Discussion #294: Run Lola Run (Lola rennt) (1998)

Director: Tom Tykwer

Tykwer’s breakout film is an energetic, adrenaline-pumping, entertaining, hypnotic, alternate-universe hopping thriller. And it’s also very German. For such a little movie, it does a lot, making us laugh and wonder in equal measure. The protagonist, Lola, is no role model, but she’s an excellent heroine, dashing through Berlin, her iconic pink and crimson hair bobbing where it goes. The film sets up the premise – her boyfriend needs 100,000 Deutschmarks within 20 minutes – and we then get to see three sequences of events play out, occasionally seeing how Lola’s actions affect the timeline.

The first run-through is the most important, introducing Lola’s Berlin to audiences, fraught with obstacles that will prevent her from reaching her goal. We’re introduced to Tykwer’s eclectic style which involves different storytelling techniques, including animation, split-screen footage and flashforwards into bypasser’s lives that are often humorous (it’s incredible how much story he can tell in fewer than a dozen still photos). It’s also notable that Tykwer uses videotape instead of film, to record some of the stories of the side characters, such as Lola’s father and his mistress. To me, it seemed like a send-up of TV melodramas, but I’m not quite sure that fully explains the choice of a different medium, as it’s used elsewhere too. At the end of this run-through, Lola is killed by the police, which I think is important as it raises the stakes for her next two iterations. In my opinion, this first segment has the best music, although the whole film plays like a toe-tapping rave.

There’s a sense that Lola gains some insight from her previous jaunts, although it does not seem fully realised, as she is not fully prepared for some of the obstacles that come her way. However, by the third and final iteration, it seems more or less like a perfect run. She has the bizarre ability to scream and break glass that is uncannily reminiscent of The Tin Drum; the significance of this ability is never explained and remains another question I have about this film.

While our heroine is resolutely committed to helping Manni, it’s harder to see why she would do this for him, as he doesn’t seem like the perfect boyfriend, especially when their French-New-Wave-esque bed scenes, shot in red, show how they interact in a less hectic atmosphere. They seem in different places mentally, and it seems at the end of the film as if she’s just realising that she needs to break up with this dude.

Indeed, I struggled to find any deeper meaning to this film beyond the theory of the butterfly effect and the high-octane concept of a girl trying to achieve a seemingly impossible goal in under twenty minutes. Things in this film just seem to happen purely because Tykwer wrote it like that. Perhaps if I could understand precisely what was changing for Lola between each take, or why she was able to beat the roulette table in one try during the final iteration, I’d have a clearer understanding of what Tykwer was trying to say. But even if there is no deeper meaning, this is a dazzling, fun and unique film that is utterly entertaining.

8/10

20 Days in Mariupol (2023)

One doesn’t often choose to put on a film like this but when it won the Oscar for Best Documentary, it made the film more noteworthy. I could tell there would be similarities with For Sama, which was also produced by PBS Frontline and depicts civilians struggling to survive through a siege. Perhaps the biggest difference between the two films is the timeline: For Sama depicts years of struggle while 20 Days in Mariupol delivers only a brief window of tragedy before the press was forced to evacuate in order to share their footage.

Like For Sama, the film features graphic content such as dying children and mutilated bodies from very early on in the siege. However, it seems harder to take in the survivors’ emotions; it’s impossible to imagine how terrifying the prospect of death, loss of loved ones and disconnection from the outside world would feel. This isn’t a movie where everyone behaves respectfully or even rationally. There’s anger, grief, violence, looting, disassociation, loss of hope, misinformation… a plethora of symptoms that you wouldn’t even expect just within a few short weeks. The film captures the psychological horror of war by sharing the viewpoints of civilians living through it.

The film also made clear just how important the role of the press was, showing how Chernov’s footage was used in news broadcasts at the time. Without him and others brave enough to film the frontline, there would be no reliable narrative as to what happened during that time. The cell phone connection is cut and Chernov spends most of the film trying to hunt for a signal so he can send his footage back to broadcasters. Whenever he is successful it feels like a win because proof of Russia’s war crimes is being transmitted for all to see.

The footage was so hard to watch that I was sobbing during the beginning of the film; a moment when a dad bawls while grieving his teenage son is particularly hard to watch. The film shows so many children sheltering too, and you wonder why Russia would think it’s necessary to do that. When I think of civilian casualties in war, I think of bombs that miss their targets or people caught in crossfire. But Chernov’s footage clearly shows tanks aiming their cannons at residential blocks and hospitals. How on earth do they expect to justify that? The footage shows that the civilians weren’t just the victims of the war, they were the targets.

This is a thoroughly impressively made film, right down to the excellent soundtrack which pronounced the feeling of doom throughout. Chernov, who normally speaks in an objective, deadpan voice, occasionally brings his own emotion to the film, mentioning previous atrocities committed by Russia and hope that his two daughters will be safe. Like For Sama, it’s incredible that all the footage could be edited down to a tidy 90-minute package, and all of the chosen shots seem to add more weight, although a couple of times I was confused about what was happening. One shot that is dwelled on is footage of doctors trying and failing to revive an 18-month-old, followed by a mother screaming “Why?!”.

The tears were flowing out of me near the beginning of the film but I started to harden to all of this footage pretty quickly too, as if my body was trying to protect me from the feelings. Relatably, as one of the doctors shows Chernov a basement full of corpses including a baby, he says “You get used to everything. But in the evening, it doesn’t leave your mind.” I found that to be the most profound quote of the film.

For Sama felt more personal as the director was from the city in question, Aleppo, and didn’t intend to leave. There was also something more poetic about how the film was made for her daughter but also had a feminist edge by showing a Syrian woman to be just as emotionally strong as any man. 20 Days in Mariupol was much more bleak by comparison but it’s still such an important film and has a different message. Both films, however, feature real civilians reactions to the horrors of war. After Chernov escaped Mariupol after 20 days, a postscript tells the audience that Mariupol eventually fell after 86 days, which means the footage you see wasn’t even a quarter of the horrors that the civilians had to endure. While I haven’t watched the other documentaries that were nominated for the Oscar, I can easily believe that this was the best one by far.

9/10

Boys Don’t Cry (1999)

I found myself going down a trans ethics wormhole yesterday after a trans cast member of 90 Day Fiancé was accused of rape by fans because she didn’t disclose her gender history to her Moldovan partner at the beginning of the relationship. When she did disclose, in the middle of an argument, it “traumatised him” to use her words. The cast member in question had quite a caustic personality which turned off viewers which is why I think they were quick to tar her with the “rape” brush. Meanwhile, a previous cast member, who also didn’t disclose beforehand (his partner only found out through his Instagram page), was not treated the same way by the fanbase, because he was much more amiable and his partner was fully accepting of his trans status.

The ethical debate led me down a long rabbit hole that didn’t end with any clear answers, but I felt the need to watch a film about trans issues afterwards just to feel more in touch with the issue. Boys Don’t Cry had been on my radar for a while, especially after it was mentioned in the episode of The Office where the Dunder Mifflin employees debate whether Hilary Swank is hot. Perhaps it’s because I got this recommendation from The Office that I underestimated how utterly gruelling and heartwrenching this film would be.

I have to say the first hour drags. We’re given piecemeal information about Brandon’s gender history and get the sense that he doesn’t even understand himself. He seems impulsive and continues to make poor decision after poor decision chasing that dopamine hit whilst hanging out with the wrong sort of people. It’s not clear why Brandon is so bad at making good decisions for himself and prioritising his safety, but perhaps he simply doesn’t have the means or was never given a good role model for taking care of oneself. The film doesn’t clarify and it can be hard to empathise with someone who purposefully engages in risky behaviour.

Brandon falls in love with Lana but this draws him closer into the orbit of ex-convicts Tom and John. There’s a sex scene where Brandon penetrates Lana with an unseen dildo and I was reminded of the ethical debate that inspired me to watch this film. During this, Lana notices Brandon’s cleavage and seems not to mind. It was hard to tell if Lana began to understand that Brandon was transgender and didn’t mind or if she couldn’t explain his gender identity (which seemed more likely, given the ignorance of all the other characters) but just felt so attached to him as a person that it wouldn’t matter anyway. It seems like a very pure sort of love that is admirable and rare that finding out they were not biologically the same gender that they presented would not sway that person’s affections. But I guess this film did want to show that kind of love, and it does drive the film going forward.

Of course, other people start finding out too, after an official letter comes for Brandon bearing his birth name. This leads to some utterly dehumanising scenes where he is stripped for Lana to see and then raped by Tom and John. Afterwards, Brandon informs the police in an excruciating scene of ignorance where the police make even more hurtful and derogatory comments that are completely free of any sort of compassion or understanding of Brandon’s trans identity. All of these scenes focus heavily on Brandon’s vagina, which is the body part he is naturally the most ashamed of and force him to reckon with the fact that he has one. With that underlying theme, this has to be one of the most challenging rape scenes I’ve ever watched in a film, even more difficult to watch than the notorious scene from Irreversible. The violence, the realistic movements of the cast and Swank’s facial expressions during this scene were a painful sight to withhold. I’m just so glad she won the Oscar for this role.

I couldn’t believe that this film had even more to offer afterwards. Brandon and Lana plan to escape together and start a new life but they are tracked down by Tom and John and Brandon is eventually killed in a tragic shooting where a mother is killed in front of her own toddler. I don’t think I’ve felt so depressed watching a film since Dancer in the Dark. I’m very glad that this film was able to bring more trans awareness to audiences but honestly, if I was trans, this film would probably terrify me into never coming out. 

It’s hard to say what I learned from this film beyond the glaring fact that trans people (and, more broadly LGBT+ people) face dangerous persecution and lack of awareness around the world. It was fascinating to see a film use an utterly imperfect character like Brandon as a martyr because usually those flaws make it harder to empathise. In this case, however, it seemed as if Brandon didn’t even have a full awareness of what it meant to be trans and even explain himself. This made him a victim of his own self-doubt as well as everyone else’s persecution.

Overall, this was a truly dark, depressing film but I think it covered its subject matter exceptionally. Hilary Swank was impeccable.

9/10

Dune (2021)

I was deeply unimpressed by Dune when I saw it at the cinema three years ago, and was subsequently shocked at all the hype around it. It put me to sleep because it was so dull. I was also upset because the marketing for Dune did not emphasise that it was only the first part of a story; I had fully expected to have a complete tale told when I walked into the cinema.

But the plaudits this film received made me doubt my opinion of Dune. And in the last two weeks, the way people have been fervently flocking to theatres to witness Dune: Part Two made me experience some FOMO, so I decided to give Dune another chance to see if I should also try to have an enjoyable time at the cinema with Dune: Part Two.

What I found was validation of my initial feelings and a more acute sense of why I couldn’t get behind this 150-minute slog. The film’s entire first hour is dedicated to exposition, and it’s exhausting. Some exposition is usually needed, especially in a sci-fi tale, but the film spends way too long trying to educate the viewers on all of the politics and intricacies of this universe. There has to be a more efficient way of doing this that doesn’t rely on so much talking.

In 2021, I was completely unprepared for that amount of exposition and quickly lost track of what was going on, meaning I was utterly confused about who the Fremen and the Harkonnens were (basically Arabs and Europeans) and why Paul Atreides was important. The second time around, I had the option of subtitles and made a concerted effort to actually try and learn during the exposition so that I could maybe enjoy the rest of the film.

But even after the film has given all the context you need, you’re left with these incredibly bland, cardboard characters that only present one emotion. The mother, for example, is constantly anxious and worried. The father is very serious. Paul is angsty and driven. Stellan Skarsgård is… evil. We only see that side of them and they don’t feel like three-dimensional characters. And they’re not even likeable! Jason Momoa is the only actor that shows an ounce of charisma in this film and he’s barely in it and dies halfway through.

And does anything remotely interesting happen? Barely. I’d say the plot is quite utterly predictable. Paul is some sort of special chosen one who is a Jesus-type figure to the Fremen and he has visions of Zendaya so obviously he’s going to find her at some point in the film. Is it any surprise that the Harkonnens break the trust and attack House Atreides? No. The only thought-provoking aspect of the plot was exactly what Frank Herbert was trying to say about the Middle East because some of it feels like an oversimplification.

The one thing you can give the film credit for is its visuals, but even then, I don’t find them particularly extraordinary. When you have millions and millions of dollars to throw at visual effects, you can expect your film to look like this. Most of the film is set on Arrakis, where everything is just various shades of yellow, and not exactly pleasant to behold. I’m simply not impressed by the CGI landscapes and backgrounds. They look fine but are standard for any modern sci-fi film. If we’re talking about desert visuals, Dune comes nowhere close to capturing the grandeur of the desert in the way that Lawrence of Arabia did.

Every way I slice it, Dune failed to impress me. I cannot tell what got people so worked up about this film beyond a well-known director remaking a well-known franchise. There’s always been the sense that David Lynch’s Dune was underwhelming and that Hollywood was giving Villeneuve the freedom to make it ‘right’ this time and I feel like that could be a part of what’s fueling the hype. Or, more likely, people just like to see Timothée Chalamet and Zendaya on screen together. Either way, it’s poor reasoning to recommend this tedious film that doesn’t even leave viewers with a satisfying ending or cliffhanger. The next one has been recommended as ‘better than the first’ but I shall not be watching it in theatres and will instead wait until it comes to streaming.

3/10

Discussion #293: Children of Men (2006)

Director: Alfonso Cuarón

I remember this film so well from my first watch just a few years after it was released that I decided to review it without rewatching it – although I’d love to if the opportunity arises. So powerful is Cuarón’s magic touch that he can make almost any scenario spellbinding, and it helps that the central premise – a world ravaged by 18 years of infertility – is so riveting.

Set in the far-flung future of… 2027, we centre on the U.K. of all places. Somehow it seems more likely that this film would have been moved from the source material to the States, but I’m glad the filmmakers didn’t change that. It helps to give the film even more identity outside of the Hollywood norm.

Cuarón’s vision of a dystopian future is haunting but believable and not based on tons of CGI or effects like Blade Runner. Cuarón lets us explore this world in the first person, using plenty of handheld camera shots that explore the surroundings just as a person would. Cuarón’s unique style is shown through his reliance on carefully choreographed long takes that will see the main characters experiencing a multitude of action and plot development all within the same shot. It’s these parts of the film that stay with me all these years later and continue to impress me.

Between Y tu mamá también and Children of Men, it was clear to me that Cuarón was a master director destined for greatness, and he proved himself yet again twice in the 2010s with two films that couldn’t be more different, Gravity and Roma. Isn’t it about time we had another Cuarón film?

9/10

Discussion #292: Chariots of Fire (1981)

Director: Hugh Hudson

A film I knew about from a young age – especially since Vangelis’s central theme has often been copied or used in parodies where people are running in slow motion – but had somehow never seen until attempting the list. Honestly, the beach running scene is probably the best thing about it. In fact, it’s so good that the filmmakers decided to use it twice, at the beginning and end of the film.

Other than that legendary scene, this is one of the most humdrum sports dramas I’ve ever watched, about two British athletes who become Olympic champions. Okay, they face a little bit of religious persecution too, but really it’s not enough to keep me fascinated. Besides some interesting historical details from the interwar period, there was nothing too captivating about the cinematography in this period piece. It felt like it was deliberately as boring as possible, with the director taking very few risks.

Somehow, this film was a big earner and won the Academy Award for Best Picture along with many others and, as The Crown pointed out, was a big earner for Mohamed Al-Fayed. I feel like Vangelis’s soundtrack may have played a big part in making this film as successful as it is. For those less cynical than myself, why do you think this film is so great?

3/10