Two films which seem to extensively reference cinema and
literature.

I own DVDs of all of Hal Hartley's films (sometimes 2-3
versions) but could never get myself to buy _No Such Thing_.
Rewatching it now, I realize the story is really well
constructed, even if the execution is poor. The film starts
with the Monster (Robert John Burke) lamenting on his fading
power and violence, yet remaining indestructable. Then it
turns to Sarah Polley's innocent reporter Beatrice, looking
for her boyfriend in Iceland (killed by the Monster) and
suffers a plane crash. Burke's blood-thirsty, anguished
Monster and Nordic setting obviously references the Mary
Shelley novella, but in a way it is Julie Christie's Dr.
Anna, who operates on and saves Beatrice, who is the true
Frankenstein. Polley's sweet anti-Monster is treated
like Princess Diana, a modern day miracle, by the desperate
citizens of a world gone mad. (The film was made just after
9/11, and terrorism, sarin gas, riots, and worse are rampant.)
She entices the Monster to go to New York and find the crackpot
doctor who can put him out of his misery. (Is Polley meant
to be Hwi Noree to Burke's God Emperor of Dune, almost
genetically programmed to seduce him?) They are betrayed
by Beatrice's headline-hungry editor who sells him to
the U.S. military. (An ode to _King Kong_ here, with
Polley in a Jessica Lange-style S&M dress too.) They
escape with the crackpot doctor, go back to Iceland, and
with Dr. Anna's help, euthanizes the Monster in a scene
reminscent of Beatrice's life-saving surgery. Life, death,
innocence, corruption, and science that does good rather
than evil -- very thought-provoking stuff.

If only the dialog were as sharp as in _Amateur_ or _Henry
Fool_. Instead characters (especially Burke) feel stranded
as they go on their histrionic, uninspired monologues. The
stonefaced Icelandic characters should fit Hartley's deadpan
style to a T, but they never have enough to do to convince.
And at the center, Sarah Polley is a bland, miserably inadequate
presence. The film might have worked if a young Julie Christie
or Lena Stolze were available, but the overrated Polley
absolutely dooms the project. (In interviews she said she was
inspired by _The Thin Red Line_ to become a director, so
maybe I should cut her some slack ...)

---------------------------------------------------------
_Valley of the Gods_ needs to have a 5-star rating. Not
because it is remotely lucid in its story-telling, but it
is one-of-a-kind and its ambition needs to be acknowledged.
One hopes the investors didn't go bankrupt of course.
(It seems to be state-funded; surely Poland has better
needs for money, but who am I to judge!)

_Valley_ evokes Kubrick (the David Bowman actor from _2001_
has a small role) but also Lynch and Malick (the theater-of-
the-mind dungeons recall _Knight of Cups); the science fiction
film-within-a-film (accompanied by the aria from "Norma")
self-consciously evokes _2046_. The immaculate garden screams
_Last Year at Marienbad_. The editing is nowhere as meticulous
as in _2046_ and _Marienbad_ though, and the way the director
treats his minor characters as marionettes rather than real
human beings ultimately marks him a toy-maker in the vein of
Kubrick: technically gifted and innovative, but limited.

Still, the Utah vistas and production designs are worth
a look (or two). Is the Rolls Royce catapult scene
"inspired" by Elon Musk shooting his Tesla into outer space?
Speaking of overweening egos: Bérénice Marlohe is in the
film and her character also strangely ties this film to
_Skyfall_, about another male ego trip, a fantastical villain,
exotic locations, and expandable female characters. _Valley_
does look like it has a James Bond-sized budget, but at least
its director seems to know it is an auto-critique of his
own center-of-the-universe worldview. For all its wide-angle
shots, it does seem smaller in scope than the director's
expansive _The Mill and the Cross_.

(for A., who suffered through _The Mill and the Cross_ with me)