clothing gradually fall apart. Plus, the changing face of the governor was a great way of showing not only time's passage, but the futility of his struggle within the system.

I thought he was trying to get transferred to Lerma, which is in Spain, though many reviews/synopses say Buenos Aires. Maybe that will become clear when I read the novel.

[Popcorn Reviews]

I loved the way we saw his clothing gradually fall apart. Plus, the changing face of the governor was a great way of showing not only time's passage, but the futility of his struggle within the system.

I thought he was trying to get transferred to Lerma, which is in Spain, though many reviews/synopses say Buenes Aires. Maybe that will become clear when I read the novel.

Lerma rings a bell. However, I went to the Wikipedia page for the book and it said Buenos Aires.

[Shieldmaiden]

Yeah, I know. Another thing all the reviewers hit hard was the fact that he'd been born in South America, which made him inferior to the Spaniards. I didn't get that from the film at all, though it puts a new spin on a couple of the comments people made to him.

But all this doesn't have much bearing on the film for me. What I love is the creepiness and the textures and the mystery!

[Macrology]

I watched Martel's Zama last night. In many ways the film is very in tune with the book -- its languid pace, its drifting dead-ends, the colonial malaise -- but somehow the book and the movie are markedly different experiences.

I'd largely attribute that to Martel's approach to the narrative, which contrasts radically with the book's first person perspective. Di Benedetto mires us in the mood swings and compulsive rationalizations that guide Zama's fruitless actions while Martel's approach is almost wholly exterior. In the novel, we occasionally glimpse the world through the fog of Zama's insular monologue; it wrestles with hope and frustration, dignity and impotence, the stagnation of the soul. In the film, we catch glimpses of Zama bumbling through the sensual, absurd world he inhabits; it's about civilization and nature, the moral futility of colonialism, a man who refuses to succumb to his circumstances and simply live.

The two come closest to converging in the last act, where Zama and his world seem to bleed into each other. They still retain distinct differences (di Benedetto's prose grows more precise, while Martel's style remains disjointed and impressionistic), but their respective pitches reach a harmony near the end. Overall, this gives the book and its adaptation a yin and yang quality, each one acting as the other's foil.

(Martel's ending also brought Jarmusch's Dead Man vividly to mind, which made more parallels between them apparent.)

As with her phenomenal debut (the only other of her features I've seen), Martel's sound design is ravishing and complex, and its the sole element in her film that dares to penetrate into the moods and thoughts of her characters. As mysterious and engaging as her images are, Martel's soundscapes are even more enigmatic and elucidating.

Some additional info:
My impressions of the book, from earlier this year.
An interview with Martel at Film Comment (she seems like fun, and her comments on the Shepard tone are fascinating)
A great article at NYRB by Esther Allen, who translated the book into English. Offers invaluable insight into both works and into the lives and careers of both artists.