I Am (Not) van Gogh (2006)
I Love My Wife (2020)
Il Divo (2008)
In the Mood for Love (2000)
An Innocent Love (1982)
The Intervention (2004)
The River (1951)

I Am (Not) van Gogh (2006)

An underfunded moviemaker seeks financial backing for a short film about mad, misfit, misunderstood artists and art. This is that short, which unfolds as a pitch to a skeptical panel at Seattle’s Bumbershoot art festival.

It’s amusing and mildly manic, made with a mix of stop-motion animation and man-on-the-street imagery by David Russo, who later made the marvelous Immaculate Conception of Little Dizzle. If you’ve seen both, you’ll recognize the fish.

Verdict: YES.

♦ ♦ ♦

I Love My Wife (2020)

After his wife, Arlene Greenbaum, died in 1945, the brilliant Brooklynesque physicist Richard Feynman wrote her a love letter. Long after Feynman’s death, the letter was read for this six minute short, with just the right inflection and actors playing Richard and Arlene.

It’s intended to be sweet and jerk out some tears, and it succeeds.

Verdict: YES.

♦ ♦ ♦

Il Divo (2008)

This is a political biopic for Giulio Andreotti, long-time prime minister of Italy who wanted to run for president. Possibly, an audience that knows something about Italian politics (like, for example, that they have both a president and a prime minister) would enjoy this flick more, but there’s nobody more ignorant of such stuff than me, and I enjoyed the heck out of Il Divo.

The movie makes no attempt to tell us about Andreotti’s past; he is simply there, and has always been there. Which is nearly accurate: he was prime minister through seven presidential administrations.

And yet, he was found guilty of murder (and later acquitted) and widely held to be Mafia-backed all through his career. The actor playing Andreotti makes him a dweebishly meek and gentle soul who couldn’t possibly cause trouble, but who’s coincidentally trouble-adjacent… again and again. And after every round of trouble, he drinks an Italian Alka-Seltzer.

When he’s finally charged, Andreotti protests his innocence. ‘Never ever met that guy,’ and ‘I have no recollection,’ etc. The movie leaves enough wiggle room, you can decide his guilt or innocence for yourself, or he’s been dead for 30+ years so you could argue that it doesn’t matter.

What matters is, the movie is thrilling, imaginative, and lovably weird. It’s about politics, but also fits snugly into the Mafia genre, between Goodfellas and The Godfather. Time after time someone’s forced into ‘suicide’ or simply machine-gunned, and then it’s plop plop fizz fizz, Giulio needs another Italian Alka-Seltzer.

Visually, the film is stylized with fluid, dazzling camerawork. Even the chyrons on screen, telling you who’s who, twirl and tumble around. The music comes and goes and adds punctuation. Nothing misfires, it’s all mesmerizing, and smudges the line that supposedly separates government from organized crime.

Verdict: YES.

♦ ♦ ♦

In the Mood for Love (2000)

Hong Kong, 1962, is a city so crowded that even people who aren’t particularly poor can only afford a rented room in a stranger’s house. A married couple rents a room; another married couple rents the room down the hall.

Well, that explains it, but both explanations are lies. As the man and woman left behind (Tony Leung, Maggie Cheung) keep bumping into each other in the hallway, it becomes clear that their missing spouses are unfaithful, often.

The lonely neighbors become neighborly, and as they speak, avoiding flirting, the kiss you think is inevitable is delayed, longer and longer, until they refuse to do what would be easiest. They’re moral, imagine that, and decide not to do the doublecross their spouses have done.

The movie’s title, then, is incorrect: neither of these people are in the mood for love. They spend so much time politely sidestepping any romantic intentions, the film reminds me of The Remains of the Day, another movie about love unspoken and unpursued. The comparison is a compliment to both films.

Smashing in its quietness, and beautifully filmed, In the Mood for Love is far more compelling than if they’d kissed, snuggled, and boinked. No rocks are gotten off, unless you have a thing for excellent moviemaking.

Verdict: BIG YES.

♦ ♦ ♦

An Innocent Love (1982)

Harry (Doug McKeon) is a 14-year-old egghead who needs money to travel to an eclipse, so he answers an ad to tutor Molly, a 19-year-old college student (Melissa Sue Anderson, oldest daughter from Little House on the Prairie).

Of course, Harry falls for Molly, which makes math lessons awkward, but I’m barely here for the drama. This made-for-TV movie was was on my list because it was filmed in Seattle, and not many movies are. Most movies set here merely have backdrop shots of the Space Needle, etc, but this was actually, honestly filmed here. There’s a scene set on a ferry ride across Puget Sound, several rowing scenes on the Montlake Cut, and credits that swoop all over the University of Washington campus.

Other than the scenery, the movie is piffle, and the copy I watched is strangely jittery, (see 33:50, 41:10, etc). The glitches were presumably added when the movie was filmed off a TV screen with a cell phone, and it makes some scenes delightfully trippy. Other than that, though, I gotta say…

Verdict: NO.

♦ ♦ ♦

The Intervention (2004)

An intervention (you hope you don’t know) is when friends gang up on someone to get them to admit a problem — alcoholism or drug addiction, usually. In this 15-minute short from the Duplass brothers (Safety Not Guaranteed), the intervention is about other things.

It’s droll and enjoyable, and also uncomfortable. But mostly, droll.

Verdict: YES.

♦ ♦ ♦

The River (1951)

Jean Renoir made Grand Illusion, The Rules of the Game, and some other terrific movies in his native French, and also made movies in English, including this one. It’s extremely English, in more than the language.

It’s a coming-of-age story about a young white girl in colonial India who believes she’s an “ugly duckling,” but develops a crush on a handsome visitor. Her sister, older and prettier, is her competition, while a third young woman — half-English, half-Indian — is also attracted to the visitor, but realizes that she won’t really be allowed a chance, because of her Indian half.

All these elements work well, and there’s undeniably kickass scripting, too, by Renoir and Rumer Godden, who wrote the novel The River is based upon. It was filmed in superb Technicolor on location in India, with views of the everpresent Ganges River intended as symbolism for the peaceful, quiet, everpresent natives.

And oof, there’s the problem — the colonialism and assumed superiority of white folks colors everything in this movie, and that color is white. The Indians themselves are background, almost as much as the trees, villages, cattle, and the river. All the Indians with speaking parts are domestic staff, or the children of staff. Only the white folks have any agency.

You could almost overlook that, cuz like I said, the movie is very good, but the narration is white on white and never lets up. Off-camera all through the movie, an upscale English woman’s voice explains about Indian people and Indian life, and her facts are factual, but it’s oof again. Hearing India and Indians explained in an English accent during the colonial era, with no counterpoint, is like getting only the plantation owner’s perspective on slavery.

Racism was ordinary in old movies, of course, and nobody in this film is openly cruel to the natives. For 1951, treating the natives with a hint of respect was progressive as fuck. Problem is, that hint is all you’ll get.

Verdict: YES.

12/5/2025

If you can’t find a movie I’ve mentioned, or you have a recommendation, please drop me a note.

Logo illustration by Jeff Meyer. No talking once the lights dim, and only real butter on the popcorn, not that fake yellow stuff.

Neverending Film Festival

itsdougholland.com
← PREVIOUS           NEXT →