Movie review by Greg Carlson

Along with Stanley Kubrick’s proposed epic “Napoleon,” a film adaptation of Frank Herbert’s “Dune” that was to be directed by Chilean-born esotericist and spiritual guru Alejandro Jodorwosky is often listed as one of the “greatest films never made.” First pitched to the cult filmmaker by French producer Michel Seydoux in the 1970s, “Dune” would fuel Jodorowsky’s imagination and consume his creative energy (and a pile of money) for many months. Director Frank Pavich, relying on the incredible contents of the legendary book that was assembled to pre-visualize the transmutation and lure studio investors, has made in “Jodorowsky’s Dune” a movie for movie fans as well as dreamers of all kinds.

Once Jodorowsky, who claims he committed to “Dune” without having read the novel, launched himself at the material like a high-dive cannonballer, he set about assembling an Avengers-like super squad of like-minded “spiritual warriors” who could help realize his kaleidoscopic vision. Pavich spends a significant amount of time investigating the production team. Several members, including longtime Jodorowsky associate Jean “Moebius” Girard, Swiss master of the macabre H.R. Giger, and sci-fi illustrator and spacecraft specialist Chris Foss, share their impressive artwork and their memories of working with Jodorowsky.

Jodorowsky’s penchant for Jungian synchronicities – he seems to have bumped into several of his dream collaborators by chance immediately after thinking about them – is a little bit too good to be true, but the man’s childlike enthusiasm excuses some of his taller tales. Additionally, Jodorowsky speaks with no filter (“You need to open the costume and rape the bride. I was raping Frank Herbert! Raping! But with love”) and his easy blending of the sacred and the profane confirms the wild image of the man who made “El Topo” and “The Holy Mountain.”

With focus squarely on the irrepressible Jodorowsky, Pavich is less interested in some of the other aspects of the convoluted journey of “Dune” from page to screen. He skips serious consideration of the text as a giant slayer, withholding mention of Herbert’s own interests in the project and the Arthur Jacobs version that David Lean planned to direct. The Ridley Scott attempt, which occurred between Jodorowsky’s involvement and the eventual David Lynch realization, is ignored even though Pavich goes out of his way (and a little overboard) to establish the vast influence of the Jodorowsky pre-production materials on “Alien” and a legion of subsequent science fiction movies.

Jodorowsky, now in his 80s, loquaciously holds forth on every detail he can recall or invent. In one fascinating anecdote, master visual effects supervisor Douglas Trumbull gets thrown under the bus in favor of Dan O’Bannon, who would end up dropping everything to move to Paris to work on “Dune.” Jodorowsky proves no less ambitious in the courtship of his on-camera talent, and his wish list includes the likes of Mick Jagger, Orson Welles (as Baron Harkonnen, of course), Salvador Dali, and David Carradine. The effect is meant to evoke an incredulous “what might have been” lament from the viewer, but it is far more likely that Pavich’s warm and funny chronicle of such a beautiful near miss/long shot burnishes a mythology more satisfying than the reality of what Jodorowsky would have been able to bring to the screen.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

Sharing connections with science fiction movies as wildly different as “The Man Who Fell to Earth,” “The Brother from Another Planet,” “Lifeforce,” and “Species,” “Under the Skin” represents director Jonathan Glazer’s boldest and most satisfying work to date. As hypnotic, hallucinogenic, and inscrutable as some of Stanley Kubrick’s most artful filmmaking, “Under the Skin” demands multiple viewings to process the exhilarating effects of its image-driven, pure cinema. Anchored by a confident performance by Scarlett Johansson as an alien who guides male quarry to their oblivion, Glazer’s ambitions go well beyond the deceptively simple storyline.

The director completely reimagines Michel Faber’s 2000 novel of the same title, withholding significant elements of plot while retaining the thematic heart of the central figure’s journey of self-discovery. On paper, Faber’s preoccupation with the welfare of animals processed for consumption as food is manifested in a Swiftian allegory that Glazer almost entirely eliminates, throwing over the novelist’s dark satire of greedy business practices and the gulf between poverty and privilege for a subjective experience that deliberately defies easy explanation.

“Under the Skin” is filled with episodes and moments that shimmer and vibrate with dread and anxiety, yet the viewer is also invited to share the alien’s curiosity at the ways of our world. There is no doubt that some will grow impatient with Glazer’s cryptic puzzles. Johansson’s extra-terrestrial works with a motorcycling, male-inhabiting counterpart, but any expository conversation between the two is suppressed and the figure remains an enigma upon which we can only speculate. That relationship alludes to the book, as does a scene in which the protagonist meets her match in a rich piece of layer cake.

The brilliance of Glazer’s reinterpretation of Faber’s world is expressed most radically in the interactions between the predator and the men she meets. Many of the film’s most unforgettable scenes, including the jaw-dropping final outcome, do not appear in the original writing. A surreal attempted rescue from drowning that ends with a stomach-turning reminder of the limits of the alien’s ability to show empathy parallels a later sequence (featuring Adam Pearson, an actor with neurofibromatosis) that may signal a turning point in the creature’s psychological development via a newfound capacity for mercy.

One of the most significant book-to-film alterations changes the alien’s method of dispatching victims. Glazer omits the novel’s needle-injected anesthetic – administered through passenger seat upholstery with the flick of a switch – in favor of a sensuous seduction dance that unfolds at the alien’s lair. The design of the space, cloaked in inky obscurity but for an eerie and reflective surface tension on the floor, is as disorienting as the sight of the disrobing couple is pulse-quickening. Once submerged in the liquid suspension that bears the weight of the alien like an unholy corruption of Christ’s miracle at the Sea of Galilee, fate is sealed and the point of no return passed.

Glazer’s methods for capturing the unaffected reactions of the men who approach the alien’s van have received a great deal of attention. Shooting with hidden cameras and communicating with Johansson via an earpiece in the manner of Jean-Luc Godard on “Masculin Feminin,” “2 or 3 Things I Know About Her” and “La Chinoise,” Glazer patrolled the streets of Glasgow in search of faces that appealed to him. Only after the initial interactions were captured would the pedestrians be alerted to the unusual circumstances and offered the opportunity to fill out the necessary paperwork (a few recognized Johansson). This candid camera effect, employed to comic ends in “Borat,” is closer here in application to Yimou Zhang’s “The Story of Qiu Ju,” raising a few tantalizing ethical questions in regard to its documentary-like, observational aura.

Johansson’s character, unnamed in the film, is called Isserley in the novel, and the reader is offered more detailed explanations about her sinister vocation on Earth than Glazer does on screen. Faber reminds us often that Isserley has endured a monumental physical sacrifice to pass for human, and the book makes constant reference to Isserley’s spinal pain. The rich subtext concerning body image and sexual attractiveness remains an essential component in Glazer’s vision, and “Under the Skin” has already been pegged as both a deconstruction/inversion of rape culture and a willing participant in traditional cinematic objectification of the female body. That the text can sustain both of these disparate interpretations is but one measure of its magnetic pull.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

Using Steve Rogers’ status as a man out of time, “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” grafts civil liberties-oriented political critique to its machine-tooled visual effects exoskeleton. Directed by brothers Anthony and Joe Russo, much loved for their Emmy-winning work on the “Arrested Development” pilot and less so for “You, Me and Dupree,” the new installment revels in the muchness that has come to define the Marvel movie model. Chris Evans returns as the Cap, now more attuned to the rhythms of the Internet age but still longing for the WW 2-era purity that continues to inform his moral convictions and unwavering sense of right and wrong.

Captain America’s absolutism clashes with the gray shades of Nick Fury’s (Samuel L. Jackson) post-9/11 model of preemption, but the hero continues to serve S.H.I.E.L.D. in spite of his reservations about the organization’s Big Brother-like dependence on electronic surveillance and espionage, not to mention the group’s failure to be either accountable or transparent. Critics have eagerly made comparisons between “The Winter Soldier” and any number of 1970s political thrillers, inevitable given the presence of “Three Days of the Condor” star Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce, a secretive World Security Council member with ulterior motives.

The borderline naivete guiding Steve begs for the presence of a cynical, wisecracking partner, and screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely supply a good one in Scarlett Johansson’s Natasha “Black Widow” Romanoff. Making her third appearance as the shadowy former KGB operative, Johansson’s character now shares the screen as Captain America’s equal. Post-Cold War cuddles aren’t in the cards – one running gag has Natasha serving as Steve’s matchmaker – but the stark differences between the two (he tries hard to never lie and she struggles to tell the truth) breathe some life into the moments between the punching, kicking, and shooting.

Plot overkill is common currency in the superhero sequel, and “The Winter Soldier” weaves so many different threads it is no wonder Kevin Feige claims to have mapped the Marvel cinematic universe through the year 2028. In addition to dealing with the fate of Nick Fury, the identity of the Winter Soldier (which is no surprise for comic book readers), and introducing Anthony Mackie as the Falcon, the movie crams in references direct or indirect to Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch – called “Miracles” to distinguish the mutants from the Fox-controlled “X-Men” franchise – Iron Man, Crossbones, Stephen Strange, Baron Wolfgang von Strucker, and even Batroc the Leaper. While much of this stuff is incidental to the main course, it all leads to 2015’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” Joss Whedon’s highly anticipated juggernaut-to-be.

The serialized, pulpy, soap opera storylines that have sustained comic books for decades might be better suited to the episodic nature of television, but the big budget scale of CG photorealism provides an appealing platform for Marvel’s HYDRA-headed product, especially for viewers who started with the comics. Those who did not might echo Eric Henderson’s argument that the Marvel films are cyclical and “samey,” each one “a warmly welcomed commercial for the next in line.” Of course, nostalgia makes it easier to argue that Joe Simon and Jack Kirby’s medium is superior to the silver screen as mode of delivery for the most satisfying incarnation of the red, white, and blue shield-bearer. One thing is fairly certain: as long as people fantasize about transformative physical prowess and superhuman skill sets, those colorful characters won’t ever be too far away.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

The winning, off-center rockumentary “Mistaken for Strangers” examines the fraternal rivalry of siblings Matt and Tom Berninger – the former the driven and successful lead singer of Grammy-nominated critical darlings The National and the latter a part-time moviemaker and full-time slacker who still lives with his parents in Cincinnati. Directed by Tom, the movie focuses less on the band’s music, although there are many shots of the musicians on stage during the world tour supporting “High Violet,” and more on the psychological insecurities that emerge when only one of two brothers with artistic aspirations attains the adulation and validation that comes with fame.

At the outset of the story, Tom accepts a position as a roadie/gopher with The National, even though he makes clear his intentions to record some kind of behind-the-scenes document of the experience. By way of claiming cinematic bona fides, Tom shows a few clips from his micro-budgeted splatter movies “From the Dirt Under His Nails” (“It’s about an insane animal trapper who resurrects the dead”) and “Wages of Sin” (“This one’s about a barbarian with an identity crisis who also goes through a murderous rampage”). Tom’s “American Movie”-esque cluelessness persuades the audience to root for him as a lovable loser underdog, but the film’s construction suggests a calculated level of comic self-awareness.

We are led to believe that Tom’s relationship to Matt affords him great access to the band and their admirers, but Tom’s incessant incompetence irritates tour manager and sound engineer Brandon Reid, as well as every other person who crosses Tom’s path. Tom arranges individual interviews with members of The National, always popping fatuous, idiotic questions that would be right at home in “This Is Spinal Tap.” He asks things like where The National will be in fifty years and whether band members go on stage with their wallets and identification. He talks his subjects into performing embarrassing bits of dialogue and arty turns to the camera. All of this is very funny, even if a great deal of it feels too good to be true.

At a tight 75 minutes, “Mistaken for Strangers” is not a concert film, and none of the songs are performed without editors Tom and Carin Besser (Matt’s spouse and one of the movie’s producers) cutting away to the next of Tom’s bumbling misadventures. Tom plays up his outsider-looking-in status, grumbling about the simple tasks he is asked, and usually fails, to complete. His camera catches National fans like Werner Herzog, Emily Blunt, John Krasinski, Will Arnett, and during a political rally in Madison, Barack Obama. But Tom’s stargazing, boozing, and general irresponsibility come to an inevitable head, setting up the movie’s final act and the circumstances for Tom’s last shot at redemption.

Near the end of the film, while Tom is deep in post-production on the doc and his disorganized and illogical system of color-coded sticky notes inspires little confidence in fruitful completion, he addresses the camera: “Having Matt as my older brother kind of sucks because he’s a rock star and I am not.” The declaration, as obvious as everything else Tom has blurted, effectively summarizes the film’s agenda and sets up its triumphant conclusion, a killer performance of “Terrible Love” in which we see Matt sing his way off the stage and through the crowd while Tom follows behind, untangling the microphone cable, minding his big brother’s safety, and making peace with his spot in the shadows.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

The U.S. on-demand and theatrical release of the second volume of Lars von Trier’s “Nymphomaniac” picks up the confessional discourse between Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard) following the former’s rescue by the latter from a nearby alley. The second installment retains the episodic structure of the first while revealing critical information about the conversationalists that leads to a conclusion typical of von Trier’s longstanding curiosity about gender disparity. In several ways, “Vol. II” intensifies the black comedy and the melodrama introduced in the previous section, leading one to wonder how the longer, more explicit and expansive cut of the film would unfold as a viewing experience.

The most disquieting disclosure in “Vol. II” belongs not to the seemingly limitless Joe, but rather to Seligman, who divulges news that reframes his relationship to Joe and infuses the film with a previously absent urgency: Seligman admits that he is asexual and a virgin. The startling news serves the narrative as a dramatic turning point and also sets up the climax. Now, more than ever, “Nymphomaniac” mirrors “One Thousand and One Nights.” Seligman’s interest in Joe ceases to be strictly academic, and the tension accompanying his admission aligns him with the dangerous and capricious misogyny of Shahryar. Joe plays Scheherazade to Seligman’s Shahryar, and while her tales are represented by a chiliad of often anonymous sexual partners, the measure of her self-knowledge parallels the keenness of the legendary Persian queen.

“Vol. II” contains the final three chapters of the story, and among the most absorbing and challenging of the entire “Nymphomaniac” octet is “The Eastern and the Western Church (The Silent Duck),” a consideration of sadomasochism featuring Jamie Bell as K, a meticulous inflictor of lacerating punishment on willing subjects. A number of critics, including Richard Brody and Ben Brock, have suggested that the scenes with K are directed with an energy and style distinct from the remainder of the film’s contents. These assertions are attributable in part to von Trier’s investment in K as a character. A strong argument could be made that the filmmaker treats Uma Thurman’s Mrs. H in “Vol. I” in a similar way, although a handful of other performers, including Willem Dafoe and Mia Goth, manage to work around some of the deliberately mannered dialogue.

Von Trier happily acknowledges the unlikely coincidences that fuel so much literature, inserting several meta-comments in the framing scenes between Joe and Seligman, whose name may be a reference to the psychologist who developed the theory of learned helplessness. The filmmaker expands his palette of asides, introducing references to the Prusik knot (which Joe thinks is one of Seligman’s weakest digressions), Empress Messalina and the Whore of Babylon, the Stations of the Cross, and the full-circle return of the Fibonacci sequence in correlation to pelvic thrusts. The prominence of these detours and deflections shifts them from subordination to a status of priority and reinforces the notion that von Trier is an artist for whom the Verfremdungseffekt is a critical storytelling objective.

Prior to pulling the trigger of Chekhov’s gun, von Trier gives Seligman a speech in which he marvels at the double standards society has established for women. Seligman notes that men get a pass if they abandon or neglect their family responsibilities, but if women do it, the consequences are dire. Joe, whose behavior at one point imperils her son in an echo of the opening scene of “Antichrist,” describes herself as a bad person, but it seems clear that von Trier does not agree. Like Bess McNeill, Selma Jezkova, and Grace Margaret Mulligan, Joe may be added to the list of complicated sufferers so close to von Trier’s heart. “Nymphomaniac” may not be as initially satisfying or as emotionally devastating as “Breaking the Waves,” “Dancer in the Dark,” or “Dogville,” but it affirms its creator as a formidable cinematic talent with much left to say.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

Wes Anderson’s remarkable, singular vision continues to flower in “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” the auteur’s tantalizing, beguiling eighth feature. Adorned with the director’s immediately recognizable hallmarks – summarized effectively by an “Onion” gag headlined “Wes Anderson Reteams with Favorite Objects for ‘Grand Budapest Hotel’” – the film is among Anderson’s most satisfying and rewarding experiences. Set mostly in 1932 in a pop-up storybook fantasyland called the Republic of Zubrowka, a fading, old world relic of the Austro-Hungarian Empire on the eve of war, collapse, and ruin, “The Grand Budapest Hotel” concludes with a title indicating Anderson’s indebtedness to the suicidal Viennese writer Stefan Zweig, whose memoir “The World of Yesterday” might very well be the movie’s subtitle, if not an apt description of Anderson’s overarching career raison d’etre.

Recounted via nested flashbacks that come to rest on the almost square aspect ratio evocative of the Academy standard of Hollywood’s golden age, “The Grand Budapest Hotel” employs an army of appealing performers, several of them Anderson regulars, in support of a madcap murder mystery/art theft caper that threatens to swallow up the sexually omnivorous gigolo Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes), the fastidious steward of the title resort who uses his position to seduce and comfort the aged clientele. When Gustave is bequeathed the fictional Johannes Van Hoytl the Younger’s “Boy with Apple,” a priceless Renaissance portrait containing several juicy symbols paralleling Gustave’s epicurean decadence, Anderson operationalizes the painting as the film’s MacGuffin.

Channeling several of Edward Everett Horton’s fey, well-dressed gentlemen of indeterminate proclivity displayed to dizzying effect in the films of Ernst Lubitsch and alongside Astaire and Rogers, Fiennes captivates and charms, through and through. Gustave’s half genuine, half ersatz urbanity and refinement, scented by the pungent aroma of L’Air de Panache, the astringent cologne he liberally applies, is betrayed by the man’s equally luxuriant deployment of coarse, hilarious profanity. Like Gene Hackman as Royal Tenenbaum, Fiennes has located one of his finest career performances in the unlikeliest of places.

Gustave’s assistant and partner in scandal is lobby boy in training Zero Moustafa (Tony Revolori), the movie’s central observer and audience surrogate. A quick study under Gustave’s precise tutelage, Zero falls for pastry chef Agatha (Saoirse Ronan), whose pastel hued Courtesan au Chocolat confections arrive in the collapsible pink packages of Mendl’s bakery, their ribbon-secured sides inspiring the kind of delectation that accompanies the sight of a Tiffany Blue Box. Ronan’s talent commands attention, and the alluring Agatha, with her prominent facial birthmark, is the movie’s inscrutable Mona Lisa.

Unquestionably, the central relationship of “The Grand Budapest Hotel” belongs to Gustave and Zero, but I wanted to see more of Agatha, or for that matter, any female with something of significance to contribute. Of the seventeen stars who adorn the movie’s lovely one sheet, only three are women. Of those three, Lea Seydoux’s chambermaid Clotilde appears fleetingly and Tilda Swinton’s mummified dowager takes a rather abrupt powder. Anderson is no misogynist, but the male-centric focus of nearly every film in his oeuvre indicates an ongoing delinquency.

Anderson furnishes “The Grand Budapest Hotel” with a carnival of brilliantly executed set pieces. Scale models of funicular railway cabins elevate guests to the opulent spa. A wild, awe-inspiring ski chase is executed in mischievous miniature. A hilarious interlude behind bars is capped by one of cinema’s most satisfying and hysterical prison breaks. A droll series of single shots reveals a secret society of hotel concierges, and all the while Anderson’s impeccable sense of timing and cinematic choreography marries high and low comedy in harmonious union.

Underneath the frantic shenanigans, however, Anderson sustains his longstanding warmth and affection for these outré eccentrics, and “The Grand Budapest Hotel” never misses a step in its combination of the comic and the melancholic. With a light touch that has invited multiple comparisons to Lubitsch, Anderson incorporates enough political subtext to acknowledge the rise of Nazism and anti-Semitism that would envelop Europe and initiate the Holocaust. Like so many of his films, “The Grand Budapest Hotel” can conjure smiles and tears at a single image or line of dialogue.

Michael Chabon, in his introduction to Matt Zoller Seitz’s indispensable “The Wes Anderson Collection” (which will soon require an updated edition), writes, “With each of his films, Anderson’s total command of detail – both the physical detail of his sets and costumes, and the emotional detail of the uniformly beautiful performances he elicits from his actors – has enabled him to increase the persuasiveness of his own family Zemblas, without sacrificing any of the paradoxical emotional power that distance affords.” The book was published prior to the release of Anderson’s newest movie, but Chabon’s thoughts, linking the filmmaker to Vladimir Nabokov and Joseph Cornell, could be readily applied to “The Grand Budapest Hotel” and, one presumes and hopes, many more stories to come.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

“Nymphomaniac” constitutes the third and final installment in Lars von Trier’s “Depression Trilogy,” presumably inspired by the filmmaker’s own long-term struggles with dejection and despair. The release of the movie, in keeping with von Trier’s always calculated relationship with both gatekeepers and the public, has included festival screenings of the uncut epic as well as a staggered U.S. premiere in two truncated parts available on demand and in limited theatrical engagements. Like several of the director’s previous films, “Nymphomaniac” employs a structure reliant on episodic chapters, and “Vol. I” covers the first five of a total eight stories related by Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) to Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard) on the topic of her lifelong sexual odyssey.

Von Trier, whose formal rigor and arch sense of humor have rendered him mostly immune to dismissive pop critics, constructs a hysterical, onyx black comedy throughout much of “Vol. I.” Writers have already descended on the bruising, blunt ridiculousness of the fly fishing metaphor proposed by Seligman near the start of Joe’s confessions. Von Trier goes on to explore his appetite for visually arresting experimentation, displaying on screen numbers aligned with the Fibonacci sequence and golden spiral, graphic diagrams, photographs of flaccid members of varying shapes and sizes, stock footage, split screens, triptychs, and an homage to Muybridge’s motion studies. Musical juxtaposition, ranging from Rammstein’s “Fuhre mich” to Bach’s “Ich ruf zu dir, herr Jesu Christ” from “The Little Organ Book” provides perfect counterpoint to both Joe’s self-described rake’s progress and the sustained discussion of polyphony she shares with Seligman.

The vignette approach, accomplished via a series of flashbacks in which the younger Joe is played by Stacy Martin, invites comparisons among the quintet of reminiscences and some are stronger than others. The third chapter, titled “Mrs. H.,” a thermonuclear confrontation showcasing a blistering and brilliant Uma Thurman as the wronged wife of one of Joe’s lovers, lays bare the toll of adultery. Simultaneously nerve-wracking and wildly, uncomfortably funny, the stormy meltdown is the film’s most successful and fully realized sequence. Elements of other chapters carom from the haunting to the risible, fueled regularly by Seligman’s idiotic exclamations. On the subject of Joe’s hunt for potential conquests on a train during a sex contest, Seligman, straight-faced, excitedly spouts: “You were reading the river!”

Near the end of the credit crawl that closes the film, a caveat claims that “None of the professional actors had penetrative sexual intercourse and all such scenes were performed by body doubles.” The statement, it turns out, may be more provocative than the inclusion of hardcore acts in a “serious” art film, but it does raise the issue of boundaries and limits for “professional actors” applying their craft. Once the checks are signed and the cameras roll, are not the body doubles also professional actors? Conversations with some overlapping and corresponding themes accompanied movies as far ranging as “Last Tango in Paris,” “Don’t Look Now,” “Caligula,” “Baise-moi,” “The Brown Bunny,” “9 Songs,” and multiple films by Catherine Breillat. Simulacra or not, the eternally impish, Cannes persona non grata von Trier knows full well the value of attracting attention.

Setting aside the promise of debauched spectacle, I have always admired the way the filmmaker embeds his largest existential queries in the most simple, direct figurations. Like Brothers Grimm fairy tales and Mother Goose nursery rhymes, von Trier cooks up his diabolical schemes with elemental elegance. Given the man’s previous depictions of sexuality on film, it should come as no surprise that the design and execution of the digitally composited carnality in “Nymphomaniac” is detached, clinical, and psychologically fraught.

Arguments attesting to or denying eroticism are moot, however, as titillation is in the eye and heartbeat of the beholder. Gender scholars will continue the now decades long examination of von Trier’s relationship to his female protagonists. One of the durable arguments on this topic questions the extent to which von Trier’s tormented women are stand-ins for the director himself. At the conclusion of “Vol. I,” Joe, panicked and distraught, cries that she can’t feel anything, but von Trier’s filmmaking certainly suggests otherwise for the inspired auteur.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

While it lacks the punch and perspicacity of Chris Hegedus and D.A. Pennebaker’s “The War Room,” Greg Whiteley’s behind-the-scenes portrait of Mitt Romney’s presidential aspirations makes for an interesting and entertaining civics lesson drama, and will be catnip to all political junkies regardless of party affiliation. Covering Romney’s bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination and the 2012 race versus Barack Obama, “Mitt” strongly suggests a privileged, inside view, even if the principal cast’s acute awareness of the unblinking eyes of the moviemaker’s ever-present cameras causes them to carefully mind and manage their words.

Undoubtedly, Whiteley is at his best as a really big fly on the wall observer of the Romney family talking strategy in one hotel suite after another. Mitt and Ann are joined by several of their five sons throughout the operation, and the pre- and post-debate and appearance conversations, though clearly guarded, are rich with the strategic minutiae that shape modern politics. As the first Mormon to earn a presidential endorsement from a major party, Romney’s religion comes up a handful of times, but beyond the authenticity and sincerity of his faith, little is made of the man’s denomination insofar as it had any impact on electability.

The movie does an admirable job of trusting the viewership’s basic understanding of the timeline and contours of the two campaigns. Whiteley makes judicious use of media footage captured at debates and on cable news outlets, often cutting away at precise moments when Romney or his rivals say something that will be parsed, dissected, and mulled later in private chambers. When it becomes apparent that the future isn’t as sunny as the team would like, Romney’s sons demonstrate a bottomless capacity for reframing, making comments of golden-spun, oxymoronic doublespeak, like the assertion that there’s a lot of “downside to winning.”

Missing from the movie are any substantive revelations from Romney on his 2012 GOP primary challengers and Whiteley glosses over potentially fascinating commentary on the likes of Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. Running mate Paul Ryan, who shows up so late in the movie his sudden appearance comes as a shock, seems to be carefully reminded that what he says is being recorded. Whiteley also skips the “binders full of women” and fails to record Romney’s reactions to the now infamous “47 percent” video, although for whatever it is worth, the director says he was not there when the latter happened and not granted access to whatever conversation the team had regarding damage control.

Whiteley acknowledges the vast wealth of the Romneys a few times, and when the topic arises, the compassionate, regular guy who understands your problems is replaced by the out-of-touch, “corporations are people, my friend,” CEO elitist. This makes it difficult to feel sorry for the Romneys on nearly any level. Even when Whiteley introduces a segment on Ann Romney’s challenges with multiple sclerosis, the accompanying explanation of her “horse therapy,” a “treatment” available only to the most well-to-do, fails to generate much sympathy.

Mitt is more than once shown tidying up his surroundings (clearing off tables, picking up trash from the balcony, and carrying room service trays), leaving the viewer to wonder whether the man is really an obsessive neat freak or just putting on a good show when the servants aren’t around. Even so, movie Mitt is far more human and sympathetic behind closed doors than he was at any point during the grind of non-stop, sleep-deprived campaigning that the public saw. It’s what the film suggests about the contemporary candidate – practiced, polished, almost machine-like in his ability to know exactly how many minutes it will take to say so many words – that inspires admiration and/or pity for anybody determined enough to make it to the national stage.

Movie review by Greg Carlson

In Gabriel DeLoach and Zach Keifer’s sharp documentary “If We Shout Loud Enough,” Double Dagger vocalist Nolen Strals introduces “Helicopter Lullaby” as a song “…about Baltimore, but it could be about anywhere.” The sentiment applies as easily to the film, a spacious, gorgeous love letter to the vital DIY punk scenes that breathe life into communities from coast to coast. Conceptualized as a drums/vocals/bass trio by Bruce Willen, Double Dagger really bloomed once Denny Bowen replaced the band’s original drummer, pounding so hard that Willen was forced to “combine four bass amps just so he could hear himself play.”

Strals and Willen, who now teach graphic design at alma mater Maryland Institute College of Art, co-founded the Post Typography creative studio, and art nerds will positively salivate at the level of detail the men bring to every facet of the Double Dagger ethos. In one sequence, Strals lays out a kaleidoscopic gallery of screen-printed gig posters and he and Willen share the story of their Arab on Radar “Beat the Meatles” announcement, a lovingly profane collage that perfectly encapsulates the ecstasy of Post Typography.

There is much more to Double Dagger than songs about CMYK printing, keyboard functions, and fonts, and DeLoach and Keifer testify to the ways that the band transcended the limitations of the “graphicdesigncore” appellation as the group’s vision expanded.

When so many punk outfits take themselves way too seriously, the witty, occasionally ejaculatory humor on display in the movie forges some conspiratorial camaraderie between the viewer and the subjects of the film. Charm City music fan Tim Kabara, identified onscreen by the title “Baltimore Music Historian,” deadpans his way through a series of direct address interstices with mock gravitas, quipping of the band’s early days that “They were chaotic. They had different members. They were trying to find their sound. They sucked.”

DeLoach and Keifer perform the due diligence of providing the necessary historical context and include talking head support from key scene members like Dan Deacon, Sam Herring, and Jenn Wasner. Unsurprisingly, though, the movie’s real firepower explodes from the sweaty immediacy of the performance footage. Many songs are included in their entirety, and the decision not to truncate the music is one of the film’s great joys. Cathartic shoutalongs like “The Psychic” and “Vivre Sans Temps Mort” will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. Like Strals leaving the stage to break down the barriers between performer and audience, DeLoach’s camera situates the viewer in the eye of the hurricane. It’s the next best thing to being there.

Like “The Last Waltz” and “Shut Up and Play the Hits,” the emotional heart of “If We Shout Loud Enough” roils and churns with the viewer’s knowledge that something really worthwhile is coming to an end. Of course, it is the finality that in part makes bearing witness so special. By the time we arrive at Double Dagger’s last show, performed October 21, 2011 at the Ottobar, the film will have made all kinds of new fans wishing they might have had the chance to see Double Dagger play live.

So get in the van. Eat bad food. Sleep only when you absolutely need it. Load in. Sound check. Create something. Make noise. Start a band.

“If We Shout Loud Enough” will play at the 14^th Fargo Film Festival on Friday, March 7 at 3:10 PM. Tickets available at the door. If you can still hear following the screening, filmmakers Gabriel DeLoach and Zach Keifer will talk about their experiences making the movie and take questions from the audience.