Reading Cinema

Christmas Films I Love

2010-12-05T14:10:00.000-08:00

December, all the decorations are out, there are lights in the streets, and there’s actually snow in London. During the holiday when I’m home I love to just sit back with some snacks, a nice beverage, in a warm living room with the snow falling just outside and watch a nice Christmas themed film or something I just watch each year because of tradition. So in this holiday spirit, I’d like to talk about some of my favorite films that I watch every Christmas. There are obviously a lot of other great Christmas classics, but these are the one's I've made a habit of watching

Mickey’s Christmas Carol

A surprisingly faithful adaptation of the classic Charles Dickens story. I’ve seen several iterations, but I must say that this one is my favorite. There are of course other really good adaptations, I personally have a weakness for the Muppet’s Christmas Carol, but the Disney version is perfect to watch on Christmas morning, I’ve watched it every Christmas my whole life. Running at about half an hour, you would think the story rather shallow, but it works really well, and manages to complete Scrooge’s story arc very effectively. The short is also beautifully animated, and it has a wonderful soundtrack and performances, particularly from the excellent Alan Young who does a great job as Scrooge.

It’s a Wonderful Life

I’ve made it a fairly new tradition to watch this every Christmas, but it is certainly a great Christmas film, really putting me in a happy mood. With a fantastic performance from James Steward and tight directing from Frank Capra, It’s a Wonderful Life is one of the all time Hollywood classics, and a film that is really worth watching again and again.

Gremlins

A somewhat more archaic holiday film, Gremlins is still packed with Christmas atmosphere and spirit, even if a whole town has to be blown to pieces to prove a point. While quite a crazy movie, it still has a lot of heart, mixed with great comedy and some fantastic gremlin ass-kicking. It might not be the standard classical fare, but there’s loads of entertainment here that will keep your mood right up during the holiday season.

The Nightmare before Christmas

A film that works both for Halloween and Christmas, the Nightmare before Christmas is a great animated musical that is just a bunch of fun. Jack Skellington has to learn the value of Christmas, but not before scaring the living daylight of every little boy and girl. The film is beautiful visually and has loads of great songs and performances that make it the holiday classic that it is.

Miracle on 34th Street

I’m talking about the 1947 original, not the 90s remake. Anyway, this is a great Christmas film, about a man who says he’s Santa Claus, and of course no one believes him. The issue is never really resolved, but rather remains ambiguous, and lets the audience themselves decide what they want to believe. A heartwarming film that doesn’t become sickly because of it and a great film to watch for Christmas.

Home Alone

Ok, I admit this is just down to pure nostalgia, but at the core of its head bashing there’s some real Christmas spirit and heart to this film. I do find it a bit harder to watch as I get older though, but sometimes the nostalgia just wins, and this is one of those cases.

Die Hard

I always watch Die Hard sometime during Christmas. It’s not strictly a Christmas movie, but it does take place during Christmas so what the hell. There’s not really much else to say about it, other than that it’s the greatest and most ass-kicking action film of all times. And it works for Christmas. Perfect!

I also enjoyed a lot of other shorts during Christmas, by favorite being Pluto’s Christmas and Santa’s Workshop, so here I present links to those excellent shorts that I watch every Christmas, hopefully you’ll enjoy them too.

Pluto's Christmas

Santa's Workshop

The Night Before Christmas

Mickey's Christmas Carol Part I
Part II
Part III

Happy Holidays!

The Great Moment (Preston Sturges, 1944)

2010-12-05T13:26:00.000-08:00

The Great Moment was the last of the Preston Sturges Universal run, and it was the film that managed to sink his career when he was on a high. There were fights with the studio, the film was shelved for quite a while, and it ruined Sturges reputation. It’s very sad, but also easy to see why, as the film is really poor, especially compared to his previous outings. It has much of the cast that Sturges used, but the film itself is structured very poorly and the story is mediocre, despite having some potential. The acting is from ok to just bad, and the characterization is poor.

The story is based on the real story of a dentist who discovers and invents anesthesia, but suffers because of it. It’s an interesting premise, where the dentist, Morton, is in some quarters lauded and praised for his discovery, while others criticize and ridicule him, either because they are jealous or because they somehow took part in the discovery and want to be part of the claim. In the end it ends very badly for Morton, as he loses everything. I shouldn’t say “by the end”, because this is how the film starts, showing us the fall from grace that he suffered, before flashing back in time to show how this came to be in the first place. The problem is that the story is told in a very tedious way, it’s actually very boring. A lot of the drama falls flat because of Joel McCrea, who while suited for Sturges comedy, doesn’t really work here. Sturges doesn’t handle the dramatics as well as one would think he could, and the structure of the film seems very muddled. Actually it’s almost ironic considering the premonition Sturges himself made in Sullivan’s Travels. Apparently this film was going to be his greatest, but it turned out so badly. One could say that the studio destroyed something as well, but there are little signs in this film of any real potential. As I said, the story has some potential but the execution is very bad.

Another problem with this “drama” is that there are indeed some comedic moments, but they really and truly fall flat and are unfunny. Because of the tone and the style of the film, the comedic just seems silly, particularly one painful slap-stick moment which is completely out of sync with the rest of the film. It seems that Sturges could make comedies with drama, but not dramas with comedy. The character progression is very sub-par compared to how Sturges works his characters in his other films, and overall I felt the film lacked the Sturges “touch”. The film is one very few would watch if it wasn’t for the fact that it was made by Sturges. The only real significance the film has is as some sort of historic document. Anyone interested in Sturges from a historical studies viewpoint should watch the film, as it is quite an astounding fall from grace. Other than being of historic interest, any regular viewer should avoid this film, and rather watch Sturges’ excellent comedy run for Universal, as these films offer so much more than The Great Moment.

The Great Moment isn’t completely BAD, it just is very mediocre. It has very little to offer in terms of comedy, drama, satire or entertainment. It’s sad that Sturges ended his Universal career like this, and while he made a few films afterwards, he never quite recovered from this bomb. Strange how a career can so quickly loop downwards.

Hail the Conquering Hero (Preston Sturges, 1944)

2010-12-05T13:24:00.000-08:00

I think that perhaps Hail the Conquering Hero is Sturges’ funniest movie, at least of the ones that I’ve seen. It’s a brilliant exercise of panicky slap-stick comedy and stinging satire. Like all his films, it’s satirical about America, but this time it focuses on hero worshiping and the illusion of heroism, as a small town is caught in the rage of celebrating their local hero. It’s about being caught in madness and hype, something that is still relevant in today’s world.

Woodrow is our protagonist and he is depressed. He’s hanging out at bars and drinking because he can’t go back home. The reason for this is that a year ago he signed up to join the Marines, only to be rejected because he has hay fewer. His father was a Marine and killed in the war when Woodrow was just an infant, and he doesn’t dare return to the shame of not having lived up to his father’s memory, so he pretends that he did join the Marines and sends his mother letters where he lies about it. One night he meets up with a group of real Marines who have leave. However, they are all broke and don’t quite know what to do with their time. However one of them is fixated on mothers because he never had one, and is infuriated at Woodrow for not having gone back to his yet. So the Marines get an idea; how about lending Woodrow one of their uniforms and going back with him pretending he was in the war, but released because of an injury. Perfect! So they all take him back to his small hometown. This is of course against his own will, as Woodrow sees the many faults that this plan could have, but they drag him along anyway. This is one of the comedic highlights of the films, and Eddie Bracken is perfect as the mumbling and unwilling Woodrow, who is extremely upset about the situation and fears being found out. However they assure him that they will be as discreet as possible, and only visit his mother for a few days, then leave.

Of course, it doesn’t quite work out like that. One of the funniest scenes is when the train Woodrow and his Marine pals are approaching the station, and the whole town has turned up, with banners and four different bands nonetheless. Mass hysteria hits the town as they want to greet their homecoming hero, including the mayor being ready with a speech and the key to the city. Woodrow’s old flame is also there, although she is engaged to another man, as Woodrow in one of his letters lied about being in love with someone else, and urging her to move on. What makes this film so funny is the juxtaposition of Woodrow’s reluctance and fear with the hysteria of the townspeople, creating many great situations. It doesn’t get any better, as soon some serious political figures in the town start thinking that Woodrow with his “charisma” and “heroism” would make a great new major, as the election is just a few days away. And Woodrow just gets dragged in deeper and deeper. Having been made during the Second World War, Sturges is quite brave to hit this particular nerve for satire. It’s a testament to how independent and sharp Sturges had become, and the film captures the American idyllic hero worshiping at its worst, clearly unraveling how ridiculous this had become by that time. It poked fun at something very central, and I would imagine hadn’t it been for the excellent humor this film would have been seen in a much more critical and controversial light. But what’s great about Sturges’ comedy is that it doesn’t take away from the satire, but strongly adds to it.

Hail the Conquering Hero is a very, very funny film. It hits all the right notes and also works extremely well as a satire of Americana, which becomes even funnier and clearer today. It’s a testament to the strength of Sturges’ filmmaking that his films manage to stay so fresh and the issues they deal with are still relevant, even more so, today. But he captured a particular spirit of the time, and for that, we should hail him.

The Palm Beach Story (Preston Sturges, 1942)

2010-12-05T13:23:00.000-08:00

Now here’s an interesting little film that Preston Sturges made. It’s a romantic comedy/screwball comedy, but in a very impressive way, as it almost works as a commentary on the genre, and it certainly shows the depth and talent of Sturges. In many ways I find it the most fascinating of Sturges’ films, although it’s not among his best, certainly not The Lady Eve and Sullivan’s Travels. Still, it’s an essential part of the Sturges canon, and a fascinating little film that should be studied.

The story is fairly simple: Gerry and Tom are married, but poor. Tom has a brilliant idea that could make him rich, but he needs a load of cash to get the project underway. So Gerry decides to divorce Tom so that she can marry a rich man and get him the money. It’s a fascinating idea where two people are getting divorced, not out of hate, but out of love. Of course Tom isn’t too thrilled about the idea and tries to stop her. Gerry figures out that she has to go to Palm Beach to get the divorce, so a sort of a chase is on. He says she can never get there without any money, but she thinks she can. There’s a great scene where she wants to get on a train to Palm Beach, and does so by flirting with the gatekeeper and some of the passengers, and gets her own room for the trip, while Tom gets chased out of the train station by the guards as she says he “wants to molest me”. Hilarious. While overall not Sturges’ funniest film, it does have one of the funniest moments in any Sturges film, although it is somewhat controversial, at least it seems so from the comments on IMDb. Gerry gets lodging with a bunch of rich gun & hunting enthusiasts, and during the evening when they are getting quite drunk, things get out of hand and they grab their guns and start shooting wildly; inside the carriage! Besides being truly funny, it’s also an interesting early criticism of the liberal gun laws in the US.

On the way to Palm Beach Gerry meets a shy millionaire, who of course falls in love with her. She takes advantage and accepts his proposal to stay with him for a while at his house in Palm Beach. But when they arrive there Tom has gotten ahead of her and is waiting, where she presents him as her brother. Another character who joins the fold is the “loose” Princess Centimillia, who immediately falls for Tom. She is played by Mary Astor, who is without a doubt the funniest person in the film, she is simply wonderful. It all opens up for a funny and interesting final act. One thing I should mention is that this film has one of the truly most bizarre endings I’ve ever seen. I won’t spoil the ending, but I will say that it’s connected to the equally bizarre opening, which at first seems to have little connection to the film itself. It’s one of the things that make the film really interesting. There are a lot of set pieces and characters that are hilarious in this movie that I haven’t mentioned yet, but it all goes to show how much Preston Sturges’ films have to offer. What he does so wonderfully with his central cast of characters that he uses over and over again is that he adds a lot of flavor to his films, every minor character has something funny to say or has some small quirk, and this is one of the things that make his films remarkable and funny. I will say that Joel McCrea is really underrated in Sturges’ films. He may not have the greatest dramatic range, but his dead pan seriousness is perfect for the kind of comedy that Sturges works with, and the two are a perfect match.

The Palm Beach Story is fascinating in its own rights, and truly an interesting and unique film in the works of Preston Sturges. I feel that even though all of Preston Sturges’ films have something in common, they all also have their own unique identities and themes that separate them. That’s what’s impressive about Sturges, is that although he has his own unique style, he also managed to make several interesting films without repeating the trick, and instead incorporated his style into several very different films, as well as use the cast over and over again without anyone seeming tired or boring.

Sullivan’s Travels (Preston Sturges, 1941)

2010-12-05T13:22:00.000-08:00

Sullivan’s Travels is perhaps Sturges most accomplished film, it’s a meta-film like Sunset Boulevard but more like 8 ½. It’s also one of Sturges’ most engaging and funny films, with an excellent script and the wonderful cast that he used several times and of course the wonderful Veronica Lake. It is in a way strangely structured but it works really well for the overall theme and story of the film.

The story mirrors Preston Sturges own life. The story follows a very successful director who is tired of making comedy hits, and instead wants to make a film that is more important, that makes a grand statement about the human condition, and that can educated the public. His producers aren’t too happy about this and try to persuade him it’s a bad idea. They tell him that he can’t make such a film, because he doesn’t know what it’s like to be part of the downtrodden and poor, and he only knows his own life. The director, Sullivan, agrees with this and thus decides to go out and live like a hobo for as long as necessary, again infuriating his producers, but Sullivan now has his mind set on going. So begins Sullivan’s travels, where he dresses up like a hobo (or what he perceives to be a hobo) and tries to live with the poor. However it turns out to be more difficult than he imagined, as he always ends up back in Hollywood and back at his huge mansion. Early on he meets a failed actress at a diner, the character played by Veronica Lake, and his directorial senses kick in, as he sees something in her, while she just assumes he’s a hobo. However he can’t really hide who he is, and she soon finds out who he really is and decides to go on his little adventure along with him.

What follows is a series of events where the two set out, but eventually end up back in comfort each time, failing to in any significant way to learn to live like the poor. But Sullivan is set on his goal, and the two keep on trying. I won’t reveal anymore of the story, as there are some excellent twists and turns to come later. The film is hilarious, working with slap-stick, brilliant dialogue and situations. There’s particularly an early sequence where Sullivan tries to evade a trailer that is following him everywhere (on the studio’s orders), and what follows is a riotous chase scene, where the trailer takes some significant damage. The dialogue is extremely sharp and witty, perhaps not to the same level as The Lady Eve, but it’s still excellent, and very funny. Even the opening scene where Sullivan discusses his art with the two buffoon producers is an early indication of what we’re about to get. As a reflection on Sturges and Hollywood itself, the film works as a really neat look into Hollywood of the time, and also what Sturges felt Hollywood was all about and why he did what he did. More so than any of Sturges’ film, Sullivan’s Travels really showcased why Sturges was such a unique filmmaker of his time.

Sullivan’s Travels, along with The Lady Eve, is the very best of what Sturges oeuvre had to offer. In terms of structure and creating a Meta universe Sullivan’s Travels is easily Sturges most impressive and interesting. The character arc particularly is very fascinating and shows how the director comes to realize what his craft and art is all about, and I wonder if Sturges used this film himself as therapy to his own art.

Christmas in July (Preston Sturges, 1940)

2010-12-05T13:21:00.000-08:00

Christmas in July is another Preston Sturges comedy which also at times poses as a drama. It’s again a simple but heart-warming story, filled with wit and satire. It’s probably one of Sturges’ simplest films, and thus probably one of his least impressive. Still, it’s a neat little film which is really worth watching.

Jimmy MacDonald is a simple worker, who has a wonderful girlfriend, but he doesn’t have too much money and he dreams of bigger things. There is a competition from a coffee corporation where the person who comes up with the best commercial slogan wins a cash price of $50 000. So of course he wants it badly. However, the jury is stuck on their decision, and the announcement of the winner is postponed. Meanwhile, some of his working chumps decide to play a trick on him. They write a letter saying he is the winner of the big cash price, and he is easily fooled by this. What ensues is a chaos of misunderstandings and dramatic irony. The comedy works superbly on many levels. Few people in the film except the audience know what is really going on, making most of the cast look quite foolish. But we also worry about the protagonist, seeing the inevitable crushing disappointment when he eventually finds out it was all a big joke. We feel bad for the protagonist when he thinks he has won a huge cash price and goes nuts, but at the same time we can’t help but laugh at the predicament.

The film is also satirical, poking fun at American hysteria of the time and the search for wealth that is so predominant in the American psyche. But there is also a strong ring of truth in the film, and all the characters seem like real people with real goals, and not just caricatures. In the film’s most hilarious moments they might seem like such, but in the end these are deeply true issues, at least for the times. There are fun moments such as when the protagonist and his girlfriend goes on a shopping spree with his new earned money, or the quarrels between the upper stairs coffee corporation bureaucrats. The film ends on a somewhat ambiguous note, where the film shows us that we shouldn’t get our hopes up too much, but at the same time there is hope. I guess the theme of the film is that you shouldn’t put your hopes too much on a lottery, but trust your own skills and instincts to make something of yourself. It’s not bleak, but more of a cautionary tale.

I enjoyed Christmas in July, it’s a funny film that can bring your spirit up without being a complete feel good happy sell out. At its core it’s a frightening realistic film with some harsh truths about the world, but most importantly, it’s a very funny comedy with some great performances.

The Great McGinty (Preston Sturges, 1940)

2010-12-05T13:19:00.000-08:00

The Great McGinty was the first of a series of films written and directed by Preston Sturges for Universal. After having written several successful films, Sturges managed to convince the studio to let him be Writer/Director on his next picture, something almost unheard of during that time in Hollywood. Sturges great run of films for Universal only ran for about four year, but in that time he carved an excellent body of work for which he is still fondly remembered today. Sturges had a lot of control over his own projects, and was able to create his own storytelling technique and personal stamp. The Great McGinty was the first in these series of films.

The story concerns Dan McGinty, a tough bum who lives on the streets, with only his name and no money. The film covers an impressive amount of time, where McGinty rises from bum to the Governor of the state, grabbing opportunities that comes him by. The film is essentially a political satire and comedy, showing how much of the inner workings of politics work. McGinty is played by Brian Donlevy, who does an excellent job. At first he seems like a fairly one-sided character, but as the film progresses so does the protagonist, and by the end he is almost unrecognizable from the person he was in the beginning, it’s a great character arc. What the film and its director do very well is creating a very engaging story that develops efficiently, and a main character through his brutal honesty is very easy to root for. There’s also a love interest, of course, but it doesn’t start quite like that. Initially the two are married in a scam marriage so McGinty can portray himself as a family man to the public, but as the story progresses they both start to fall in love with each other, although McGinty struggles at first to realize this, as he has to soften his tough exterior.

While McGinty grabs every opportunity he gets, he is not in control. He answers to the local mob boss, simply referred to as The Boss. They’re relationship is interesting, as they both hate each other from start to finish, yet both need each other to succeed. It’s both a humorous and volatile relationship. McGinty doesn’t have any moral compass or fears doing anything that might be considered wrong, but throughout the film he starts to build up a conscience, with no little influence from his wife. As a politician he is very much a man who impresses with big projects, but doesn’t really care for “the little guy”. However he soon starts to see the errors of his ways. For a film that is less than 80 minutes, the film really has an epic time span and character arc that really convincingly transforms the character. It’s really fascinating to see the journey that McGinty goes through, and the film arrives at a satisfactory, although not particularly happy, ending. Sturges visual style is simple but effective, and it is impressive how quickly and effectively he manages to tell the story.

The Great McGinty is an excellent first effort from Sturges as a writer/director. The story is simple yet epic. The characters are interesting and the humor is spot on. It’s a great political satire akin to Mr. Smith goes to Washington, but with less sentimentality and more sting. It also boasts some of the ensemble cast that would become a standard fare in all of Preston Sturges films.

Diner (Barry Levinson, 1982)

2010-11-10T17:47:00.001-08:00

There are some films you just love to watch because they are so pleasurable in a way only you can relate to. This is what I felt about Diner, anyway. It’s a film that takes us back to those much simpler times of America, the late 50s, where everyone has a groovy car, the youth culture of the 60s still seem millions of years away, and the sweet tunes of Frank Sinatra filled the airwaves. I love this time period on film, and it was particularly well portrayed in American Graffiti. Diner also has this, although somewhat more tunes down. But what else does it have, besides a bit of classic Americana? There are actually quite interesting characters in this film, and it is a wonderful collaboration of some talented actors and fine directing.

This is the kind of films that Hollywood should make, although sadly they don’t anymore. It is a fairly low-key piece, but with some wonderful characterizations and performances, as well as entertaining scenes of the guys just hanging out. Most of the cast weren’t that famous when this film was made, but have gone on to become big names, such as Steve Guttenberg, Daniel Stern, Mikey Rourke (Jesus Christ, he looks absolutely nothing like he does in The Wrestler, talk about aging badly) and Kevin Bacon. The cast does a wonderful job as the film jumps between their different stories and problems. In a way it’s a coming of age story, or a “get off your ass and come of age” story. All the characters are on the edge of being youngsters and adulthood, one is married and one is getting married. They all love to relax at the local diner, where they more often than not spend their time, just chatting and wasting their time. Despite its set up, the film manages really well to avoid melodramatics and emotionalism. One good example is the Eddie character who is getting married. Although he likes his fiancé, he will only marry her on the condition that she passes a quiz on sports that he has devised, and it’s quite a grueling one as well. The characters are trapper between the infantile and adulthood, and the film captures this quite wonderfully. Another example is the character Shrevie, who goes mental when he finds out his wife has somewhat mixed up his tightly organized collection of records, to the point that she starts crying and contemplates cheating on him. At the end the character’s don’t really achieve any sort of conclusion, so the film is more like a slice of life film, but wonderfully convoluted in its own right.

The film does really well in dramatizing and characterizing the characters, so by the end you truly feel like you know these people. The most interesting character for me was Bacon’s character, Fenwick, who is quite possibly mad, but also some sort of quiz genius. He is the most “lost” of all the characters, and his story arc is left the most open, there doesn’t really seem to be much to hope for in his character. Yet all these characters live through their life with the support of each other, but as I said, the film wonderfully avoids sentimentalism. There isn’t any hugging or “I love ya man”, but a strong fundamental male bond between these characters, and it’s one of the things that really gives the film its quality. The film is also really well paced, exploring each of the characters stories in its own time, dwelling on their problems and issues. It takes a sit back, and just explores the lives of the characters. In this fast paced modern world of hyper block buster films, I found it incredibly refreshing. But all the emotional scenes are handled extremely classy, and the observations are captured with a sense of joy and discovery, and it really does make the films world come alive vividly. The time period is captured really well, although I would say that American Graffiti captured it even better. But Diner is an important film, it’s a film where you can kick back and enjoy, but it’s just not a popcorn film, but has more depth to it. The end, while not overall positive, leaves you with a warm feeling. There might be uncertainty in the future, but there’s always the brightness of friendship and closeness.

I thoroughly enjoyed Diner. It’s a fine film and a character piece, exploring the lives of five young men in crisis. It has great moments and dialogue, and most importantly, when it is over you will truly know its characters, and feel like you’ve been close to them. It’s a positive film, overall, but the ending and message is more complex than that. It could be compared to American Graffiti, but I would characterize Diner as American Graffiti’s older and somewhat more sophisticated cousin. However, both are great movies.

My Dinner with Andre (Louis Malle, 1981)

2010-11-10T17:01:00.000-08:00

My Dinner with Andre is famous for being a film just about two guys sitting and talking in a restaurant. And this is true, for about 100 minutes it’s just conversation at the table, nothing else. It’s an interesting concept, and of course Louis Malle is an excellent director, but does it work? Does the film manage to create a meaning and story even though it has such limited range? Or is it just a pretentious experiment that doesn’t really hold any value in cinema?

The set up is simple enough; a failing playwright is invited to dinner by his estranged friend Andre, who used to be a very successful theatre director. The two primary cast members are Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, both playing fictionalized versions of themselves. At first it’s a though movie to take, the camera is fixed on Andre as he talks about his recent exploits. However, after 20 or 30 minutes it really starts to drag you in, almost in a hypnotic way. In the beginning I was watching the timer, but at the end it felt as if it was over in no time. The audience becomes very much a part of the conversation; we share the perspective of Wallace, who does most of the listening, although towards the end he has a couple of things to say for himself. The film touches upon issues of how society works and the masks we wear. Do we really live our lives in a real way? The film forces the audience to confront these issues, although Andre can sound a bit high and mighty at times. Wallace very much grounds us down, emphasizing the little things in life that have value.

Both cast members do a good job, although there isn’t really that much dramatic material to deal with. The conflict works on a very intellectual level, but there’s definitely some conflict there between the two, although it’s all quite polite. Louis Malle was the director and I can see the challenge in the project that might have drawn him to it. However, he does a fine job, keeping it simple and slick. The atmosphere in the restaurant, although subdued in the background, adds a decent layer to the film and the issues that are being talked about. By the end it feels like time has stopped and is suddenly started again, when the characters realize that the once full restaurant is now empty. The film leaves you with a taste, a pondering. This is where I find the major strength of the film lies. You leave the film feeling richer or perhaps poorer and despairing, depending on your point of view. It’s an intimate conversation about deep human emotions, and we’re allowed to see it all. It’s not just a question of audiences listening, but we also have to participate, giving our own mental notes and discerning what really is behind the character of Andre. It might drag in the beginning, but at the end it works marvelously well.

Whether or not someone likes My Dinner with Andre is purely a matter of taste. There is certainly something to be had here, and many will find it a wonderful movie, but if you decide to turn it off in the first 20 minutes and never pay the film any mind ever again, I would certainly not hold it against you.

Top 100 Films

2010-11-04T13:23:00.000-07:00

Quite simple, my 100 favorite films. It's probably not complete, and some of the arrangment could change, but here it is:

1. La Dolce Vita (Fellini, 1960)
2. The Wizard of Oz (Fleming, 1939)
3. Akahige (Kurosawa, 1965)
4. The Apartment (Wilder, 1960)
5. The Red Shoes (Powell & Pressburger, 1948)
6. Smultronstället (Bergman, 1957)
7. Raging Bull (Scorsese, 1980)
8. Zerkalo (Tarkovsky, 1975)
9. Charulata (Ray, 1964)
10. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
11. Die Büchse der Pandora (Pabst, 1929)
12. L'année dernière à Marienbad (Resnais, 1961)
13. Vivre sa vie (Godard, 1962)
14. Viskningar och Rop (Bergman, 1972)
15. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
16. Meet Me in St. Louis (Minnelli, 1944)
17. La Notti di Cabiria (Fellini, 1957)
18. La Ronde (Ophuls, 1950)
19. Mimi wo sumaseba (Kondo, 1995)
20. Au Hasard Balthazar(Bresson, 1966)

21. Videodrome (Cronenberg, 1983)
22. Evil Dead 2 (Raimi, 1987)
23. Manhattan (Allen, 1979)
24. Ossessione (Visconti, 1943)
25. Körkarlen (Sjöström, 1921)
26. La Strada (Fellini, 1954)
27. Persona (Bergman, 1966)
28. Hiroshima mon amour (Resnais, 1959)
29. Ace in the Hole (Wilder, 1951)
30. Notorious (Hitchcock, 1946)
31. Stalker (Tarkovsky, 1979)
32. L'armée des ombres (Melville, 1969)
33. À bout de souffle (Godard, 1960)
34. L’Eclisse (Antonioni, 1962)
35. Sátántangó (Tarr, 1993)
36. Les quatre cents coups (Truffaut, 1959)
37. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
38. Der Letzte Mann (Murnau, 1924)
39. Pather Panchali (Ray, 1955)
40. Gremlins 2: The New Batch (Dante, 1990)

41. Mahanagar (Ray, 1963)
42. Nattvardsgästerna (Bergman, 1963)
43. L’Avventura (Antonioni, 1960)
44. Casablanca (Curtiz, 1942)
45. It’s A Wonderful Life (Capra, 1946)
46. The Man Who Fell to Earth (Roeg, 1976)
47. No Country for Old Men (Coen, 2007)
48. Kapurush (Ray, 1965)
49. There Wil Be Blood (Anderson, 2007)
50. Alien (Scott, 1979)
51. All That Heaven Allows (Sirk, 1955)
52. Chinatown (Polanski, 1974)
53. Annie Hall (Allen, 1977)
54. The Third Man (Reed, 1949)
55. Il conformista (Bertolucci, 1970)
56. Crimes and Misdemeanors (Allen, 1989)
57. Dersu Uzala (Kurosawa, 1975)
58. Barry Lyndon (Kubrick, 1975)
59. Fargo (Coen, 1996)
60. Fanny och Alexander (Bergman, 1982)

61. Le mépris (Godard, 1963)
62. Le Samuraï (Melville, 1967)
63. Rififi (Dassin, 1955)
64. Odd Man Out (Reed, 1947)
65. North by Northwest (Hitchcock, 1959)
66. Sanshô dayû (Mizoguchi, 1954)
67. Sommarnattens leende (Bergman, 1955)
68. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (Huston, 1948)
69. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Nichols, 1966)
70. Un condamné à mort s'est échappé ou Le vent souffle où il veut (Bresson, 1956)
71. Faces (Cassavetes, 1968)
72. Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932)
73. A Woman under the Influence (Cassavetes, 1974)
74. Double Indemnity (Wilder, 1944)
75. Såsom i en spegel (Bergman, 1961)
76. Pickpocket (Bresson, 1959)
77. Faust - Eine deutsche Volkssage (Murnau, 1926)
78. Salinui chueok (Bong, 2003)
79. Straw Dogs (Peckinpah, 1971)
80. Boksuneun naui geot (Park, 2002)

81. Bakushû (Ozu, 1951)
82. Forbidden Planet (Wilcox, 1956)
83. Ugetsu Monogatari (Mizoguchi, 1953)
84. The Player (Altman, 1992)
85. Onibaba (Shindô, 1964)
86. The Getaway (Peckinpah, 1972)
87. All About Eve (Mankiewicz, 1950)
88. City Lights (Chaplin, 1931)
89. The Gold Rush (Chaplin, 1925)
90. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (Nimoy, 1986)
91. Mononoke-hime (Miyazaki, 1997)
92. Suna no onna (Teshigahara, 1964)
93. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Gilliam, 1998)
94. The Thing (Carpenter, 1982)
95. Don’t Look Now (Roeg, 1973)
96. Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes (Herzog, 1972)
97. Repulsion (Polanski, 1965)
98. Young Frankenstein (Brooks, 1974)
99. Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (Murnau, 1922)
100. Dog Day Afternoon (Lumet, 1975)

Glengarry Glen Ross (James Foley, 1992)

2010-11-04T12:59:00.000-07:00

My feelings towards films that rely too much on their dialogue is somewhat ambiguous. I love films that can create meaning and story through their visuals, and don’t rely on dialogue to hammer in to the audience what it is about. Glengarry Glen Ross was based on a play written by David Mamet, and he himself wrote the film adaptation. It does come across that the film has its roots in theatre. There are only two major locations throughout most of the film, its dialogue heavy, and has a particular kind of dialogue. Still, the film works pretty well, and stands out as a somewhat underrated classic.

The premise is simple: A questionable real estate office isn’t doing as well as they would like to, and so the boss comes up with a contest to motivate his four salesmen. Earn the most, and you get a new car. Finish second and you get a neat bonus. Finish third and fourth and you get fired. The film takes place over just one night and one morning, so the tension is laid thick. There is a genuine sense of desperation and hopelessness which captures the spirit of the 90s. But what really makes this film stand out is the casting. Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Kevin Spacey, Alan Arkin, Ed Harris and Alec Baldwin. It’s a great cast, and everyone does their outmost to make their characters vivid. The stand out performance is Jack Lemmon. His character is pathetic, but has genuine concerns, still living on the memory of better days, and in his worst moment fooling himself into believing that he made a good sale. His character screams of both desperation and poignancy. Alec Baldwin has only one scene, but remains in the back of the audiences heads as he is the one that describes the contest, in a very intimidating scene. Spacey is also great, as the coldhearted manager who has little sympathy for his crew, but he also has some underlying issues of his own. Al Pacino steals every scene he is in with his mesmerizing intensity. It’s not just about the casting though, the script is excellent, and every character has several layers. The film slowly peels away at the characters and in the end everyone is left naked and exposed.

One of the reasons I don’t like “talky” films is that they have a tendency to spell out what the characters are thinking and what’s going on. Glengarry Glen Ross elegantly avoids this; every character has something to hide. The film is smart in quickly telling us what’s at stake, so that the characters and their underlying issues and concerns can be revealed effortlessly. The film also keeps the audience guessing until the end. Most of the film is shown in real time, but there is a clever jump between night and day. During these hours where we, the audience, have not been present there have been some significant story developments, but we were not able to see them. This creates a great moment where we can guess and speculate what happened and who did what, where everything is not what it seems. Although there is a lot of dialogue in the film, everything that the characters say is significant and the film doesn’t seem bloated with dialogue. Indeed, the director managed to create some significance through the visuals, and the cinematography is beautiful, expertly using colors and angles to create meaning. So while the film has a lot of dialogue, it doesn’t always rely on it to tell the story, and thus becomes more interesting. I think this is one of the more successful transitions from theatre to cinema.

I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from Glengarry Glen Ross, but I was captivated throughout the film, with the interesting characters and the fascinating setting. The film builds up well and towards the end is intense, although it is still low-key. Many will talk about the excellent cast, but it’s all about the brilliant script, which they really do justice to. It’s quite incredible how the script gets so much out of so little, and stands as a fine example of intricate screenwriting and filmmaking.

Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010)

2010-11-01T05:13:00.000-07:00

Inception is the latest film by Christopher Nolan, the director of the functional and entertaining, though massively overhyped, Dark Knight. And guess what? The hype for Inception almost deafened the initial hype for Dark Knight. Somewhat begrudgingly, I decided that this time I wasn’t going to concern myself as much as I did with Dark Knight, and just try to enjoy the film for what it is. By now we know what kind of films Nolan makes; entertainment films that masquerade themselves as something more important, with a hint of “it’s serious and dark” pretentiousness. The big concern is of course that the average audience doesn’t see through the masquerade, but let’s discuss that later.

So the film is about Leonardo DiCaprio looking moody and serious, which he has been in most of his recent films. Actually, Inception reminded me a lot about Scorsese’s recent Shutter Island, this is the second film in which we are trapped within the mind of DiCaprio, God help us. So DiCaprio makes a living by infiltrating the minds of important people, going into their dreams. But to do this the most effectively he has to go within a dream of the dream, so he has to make the person dreaming within the dream, dream. Enough of that awkwardness. DiCaprio has a dark past, his wife is dead but still haunting him through his dreams, or other people’s dreams, just go with it. He also has two children who he wants to be together with again, but he can’t because he is an outlaw in the US. Then, a rich Asian business man has one final job for DiCaprio and his crew, and as a reward will get rid of all the charges against him in the US (How does the rich Asian business man have so much power over US legislature? I don’t know, he’s rich, so that’s probably a good an explanation as any). However, DiCaprio needs an “architect” who can create dreams, so he hires the girl from Juno, we’ll call her the “Juno Girl” from now on. Him, her, and the A-Team now start to prepare for their final mission, where they have to infiltrate the mind of a rich business owner and implant ideas into his mind about what kind of business model he should use, because this in some way benefits the rich Asian business man. But to do this, they have to go into a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream. Simple enough.

A lot of people have said that this is a very complex film that you have to see at least twice to “get it”. However I don’t agree with this. Each level of the dreams has a very specific look, and there is never any doubt where we are at each time. There are no confusing elements. Everything is set up pretty well for us to understand what is going on and where we are. This might be attributed to the fact that the first hour of the film is exposition, describing the rules of the film universe. The whole long opening is truly boring and tedious, going through the motions of explaining to the audience what is going to happen and how. I would have preferred it if they just handed out pamphlets at the beginning of the film and that could be read as an option. I feel that if you need to go through this much trouble to explain something, then it isn’t worth explaining. The story itself is complicated, and hard to explain, but the film isn’t. Of course it isn’t, because the first hour is spent on exposition. There are also a couple of things that are a bit to quaint. In the mind of the business man they are infiltrating there has been set up a defense against intrusion. This comes in the variety of blank faced machine gun wielding goons, so we get a good opportunity to have loads of shooting scenes. It becomes almost banal at some point. Visually the film does look quite interesting and it opens up for a lot of nice scenes and set pieces, but I still feel that the film missed out somewhat, I never felt like the film was like a dream. When you talk about going into dreams you think of irrationality and crazy things happening, but they don’t in this film, so its representation of dreams is actually quite boring.

One major problem though is that the film is quite funny, most often when it’s not supposed to be. There’s one moment that had me laughing out loud in the cinema, where DiCaprio leans close to the camera and mutters something incomprehensible with the music droning on in the background. What he was saying sounded quite ridiculous, but the film took it so seriously. That’s another thing; this film takes itself way to seriously. But the whole concept is quite silly when one actually thinks about it, and it makes me think that Nolan is something of a manchild. So it’s very funny when the characters talk with the utmost seriousness about what’s going on, when it’s all just very silly. It doesn’t help that the music is ultra serious as well. Apparently, Nolan liked the music from The Dark Knight so much that he just had the composer remix that track, because it is pretty much the same as it was in that film. You might have noticed how I refer to the characters, that’s because they are so blank and empty that they don’t deserve any more. The film lacks any serious characterization, and most of the characters are boring. The only one I found interesting was the business man who they are trying to infiltrate, he’s played by the same guy as Scarecrow from Batman Begins. Otherwise, the characters are just puppets that make things happen on the screen. DiCaprio does an ok job, but it’s just too similar to the roles he has been playing of late, and while his character has issues that might be taken seriously, they are just too cliché. Oh, and of course, at the end Nolan couldn’t resist playing with the idea for the audience whether or not the whole thing was just a dream or if it was real. But at this point I had stopped caring. My problem with Inception, and this goes for The Dark Knight too, is that it’s a standard summer blockbuster film, but it pretends it’s something more. Yes, it’s somewhat smarter and complex than the average blockbuster, and its well made, but at the end of the day it’s just another action film.

I didn’t like Inception. The only remarkable thing about it is how much it’s stuck up its own ass. The film takes itself way to seriously, the emotions within the film are too flat, and overall I found it quite boring. The first hour is mind numbingly boring with all its exposition, and although it picks up after this, I just think “why bother caring anymore?” But the endless drones of faceless goons aren’t that interesting, and sometimes it makes you think that the whole concept for the film was just an excuse to have loads of gunfights. And before anyone says that I’m biased or something because of my expectations, this film let me down. The opening scene was beautifully shot and well paced, it was mysterious and interesting. I thought, “Wow, this might actually be really good”. However after the initial ten minutes the film started letting me down, and in the end I almost forgot about the good opening scene.

Re-Animator (Stuart Gordon, 1985)

2010-10-31T09:39:00.000-07:00

Well, what a treat this film was. It’s classic body horror of the 80s to the fullest, with bodily transgression, cheap sexual thrills and lots and lots of gore. It’s the classic tale of a mad scientist who takes his research too far, and jeopardizes the lives of those around him. In many ways it is the modern (or modern in the 80s, anyway) Frankenstein story. However, when it comes to gore, there are few films of the time which were more excessive than this, but the film revels in its gore, and manages to not take itself too seriously. It’s a visceral journey that is meant to be enjoyed, whether you scream or laugh.

One of the good things about the film is that it centers itself on two scientists, instead of one. There’s the mad, socially inept genius Herbert West, then there is the more reasonable but also curious Dan. Both are students, but both, West in particular, are starting to grow past their teachers. It works well because West is so alienating that the audience would have had a hard time sticking up for him. He’s rude, has little conscience, and basically doesn’t care for other people. However, he needs the help of Dan, who is a much more likeable and normal character. Although their very different, they both see the use in West’s study and research. West has designed a formula that can re-animate dead tissue or beings. However, of course it comes with the nasty side effect that anything re-animated goes mad due to the pain of coming back to life, although both characters seem fairly unconcerned about this throughout the film, which I found strange. After all, what’s the purpose of a serum that can bring people back to life if it makes them crazy? Anyway, shit hits the fan before any of the characters can study further into this. One of the professors turns out to be quite an evil and sadistic bastard, and he will do anything to take credit for the serum himself. The Herbert West character becomes more and more fascinating as the film goes on. For a long time the audience cannot be sure of whether or not he is evil or good. Is he really such a jerk, or just a decent guy who is really obsessed about his work and research? Jeffrey Combs who plays West does a good job at playing with these ambiguities, and until the very end of the film we can’t quite be sure where he stands.

The film is famous for its many set-pieces. The film is incredibly playful and creative, creating crazy situations and visuals that are sure to stick in the audiences minds for a long time. The gore is unprecedented, but never really mean or callous in the same way as the recent Saw films. The film just wants to have a good time, and it brings us along. There are many cathartic moments of transgression that are truly joyful, but also moments that makes you want to cringe because they are so uncomfortable. The film is relatively short, and doesn’t have a moment that isn’t interesting, whether it is playing with the ambiguity of West’s character, creating suspense or just creating havoc on the screen with gore. So it’s a very dense film, and it goes a long way to making it re-watchable. That said, the film is not for the weak spirited. Although the film revels in the gore with an almost childlike fascination, if the audience doesn’t like gore then this film won’t change their opinion, actually more likely it would change it for the worse. Safe to say, if you don’t like gory horror films from the 80s, then there is very little on offer from Re-Animator. That being said, Re-Animator is one of the best films of its kind, and I found it immensely enjoyable. It doesn’t have the darkness of The Thing or the sophistication of Alien, but it takes all the great elements from classic gore films and puts it into one film, creating a wonderful mix of a special effects extravaganza and the all out fun of the 80s horror genre.

If you like the classic horror films of the 80s and haven’t seen this, then you need to see it. It’s one of the best of its kind and offers great re-watch value. It also a great film to watch with a bunch of like-minded friends if you want to have a night of laughs, and would work perfectly as a double bill with Evil Dead 2, or indeed the whole trilogy. I’ll definitely check out the sequels to Re-Animator, so maybe I’ll talk about those later.

It (Tommy Lee Wallace, 1990)

2010-10-16T17:13:00.000-07:00

I don’t usually review films that I’ve already seen a while ago, but I recently re-watched It, and I want to talk about it. It’s actually not a film, but a TV mini-series running for about 3 hours, but I’ve always seen it as one whole, and it often runs on TV, so I always considered it a film proper. The film was one of my favorites as a kid/teenager, but I hadn’t seen it in about six-seven years. I always found the film fascinating then, and on repeat, I still found it fascinating, so I felt like writing about it.

The thing about It is that, it’s actually a really bad film. The thing is, even back then I knew it was a bad film, but I still loved it. On re-watching the film, I still greatly enjoyed it, despite the fact that it is really poor. What was fascinating was that the film wasn’t any worse than I remembered, so unlike a lot of the films I loved when I was younger, I pretty much feel the same about this film as I always did. As I said, the film is bad, but somehow it manages to overcome that. And it’s not one of those films where you say “it’s so bad it’s good”. When re-watching the film, I think I managed to figure out why it is so enjoyable and entertaining, despite its “badness”. The thing about It is that it contains a lot of different elements, indeed, if you cut out a trailer from it you could make the film seem like a film about nostalgia and childhood. It is indeed about that, but you could easily present the film as if that’s all to it. The film is based on the book with the same title, written by Stephen King, and the story goes as such: A crazy being dressed as a clown terrorizes a small American town by killing innocent children, until seven friends can’t take it anymore and goes on a quest to destroy him. Thirty years on and they’ve all got on with their lives, but It returns, and they have to go back and finish him once and for all. The thing that makes It interesting is that it has so many different elements. At times it seems like a coming-of-age story like Stand by Me, another moment reminded me of kids on an adventure, like the Goonies. Yet the film is a horror, mixing body horror “in-your-face” special effects, and psychological horror. But we also see the kids as grown-ups, and the film deals with mature anxieties, women abuse, suicide and fear of commitment. Wow. So there is a lot to this film, which explains the epic 3 hour length. So why does this mish-mash of a fuckup movie work?

Let’s talk about the horror aspect. At times, it’s not scary, it’s just hilarious. Some scenes are just hammy and bring more laughter than frights. Tim Curry, who plays the evil clown is a good example of this, some of his scenes are comedy gold. Now if you haven’t seen the film you’ve probably heard about how terrifying the clown is. So you’re wondering, why am I calling him hilarious? Well, that’s the thing; he has his terrifying moments, like the opening of the film. There are also genuinely terrifying moments, like when the girl character goes back to her old house. The film goes between the lines of being one of the most frightening films ever, to being like a hilarious b-film. It’s fascinating how the film manages to both succeed and fail. So for all the cheesiness of Tim Curry’s performance, there’s also some underlying terror beneath. The film also manages to delve into some of our most primal fears, so it succeeds on that level too, although that can probably be attributed to the original source material. The coming-of-age material probably also helped this film, as it can be really relatable to young kids, but also adults who can look back on nostalgia. For all the horror in this film, there are also scenes that seem right out of Stand by Me (which of course was also written by King). These moments have no horror in them, and seem perfectly innocent. I think the way the film balances between these moments and the scary stuff really makes the film somewhat unpredictable and variable, and thus quite entertaining. The thing is, unlike Stand by Me, the kids aren’t really great actors, and some scenes where they attempt to emote are just hilarious, particularly the “evil” kid with a slick hairdo who actually genuinely wants to murder the kids, although he is in their class. The adults are only slightly better, but again, the performances are far from good. But I think the emotions sometimes are so strong that they even manage to work, even though the execution is not great.

I haven’t read the book, but my impression is that much of what is actually is good in the film comes from the book, and that despite the cast and crew doing and under-par job with the adaptation, the original source material was so good that it still managed to seep through in the final production. This has of course happened many times before, and usually the product is just a mediocre and boring film. But It avoids that, through its eclectic nature and how epic it can feel. The film defies its own bad qualities through this, and is a truly enjoyable film that I can watch many times and never get bored.

In The Loop (Armando Iannucci, 2009)

2010-10-13T16:27:00.000-07:00

Before I start, I have to say I haven’t seen the show In the Thick of it, which this film apparently was somewhat based on, so I have no previous references. Of course, as always, a film should be able to stand on its own and the audience shouldn’t have to know other sources to understand the film itself. Right? Good.

When the film immediately starts it really evoked the feeling that The Office had, however this seems to go away after a little while, like the film became embarrassed or something. However it does also become quite clear that this is nothing like The Office, particularly in its style and “realism”. The film is a parody of government and bureaucracy. And it works quite well. Indeed, I found the film to be very funny, although some might not like this particular type of British humor. The story goes that some people want to invade an unnamed country, while others don’t. One particularly useless British MP indicates on National television that he wishes for war, although he really doesn’t, he’s just extremely inept at expressing himself. Who’s on whose side? No one really knows. Who wants what? Well, no one really know that either, and the ensuing chaos which goes from the streets of London all the way to Washington DC is what most of this films spends its time exploring.

Although the dialogue is occasionally hilarious, I found the film to be quite dialogue heavy. Like someone said on IMDb, it’s an extremely quotable film, but I think it is too much so. There’s only so many times that I find the though British guy who tells people what sort of assorted items he’s going to stick up their ass funny. The characters, one dimensional as they were, are very funny, and work in the way that archetypes work. I particularly liked one sleazy gentleman who worked in Washington, the kind of guy that always promises you that everything will be alright and he’ll sort it out, then stabs you in the back with the knife your own son made in shop class. And he made it as a gift to you! I also liked how the film showed how Americans and the British really feel about each other. Where the Americans just think the British are a little bit silly and non-threatening, while the British admire the Americans in awe in the same way that a child will admire Superman.

But having said all that, I feel that the film is a bit lazy, lazy in that particular way that it lulls its audience back into a comforting state of paralysis where they don’t think about the world in an engaging way. The film parodies the inner workings of government and portrays everyone therein as either a massive idiot or just someone controlled by someone else, who is probably also an idiot. And so we, the audience, sit back in our IKEA sofa, laugh and point, and say “Yes! Everyone in government is really an idiot; it’s a chaotic mess where no one knows what’s going on. Now let’s eat our lasagna before it gets cold.” Obviously the film is heightened reality, a parody, and all of it is really just the most extreme made even a little bit more extreme. But in its doing so, I feel that it doesn’t quite hit close enough to home, it’s funny, but a little too silly. It doesn’t really take a stance, or come close to making people question the inner workings of political government. Obviously there are a lot of traces of the truth in there, I just feel it creates itself a little too much like a parody, and a little too less as a satire.

Still, the film is entertaining, and at times hilarious. It starts off a bit slowly, but as the plot thickens it gets more and more interesting. Worth a watch.

Sadgati (Satyajit Ray, 1981)

2010-10-13T14:56:00.000-07:00

Well, it’s been quite some time since the last post. This is also the 100th post on this blog! Wee! Alright, let’s get on with it.

Sadgati, or Deliverance, is a fairly short film by Satyajit Ray, running at only 45 minutes. However, it is a great example of some of Ray’s best touches and skills, as well as a fine short film in its own right. The story is straight forward, and even though I didn’t understand all the Indian customs and what they implied, the character motivation and desire is very clear.

The story follows Dukhi, a tanner who wants help from a local Brahmin, or holy man, to set a date for his daughter’s wedding. However, it turns out that this “holy man” is somewhat of a lazy bastard, and only through doing some meaningless chores around the house can Brahmin get him to come to his house. Meanwhile, the film cuts back to the home where his wife and daughter are carefully preparing for the Brahmin who they believe will soon turn up. Dukhi does all the chores the Brahmin ask of him, but one is too hard to complete: he has to cut up a log outside the house. However, the log is huge and he only has a small axe. The majority of the film is Dukhi trying to cut up this log, as well as some more scenes with the daughter and wife, as well as a look into the Brahmin’s inner life.

What the film does well, and Ray usually does exceptionally well, is to create such strong drama to small events. It is a simple story and the progression is fairly conservative, but Ray manages to create genuine emotions and a comment on the human condition through this little fable. It’s what really makes Ray such a unique filmmaker. Although this film, much because of its limited playing time, is not quite up to par with his other major films, it has all the touches and elements that makes Ray great, but is worth seeing in its own right, not just because it is a Ray film. It takes a simple set up and runs with it. The emotional impact of the end, and some of Ray’s camerawork, is truly excellent. There are also great moments of subtle comedy, like the first time Dukhi sees the log, walks around it mystified, and you know he’s thinking “what the fuck do I do with this?” Or when he goes into the house of the Brahmin to ask for light for his smoke, and the Brahmin’s wife becomes furious “how dare a commoner ask such things!?” Another great moment is where a young man who is mourning over his dead wife comes to the Brahmin for advice. The Brahmin says it’s okay, he can always get a new wife. He himself is already on his third!

The DVD version I have came with The Satyajit Ray Collection Volume 3 box set. I have yet to see the other two, but I will soon though. I would like to recommend the volume 1 & 2 box sets, as well as the Apu Trilogy box set, they all have fantastic value, and Ray is truly one of the greats of world cinema. Like Kurosawa said, not to have seen the cinema of Ray is like never having seen the sun or the moon. Go check him out.

Idealisation and demonization of women in Fritz Lang’s Noir

2009-11-14T16:17:00.000-08:00

There are two Fritz Lang films I would like to discuss. One is The Woman in the Window, the other Scarlet Street. These two films are interesting because they both share three essential cast members, have a lot of the same themes and images, and were produced one year apart, The Woman in the Window in 1944 and Scarlet Street the following year, 1945.

Both films idealise the female image through paintings, but also demonizes them. In both films, the protagonist (played by Edward G. Robinson) falls in love with a mysterious and beautiful woman (played by Joan Bennett). Both times, the love interest is portrayed through painting, but in the reality of the film turns out to be the downfall of the protagonist, a lure or lust that sends him towards a downward spiral. In The Woman in the Window, the protagonist is fascinated by a painting of a woman in a window. She appears to him in real life and takes him with her home. There, one of her lovers enters and in jealous rage attacks the protagonist has to kill him to defend himself. The rest of the film concerns itself with detailing the police trying to figure out the murder.

In Scarlet Street, the protagonist who is suffering from loneliness sees a woman being hit on the street. He hits attacker and thinks he saved her. The attacker runs away. It turns out later that the attacker was her boyfriend, and they have a strong love/hate relationship, it becomes apparent that the Joan Bennett character is masochistic. The protagonist grows closer to the woman of his desire, and as a bank clerk starts stealing money to support her, although she and her boyfriend, Johnny, are just using him. Although the painting theme does not become apparent immediately, the protagonist is an amateur painter, and this grows in more significance throughout the film.

Let’s look at these two frames from the beginning of The Woman in the Window. The first one, we see Robinson’s character admiring the painting in the window. In the next, we see Joan Bennett’s character, the person the painting is painted from in the reflection.

What the second shot does is that it shows us the “idealised” version contra to the “real” version of the woman. Both are fascinating, but the picture is idealised, while the real thing is demonic. The film shows us clearly men’s fascination and attraction to the idealised picture of woman, but throughout the narrative shows that this fascination can lead to dangerous places. This next frame is taken from the woman’s apartment; notice the drawings of women to the left and the sculpture of the female body to the right.

Again, art which idealises the female image, now look at this shot.

The dark figure of Joan Bennett is much more foreboding, and soon after this shot, the former lover bursts in and the protagonist has to commit murder and hide from the police. Literally, because of the female’s aggressive sexuality, he is plunged into despair. However, these ideas are even more apparent and profound in Scarlet Street.

Scarlet Street is very much about double images and deceit. Every major character is lying about his or her character, sometimes on several levels. There’s the protagonist who is a bank clerk, but he is also an amateur painter. He lies, however, to the female character Kitty, and says he is a professional painter. She, on the other hand lies to him about her past and relationship with Johnny. Later, when the amateur paintings made by the protagonist are discovered by an art critic, Kitty pretends that it was she who painted them. Later in the film the protagonist paints her picture, and it is called “Self Portrait”.

There are more of these painting/real life images. The protagonist lives with his nagging widow, who before marrying him was married to a police officer who died, whom she idealises. His picture hangs proudly on the wall.

However, later it turns out that he never died, but rather faked death to escape his wife, and he is a real charlatan who blackmails people. Compare the painting to the real person.

In both films Joan Bennett’s characters have very aggressive sexuality, enticing and snaring Robinson’s characters. In The Woman in the Window she isn’t really a bad person, she just is a woman, but in noir women tend to be dangerous just because of their sexuality. Films like Gilda (Charles Vidor, 1946), Out of the Past (Jacques Tourneur, 1947) and White Heat (Raoul Walsh, 1949) are good examples of this trend. In Scarlet Street the character is more demonic though, Kitty constantly exploits and uses the protagonist for his money. Look at these two frames, in the first she isn’t really aware of the fact that she can use him, in the second she is very aware. Dangerous sexuality indeed.

But in essence, both films pose female sexuality as enticing and dangerous to men, and in both films the male protagonist ends tormented. In The Woman in the Window because of the situation she has dragged him into, and in Scarlet Street he is tormented after learning she was trying to con him, and realizes that her liking him was just an illusion, just like his paintings.

Some might claim that these films are womanising or anti-feminism, but I don’t think so. I think it is rather cautionary, the idealised image of females is an illusion, and too strong a fascination with this image could be dangerous. And indeed, the idealisation of the female image had never been stronger than in that of Hollywood cinema, in many ways these films are reflections of this trend in Hollywood, and in the progress denouncing this image as a false illusion. In the final images of Scarlet Street we see the protagonist, now tormented and poor, walk past a painting store. There he sees the picture he painted of the woman he loved sold off, it called a masterpiece by the young lady artist. I think this scene really shows the extent of how the illusion can cause pain and suffering.

On the advent of 3-D and contemporary animation in general

2009-10-24T15:43:00.001-07:00

3-D, revolution or gimick

So, if you’ve been following the recent development in animation lately you will probably have noticed that the titles in the theatres now either 3-D or 2-D, in the case of animation anyway. 3-D is not a new thing, though, with the craze in the 50’s, which eventually failed in any case. Now we’re ready for a new round, but without the old fashioned red and blue tinted glasses, but with some new technological advent which makes the experience much more realistic and immersive.

I don’t really know the technology behind the new glasses, but that’s not really relevant, what matters is how and if they work. I went with some chumps to see Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, which we will refer to from now on simply as Meatballs. What was clear early, though, is that Meatballs simply was a vehicle for the new technology. Clichéd, predictable and very disgusting in terms of its shallow emotions, the film was terrible, obviously only a person with serious mental problems or children could have enjoyed it. But this wasn’t a surprise; I didn’t go to the cinema to watch a film, but to see the new technology of 3-D. In terms of technology, it was fairly impressive, showing off a multitude of layers and depth. Of course, in the end the film ultimately failed because of its lack in quality in general, nice visuals still doesn’t make a movie good.

On the whole, I was left strangely underwhelmed, the film and its effects soon forgotten.

Up, is Pixar just going through the motions?

Some weeks later, though, I decided to go watch the new Pixar film Up, this time as well in 3-D. As the formula of Pixar films have become painfully predictable, I unsurprisingly enjoyed the film a whole lot. Most interestingly though was the fact that I found the 3-D element much more effective, despite them being much less showy than in Meatballs. And this was the first point in which I actually found myself intrigued by the idea of 3-D. It allows for some interesting cinematography where in deep focus and layered mis-en-scene can have much greater effect and meaning. Imagine Citizen Kane in 3-D. But make no mistake though; 3-D is still very much a gimmick, attempting to regain cinema’s status as a spectacle.

With people being able to create their own cinema’s at home with HD screens and surround sound, the act of actually going to cinema has diminished somewhat in its powers the last couple of years. 3-D, the technology used by recent animation, is very much still only available in the cinema, increasing again its novelty and spectacle. I recently bought Coraline on blu-ray and tested its 3-D feature on my own TV. While retaining much of the depth levels and sense of space, the red and blue tinted glasses distorts the colours and ruin much of the cinematography, meaning that we are still some way away from gaining the full 3-D experience in our own living room.

Of the meagre three films I have seen using 3-D, Coraline was probably the film that utilized the effect the best and in the most significant way, creating a strange and hostile atmosphere with its deep focus and layered backgrounds, really showing how 3-D can be used in a significant way. Up, on the other hand, merely added 3-D in its process, to make it look nicer. Meatballs was just made for 3-D.

Coraline, a great alternative to other animations

Now, pushing away the whole 3-D issue, animation seems to be creating some interesting stuff as of late. Coraline, which I was strangely unaware of for the better parts of five months, was a wonderful surprise, really standing out from the other mainstream animations made lately. Pixar is starting to get boring though. Up was a very good animated film, make no mistake about it, but that seems to be all that Pixar can achieve. With the exception of the odd mistake, Pixar always make strong animated films, but never manage to really reach the top, always falling short in some way. Wall-E was absolutely fantastic for the first 45 minutes, before dwindling away into mediocrity. Still, it was a very positive sign and hopeful.

Sadly, though, Up seems to be a step backwards in terms of ambition regarding Pixar, but of course I hope they continue to develop and hopefully they will one day make a true animated masterpiece. On that note, of course, Toy Story 3 is on its way, in full blown 3-D. I don’t really have much to say on that, other than that I might actually have to watch Toy Story 2 now. 9 Looks interesting, although it might be one of those films that take itself too seriously. I’m more looking forward to Fantastic Mr. Fox, which I might see tomorrow. It is good that we are at least seeing some variety in the style and types of animations we’re getting now, now that the technology has really settled in. I also read somewhere about Disney making a new animated feature which is actually DRAWN. I love the old style, so I will probably see it, although I reserve the right to be very disappointed.

By the way, I read somewhere that some parent had complained that Coraline was too scary for their kids, and I’m wondering what’s gone completely wrong with the consumer-culture surrounding animation. On the info page of 9 in the cinema’s webpage it says: “Consumer Advice: Contains Moderate Sustained Threat.” Are you kidding me, is this a joke? Have kids become this sensitive. Anyway, 9 received a 12a rating, which is also quite surprising. A good example of this kind of mentality is my sister, whose favourite animation is The Little Mermaid. When I was little, she showed it to me, although I never really became a big fan. When some years ago I wanted to show it to her kids, she was concerned about it being too scary for them. Anyway, I’ll get my darling nephews a Coraline DVD for Christmas.

I will stress that I have only focused on western animation, ignoring non-English animation, but I thought it better to concentrate my efforts, maybe some other time I’ll discuss anime or whatever. But I am aware of it.

Weekly Top Ten: Actresses performances

2009-10-09T21:55:00.000-07:00

I’m trying now, laboriously, to keep this blog alive, but the heavy workload has made it hard to continue, especially since I agreed recently to help someone out with their own work. I won’t write reviews anymore though, as I have tired of the same formula I’ve been using for too long. Instead, I want to write fewer and more substantial articles. To start off with, though my personal best acting performances by actresses. Male actors to come next. Only rule is that no actress can be mentioned more than once, to make it as varied as possible.

10. Anne Baxter as Eve in All About Eve (Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1950)

Not maybe the most talked about performance to start off with, but I really like Anne Baxter in All About Eve. She plays the ‘nice girl’ part perfectly, and shifts at command. But there is always something uncanny, ambiguous and uncertain about her ‘niceness’ and this is where I find the value in her performance. She plays very well off the other characters, and even though the film is not from her point of view, and at times she doesn’t really seem like the main character even, she indeed steals the show, and it is just All About Eve.

9. Gena Rowlands as Mabel in A Woman Under the Influence (John Cassavetes, 1974)

Powerful and energetic performance to say the least, Rowlands bring all that we perhaps wouldn’t want in a wife to the screen, but still manages to convey profound humanity in her character. As I have experience with others who watched this film, she is a character who quickly becomes one that the viewer might hate, but she removes these issues with a truly heartbreaking performance.

8. Hideko Takamine as Hisako in Nijushi no hitomi (Keisuke Kinoshita, 1954)

There is a moment in this film, where Hideko Takamine looks towards the screen with a face that so perfectly expresses her sadness that it was almost impossible to look at the screen. It is often very easy to be alienated from Asian performances as their style is so foreign to the west, but Hideko Takamine’s humanistic and honest character brings so much life to this film. Great example of how in some films the actor is essential to how the story works.

7. Ingrid Thulin as Marianne in Smultronstället (Ingmar Bergman, 1957)

An understated performance, Marianne is the perfect companion piece to the main character Isak. She seems to bring a softer side to the film, but ultimately suffers from her own anxieties and personal demons, particularly in her marriage. At times impenetrable and distanced, others the seemingly only glow of humanity in the film. A very mature performance.

6. Gloria Swanson as Norma in Sunset Blvd. (Billy Wilder, 1950)

Gloria Swanson literally brings herself to life as the ageing queen of silent cinema in Billy Wilder’s effectual film on Hollywood. Perhaps overstated, but it works in perfect context with her characters. She gives close attention to every word she speaks; every move she makes, her long slender fingers an all too literal manifestation of the grasping power she uses to ensnare the protagonist.

5. Bibi Andersson as Alma in Persona (Ingmar Bergman, 1966)

Bibi Andersson might have been much more humanitarian, charming and affectionate in her other Bergman films, but it is here that she brings out her most remarkable performance. The power play between her and Liv Ullmann is excellent, cold and calculating. She brings something different to her personality than is usually exhibited in the work she did with Bergman, and ultimately it is her most devastating role.

4. Elizabeth Taylor as Martha in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Mike Nichols, 1966)

Devastating performance piece this film and the entire cast is superb. But Elizabeth Taylor’s interplay and explosive dialogue with Richard Burton is where the films real power lies. She walks through almost all emotions a character can show in this fairly short film, and as a character study it is remarkably powerful.

3. Anne Bancroft as Mrs. Robinson in The Graduate (Mike Nichols, 1967)

Well, another film by Nichols, and this time it is Bancroft in her iconic performance as Mrs. Robinson, who seduces a young and naive Dustin Hoffman. Despite somewhat advance age, she is still wonderfully sexy, seductive and alluring, playing off with consummate ease on Ben’s uncertainty of his own manhood and future. The later scenes she is also powerful, but in a much more remarkable way. Easily steals the show.

2. Madhabi Mukherjee as Charulata in Charulata (Satyajit Ray, 1964)

Ray is an excellent director of actors, and in my opinion the best performance he gets is Mukherjee as Charulata in the film of the same name. She did some other exceptional performances for Ray, but here she is at her finest. Subtle and calm, she can express so much with just the look of her face. She does things slowly, but effectively, and her portrayal remains profound and forever infatuating. Filmmaker, film and actress remain criminally underrated.

1. Louise Brooks as Lulu in Die Büsche der Pandora (Georg Wilhelm Pabst, 1929)

Here we are at the nr. 1. This is acting as it’s purest. Louise Brooks was a natural for the screen, who didn’t need dialogue to express her feelings and emotions. The way she uses her whole character; her face, her body, her sexuality and her charisma is wonderfully blended in this film. She finds the simplest ways to portray the most complex of emotions, and in her performance, shows just how simple effective acting can be. An almost ridiculously clear nr. 1 for this list.

Weekly Top Ten: Ingmar Bergman

2009-05-27T14:29:00.000-07:00

I don’t want to get into the habit of just doing directors top ten lists, but for now let’s just keep it simple. Ingmar Bergman is probably one of the most iconic film directors who appeared during the rise of European art cinema in the 1950s. Although he had been working quite a lot before that, this was truly the period where he emerged as one of the forces of deeply personal and profound films. For me, personally, he was one of the first European filmmakers I started to explore, and therefore has quite a bit of significance on me and my sensibility when watching films.

10. Tystnaden (1963)
Controversial at its release, Tystnaden was the last of Bergman’s informal faith trilogy. Somehow, I always felt that the film lacked some of the crucial elements that are usually part of Bergman’s cinema. Still, the way he builds up the tension and the strict camera discipline is at times harrowing. It doesn’t evoke some of the issues one is used to in Bergman, but it has a quintessential European “feel”, much like L’Avventura and La Dolce Vita.

9. Fanny och Alexander (1982) Well, I had to add the movie that introduced me to Bergman in the first place. While Bergman always has been a deeply personal filmmaker, I feel this is his most personal film. It has a strong nostalgic feel to it, and much of the events are taken right out of his childhood. The cinematography is as beautiful as colour cinematography gets, and some of the sequences are wonderfully hypnotic.

8. Det Syvende Inseglet (1957)
While at the time of making Det Syvende Inseglet Bergman was already quite famous in Sweden and had made some films that were hailed in Europe, this is without doubt the film that threw him into the international scene, and made him one of the most important contemporary filmmakers in Europe. The medieval setting is properly apocalyptic, and with a great group performance from the cast of Bergman regulars, the film stands as one of the greatest classics of European cinema.

7. Nattvardsgästerna (1962)
This is a quiet little film, at least on the outside. But the internal hell and struggle that the protagonist goes through is at times overwhelming. Gunnar Björnstrand is fantastic as the priest who has lost faith in a higher being, and is well supported by the actors around him, as well as a great little part from Max von Sydow. But what makes this film truly great is the focused cinematography which with its minimalistic style manages to create as much emotion as possible, through some very subtle camerawork.

6. Vargtimmen (1968)
Probably Bergman’s most isolated and paranoid film, Vargtimmen is a visual nightmare like few other films can achieve. The claustrophobic setting and cinematography builds up the internal terror that the characters experience. It is both a strange and scary experience to watch. While I feel it lacks some of the usual subtlety and themes that Bergman explores, the film stands high for its extremely effective use of its visual medium as a nightmare.

5. Såsom i en spegel (1961)
The use of barque music in this chamber film is excellent, and adds to the isolation and mental turmoil that the characters go through. The most interesting aspect of the film is the sexual tension between the brother and sister characters, which towards the end of the film increase into unbearable heights.

4. Sommarnattens leende (1953)
A much underrated gem by Bergman, Sommarnattens leende was his first success abroad, although it didn’t bring him into the spotlight like Det Syvende Inseglet did. The film is a subtle comedy piece with some wonderful acting and delightfully witty script. So it is a much more enjoyable film in the classic sense when considering Bergman films, and that is why I love this film, the pure joy of it. The ending is fantastic.

3. Persona (1966)
Perhaps Bergman’s most difficult film, Persona is one of the finest masterpieces within abstract cinema. Calling Persona abstract is perhaps wrong, in a sense, but it is without doubt the film he made with the most radical and innovative narrative form. The intense emotions which so often are the greatest element in Bergman’s films is at times destructive in this film and the play between the two actresses are absolutely fantastic, walking a fine line between fascination and repulsion.

2. Viskningar och Rop (1972)
Destruction in the eye of the beholder. Blood and disturbing sexual desire. Few words can describe the emotional breakdown and writhing pain one has to suffer when watching this film. Brilliant cinematography in every sense of the word and a hypnotic and tense atmosphere. Enough said.

1. Smultronstället (1957)
I love Smutronstället, it is one of my favourite films of all time. Despite its relative short running time, the film contains everything that cinema could encompass. A road trip movie, the film allows itself a lot of time and space to explore different areas of the protagonist’s life and the unfolding of his previous deeds builds up our understanding of the character wonderfully. There are also some great moments with hitchhikers which further allow the film to unfold unto different themes and ideas. The ending is very uplifting, and brings both the character and narrative to a brilliant conclusion. This film enters into the exclusive group of a few films which I have seen three times in a row, without any break.

All I Desire (Douglas Sirk, 1953)

2009-05-27T14:27:00.000-07:00

This was a weird one, neat though, but I felt that some of the narrative structure was confused, and the film meandered between the poignant and the weak story-plot. Actually, this film doesn’t have any specific outstanding qualities, but still, it isn’t too bad, it’s just good, but not particularly so. It is actually a bit hard to explain, there are a lot of shifting emotions in this film, but it never really worked, truly.

Usually, I bash colour and praise black and white cinematography. But when it comes to Douglas Sirk, I prefer his colour films, because they usually are aesthetically beautiful and the cinematography has some real depth. This film is in black and white, and while the cinematography looks quite good, I do wish this was in colour rather than in black and white, because I know it would have added some great quality to the film. On the story itself, it has a lot of quality and possible depth, but I felt a lot of it was too unexplored. A middle-aged burlesque dance returns to her home town, a little village in the outskirts of America, where she has left her children and husband. Of course, this brings a lot of emotions and her past back to her, and she has to face up to what she escaped from. I was disappointed, because the message of the film seems to be that the small town life is better than the life of the city, which I am a bit opposed to, although the film has its share of criticism on the hypocrisy of these small towns. Of course, it can be read that the film rather says that the most important thing is unity and family, but then again, it is overshadowed and left somewhat open, which I don’t think is the best thing for this film.

The film escapes complexity, which is quite disappointing, but it does remain poignant and is a good case of an early Sirk melodrama. Within this context there is a lot that works in the film, and Sirk manages to get quite a bit of emotions out of the narrative, particularly towards the end of the movie. What I guess I am missing is a bit of that cutting edge such as in All That Heaven Allows, as well as the awesome use of colour that he now is famous for. In many ways, Sirk is very easy to compare to Max Ophüls, much because of their similar background and reasoning for coming to Hollywood. But while Ophüls was a maestro of the moving camera, Douglas Sirk was the master of the colour. Both have wonderful cinematography with depth almost untouchable, but while Ophüls films are absolutely stunning in black and white, this works somewhat against Sirk, and especially in this. You can still tell he is an excellent storyteller from the camerawork that he utilizes here, but it is quite limited and I wish I was rather watching a Sirk film in colour. Still, though, it all works well, and while there seems to be some lacking narrative, the emotions of the characters are well developed and manage to convey exactly what is going on within the characters.

Perhaps not the extravaganza that other Sirk melodrama’s are, this film still works on an emotional level, and one wouldn’t be ill-advised to watch it. However, maybe not the essential Sirk film, and while it was more serious in tone and had more developed themes, I still enjoyed Has Anyone Seen My Gal? quite a bit more.

Has Anybody Seen My Gal? (Douglas Sirk, 1952)

2009-05-19T18:09:00.000-07:00

Now I’m going to start a run of reviews, six to be exact, on films by Douglas Sirk. I have a box with seven of his films; the only one I had seen was All That Heaven Allows. Recently, I watched all remaining six films within a single day, to say the least, I was hooked. I watched them chronologically; the first one in line was Has Anybody Seen My Gal?

This film is a bit different from the normal films that Sirk made. It is not a melodrama, but rather a light screwball comedy. The usual extravagant cinematography that we usually find in his film is neither present, so a lot of what has made Sirk famous is not featured in this film. So, it isn’t the treat that Sirk usually serves us, but, actually, it is still quite worthwhile watching. It is a very charming little story and enjoyable to watch. What is more, I could sense the early development of Sirk’s own use of self-referential subtext and subtle sarcasm, which is also one of his trademarks. An old man who is rich and bitter and dying, decides to go visit the family of his old flame, who chose to marry someone else over him. Since he has no family, he is contemplating giving them his money when he dies, but he first has to check them out to see if they are worthy, and he does so in secret, saying he is a lodger and living with them. He then sends them a check worth quite a lot of money, but not close to the amount they might receive in inheritance, but substantial enough so he can observe how they react and how they spend the money. And so the narrative goes on from this point.

Essentially, this is a comedy, but it does carry a subtext and message. There are also, actually, some musical numbers, although the film cannot be called a musical. These musical numbers are quite interesting and funny as well. In the first one, teenagers are dancing and singing, as if in a musical. The grumpy old man comes to the scene, and starts complaining about the singing. Although not as strong as in later films, this film does have a specific self-awareness, which is one of the things I like most about the directors Douglas Sirk and Max Ophüls Hollywood output. It does add another level of meaning and deeper context to the films, and they also manage to stay startlingly fresh compared to many other genre films of the times. Still, this film doesn’t emulate that same sense of depth, although it does point towards such moments at various times. There is also the anti-materialistic attitude there that Sirk would come back to later, as well as exploring the life and morals of the upper-class. In of itself, the film is quite enjoyable, the humour is funny and broad, the actors are wonderful, particularly the lead, played very well by Charles Coburn as the aging millionaire. The film doesn’t dwell deeply on its issues, but it does touch upon them, and therefore manages to remain somewhat more interesting than it contemporaries.

A funny and enjoyable film in its own right, this is perhaps not exactly the height of Douglas Sirk, but it did lure me softly into watching the rest of his films, although it didn’t prepare me for the rest. It is perhaps a bit mean to say that this is the worst film I’ve seen by Douglas Sirk, and it is, but it is still very enjoyable and I would say worth a watch. Douglas Sirk shows early signal of some quite interesting subversive directing that few in Hollywood could match, or indeed understand.

Weekly Top Ten: Hitchcock

2009-05-19T13:53:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I’m trying out something new here to mix up the usual reviews I usually write, I am also going to try to write more general articles as well. Anyway, for now, I’m starting the Weekly Top Ten, every week on Wednesdays. For kick off I’ll start today, on a Tuesday, but otherwise I’ll try to make it on Wednesday. The top ten will relate to a ranking of anything having to do with film, and to start off, I’ll do my top ten favourite Hitchcock films. Yeah, I know lists don’t mean anything, but they are fun to write, and I find that reading other people’s top something or other lists have led me to discover interesting films and directors, so hopefully I can do the same to others. Anyway, the top ten Hitchcock films:

10. The Lady Vanishes (1938)
Okay, so I just reviewed this one, but it was pretty damn good and a genuine surprise. Good performances, particularly from the comedic British duo obsessed about cricket, a suspenseful plot, some truly uncanny moments and loads of light humour to make the film all the more enjoyable. Lacks a bit of the depth of Hitchcock, but otherwise a perfect film of this type.

9. Strangers on a Train (1951)
Actually a truly disturbing story with some superb performances, particularly from the “stranger”, but overall very well cast. The pacing and building up of the story is the highlight for me, as well as the brilliantly edited climax, and otherwise the establishment of the relationship between the two characters.

8. The Wrong Man (1956)
A somewhat unusual, and absurdly underrated, Hitchcock film. The cinematography is gritty and feels realistic, and the story is, apparently, based on reality. Still, the theme of a man wrongly accused or falling into a scheme he had nothing to do with is as ever present here as in many other Hitchcock films. Also great performance by Henry Fonda.

7. Psycho (1960)
This classic has been parodied so many times, that many modern viewers can watch it for the first time and still find it familiar. This only shows the everlasting effect of the horror masterpiece that can arguably be called Hitchcock’s last great classic, although I do like some of his later films. Still, going back to black and white and basically re-energizing the horror genre is a great feat from the master of suspense, and this is probably the closest he got to “pure horror”.

6. Rear Window (1954)
Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly just look great together on screen, and this is a fine example of cinema studying the act of looking, or basically itself. The obsessive voyeurism of the main character is fascinating, and for a film that takes place simply in an apartment block again shows how well Hitchcock slowly and steadily can build up the narrative and pacing of the film. Only grudge is that I was a bit disappointed by the ending, but otherwise this is spot on.

5. Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
Bad things don’t happen in small town, do they? Well, according to Hitchcock they definitely do, and this is allegedly his favourite film of the ones he made. The dark rising atmosphere of the city is built up to superb effect, as is the somewhat disturbing oedipal relationship between the two main characters. For the first time, truly, did Hitchcock get into the gritty stuff.

4. North by Northwest (1959)
This is perhaps a guilty pleasure, but damn it, this is perhaps Hitchcock’s most enjoyable film in terms of entertainment. Everything is perfect in this sense, the pacing, the narrative, and the fantastic exiting score, and some wonderful set-pieces, such as the scene out at the crops. Great performance from Cary Grant as the unlucky guy who gets caught up in a scheme he never had anything to do with and some of Hitchcock’s most suspenseful moments.

3. Rebecca (1940)
I don’t know, somehow I feel this one is underrated, but I sure do love it. This gothic “woman’s film” has great and sinister set design and cinematography, and characters are very memorable, although, ironically, the most memorable character was Rebecca, even though she never appears physically. Hitchcock’s first American film, it was an immediate success.

2. Notorious (1946)
I just love this film: Cary Grant as the secret agent, Ingrid Bergman as the beautiful love interest, Claude Rains as the bad guy, and Brazil as the setting. Nothing could wrong with this film, really. Though all these great elements, what is most memorable for me in this one is the brilliant use of the camera, the wonderful building of tension, and the almost violent and repulsive relationship between Bergman and Grant.

1. Vertigo (1958)
It was hard for me, really, to pick the #1 spot on this list, but in the end, it had to be Vertigo. Perhaps James Stewart’s best and most disturbing performance, as well as some beautiful colour cinematography and a haunting score this film surfaces, for me anyway, as Hitchcock’s most profound and disturbing film. Some of the stuff he does is brilliant, and Jimmy Stewart’s character’s obsession with the figure Madeleine is uniquely explored here. The camera work is at its best, particularly the early and later stages of the film are riveting.

To Catch a Thief (Alfred Hitchcock, 1955)

2009-05-19T13:51:00.000-07:00

This one I hadn’t heard much about, which was strange because it is from the period when Hitchcock was at his very best and it stars two of the most famous actors of the time, Grace Kelly and Cary Grant. Then I watched, and I was still confused, because it actually wasn’t that bad, indeed, it was quite good, and I’m surprised this doesn’t get mentioned more often.

Cary Grant is a retired jewel thief, but when someone starts stealing jewels in the same manner as he used to, and the police suspect him, he has to take action and catch the thief. So it’s the standard wrong man accused story, which, I guess, is nothing special by now, and Hitchcock certainly did it better in North by Northwest. What is a bit unfortunate, though, is that what I remember best about this film is its setting, which isn’t always a good thing. It is set in the South of France during summer, and it does look beautiful indeed. The film is an extravaganza in set and costume design, and I felt that these elements took a bit too much of the spotlight for the film to work strongly as a narrative. It is a fun film to watch though, and while not as clever as most Hitchcock films, it certainly is entertaining. The colour cinematography is beautiful, and the setting puts us right in the mood of the moment, although I did wish I was actually there, rather than watching the film. I did think Cary Grant was a bit unconvincing as the retired jewel thief, I always thought that when he acted in serious films that he was better as a slick guy like in Notorious, rather than some roof climbing burglar. Grace Kelly is at her most beautiful best, and really illuminates the film with her presence. Sadly, it would be her last with Hitchcock.

The film, despite its obvious lack of subtlety or depth, is still a lot of fun, much owing to the humorous tone it keeps throughout the narrative, with a particularly deflating and funny ending line. While Cary Grant isn’t convincing in the role itself, he does have the natural charisma and acting skills to be enjoyable to watch, although it really isn’t a performance to be remembered as his best. Grace Kelly is better, then, putting a lot of energy into her role and generally adding a bit of spice to the film. There are some great cinematic moments, particularly the ecstatic kissing scene between Grace Kelly and Cary Grant during the fireworks. The film is more slick than clever, and it was a big hit in its time, which makes sense to me. It also has a lot of the usual Hitchcock moments and quirks, so it avoids being just another Hollywood film and a quintessential Hitchcock film, although not a particularly strong one. The flair is there, it just isn’t as deep or profound as Hitchcock usually does it. What is good, though, is that the film emulates a sense of enjoyment. While it probably wasn’t his most committed effort, I am pretty damn sure he had a fun time making this film, and I did have a fun time watching it. I am still surprised that it hasn’t received that much recognition amongst the fans, even though it isn’t as good as his best efforts; it is still a good and enjoyable film. Maybe it was just quietly forgotten, I don’t know really.

Not fantastic, but not bad at all. Very enjoyable to watch, and while it might not give me the same amount of excitation as I usually get from watching Hitchcock films, it still managed to keep me interested, and the beautiful setting, as well as Grace Kelly, kept me interested and intrigued throughout the course of the narrative.

The Lady Vanishes (Alfred Hitchcock, 1938)

2009-05-19T12:36:00.000-07:00

I guess I’ve seen about 20 or more Hitchcock films now, but still there is something to get from this guy, although I might be scraping the bottom of the barrel. The Lady Vanishes was one of his British films, before he decided to go to America. The film therefore has a different feel to it than his Hollywood productions, particularly those of the 50’s. What is interesting, though, is that we can already see in this early film, elements which would become very prominent later in his career, and hailed as hallmarks of his cinema.

The film has a very “British” sense of humour, my two favourite characters in the film are two Englishmen who constantly talk about cricket and how they have to get in time home for the big cricket tournament. Most of the film takes place on a train, and Hitchcock does well to keep the film interesting despite the limited space he can tell his story in. The narrative is about a woman who vanishes, as the title says. It is actually quite disturbing when she does disappear, and a strange sense of the uncanny and questioning one’s self mind come to the fore. It is a thriller, though, in typical Hitchcock style, with all the recognizable narrative ploys he usually uses, for example having a conversation while eating, or the classic romance. What made this one stand out a bit more than the rest of his films that I have seen is the focus on the comedy, which there is a lot more of here than usual. All of Hitchcock’s films have quite a bit of humour, but it is usually subtle or just for short moments. Here, though, it takes centre stage and is a big part of what the film is. I also found the interplay between the two romantic leads very good and playful, although the acting is never anything spectacular in itself, at least not on the level such as It Happened One Night.

I did think though that the film lacked a bit of the depth that Hitchcock’s films usually have. Not to say that the film isn’t subtle, because it is quite subtle at times, and explores some interesting themes on denial psychology. What the film misses, most crucially, is the cutting edge in narrative that some of Hitchcock’s later films such as Vertigo, Rebecca, Notorious, Rear Window, and to a lesser extent, North by Northwest had. Still, the film works wonderfully in its own way, and is still high above the average of similar films from that time period. The 1930’s are a difficult era in film to analyse, because the move from silent to sound put the films technologically back a couple of years, and one can see the raw crudities in some of the early 30’s films. In The Lady Vanishes, however, there is little sign to this, and the sound design is also quite impressive for its time. Watching this makes me a bit nostalgic; as I feel I am starting to draw dry the amount of good films that Hitchcock still has to offer. That I have seen well over 20 of his films, though, and still being able to look for more material he directed, only stands as a testament to his immense quality and consistency as a director. Sure, there were a couple of stinkers, but overall the amount of quality films he has put out is nothing short of impressive.

There are always re-evaluations of directors. Recently I have felt that many have started to vindicate Hitchcock to be not all he was made out to be, much like Citizen Kane. Of course, though, Hitchcock is one of the finest directors of all time, he made some fantastic, deep and entertaining classics, and some of the best camerawork and sound design you will ever see or hear. This one was good, and while a classic, not quite up to speed with his very best. Not as if that says much.

Stalag 17 (Billy Wilder, 1953)

2009-05-17T20:44:00.001-07:00

Stalag 17 is another film by Billy Wilder which was made just two years after Ace in the Hole. Strangely, though, the film has a vastly different feel and atmosphere to it than Ace in the Hole. It is on a much lighter note, and can be billed almost as a comedy. This actually is quite perplexing, as this film is set in a Nazi POW camp during the Second World War. But hey, this is another genius stroke from Wilder, as the film mixes dark drama with light humour to great effect, and creates a film that is visually intriguing and always keeps the audience interested in the story.

The film follows a group of sergeants who live together in a barracks in the POW camp. They always attempt to scheme their way out of the camp, but whatever they try, the German guards are always a step ahead, thwarting all of their attempts. So, of course, they realize that someone amidst their group has to be selling the information to the Germans. The man everyone suspects is the cynical loner J.J. Sefton, played by William Holden with gusto. While the narrative then unfolds with this as its pretext, there is a lot more to this film than just the narrative. It is also a slice of life of the prisoners, and this area of the film is the comedy part. The interaction between the prisoners and the Germans are priceless, especially the way they know each other exactly. The Germans know that the Americans are trying to escape, and the Americans openly admit so, and in a way it becomes a compromise between the two factions. One of the best things about Billy Wilder films is how they blend humour and drama. I thought this worked at its very best in The Apartment, but it works very well here also. The comedy is a bit broader, and the contrast is a bit stronger, but it still works wonders, my favourite parts where the Sergeant nicknamed Animal’s obsession with Betty Grable throughout the film.

I thing the humour has a very important role in this film. The prisoners are constantly depressed about their situation and the meagre living conditions, but the humour keeps the spirit up, otherwise the film might have been too dark. So, in many ways, the film offers some of the best from two different worlds: wonderful broad humour and some wonderful visual storytelling when the William Holden character tries to find out who the traitor is. The films’ ending is also properly thrilling and satisfying. William Holden is great as the cynical outsider, trying to do the best with the situation he is stuck in. Like the films tone, the cinematography drifts between the light and the gritty, and some of the shots of William Holden contemplating look great, capturing his isolated nature perfectly and creating a sense of paranoia around him. Some might suggest that the mixture of World War Two and broad humour might be a tad bit tacky, but I don’t think so. It is simply a working-through, a way to handle the situation they are in psychologically. The film also handles it subject with a sense of grace and the respect it deserves, so it avoids just being stupid, a trap too many films fall into, especially today (e.g. Saving Private Ryan). But what this film has, which is featured in the best of Wilder’s films, is a penetrating gaze at the human subject and condition, vindicating our very nature and yet having a laugh at it.

Great film, again, from Billy Wilder. Not his best, but that is quite hard to achieve, and this stands as a wonderful classic of that great age of cinema. The casting is almost always perfect in Wilder films, and this is no different, with special remarks to William Holden’s performance, as well as the visual narrative parts and the slapstick parts. Wonderful experience.

Ace in the Hole (Billy Wilder, 1951)

2009-05-17T08:43:00.000-07:00

Billy Wilder is perhaps one of the very best classic Hollywood directors, known for his stylistic dialogue and clever plots. His films are also darker than the usual thing you’ll find in Hollywood, particularly his film Sunset Blvd. I discovered this film when I found out that it was available as a criterion release, and even though I didn’t know much about it, I had to have it. It also stars one of my favourite actors of the era, Kirk Douglas, who I recently saw in Out of the Past and he was brilliant in Paths of Glory.

In this film, Kirk Douglas plays a reporter who is on the low point of his career, and seeks a job as a writer for a small newspaper in a town in the outskirts. Hoping to get his breaking story, he idly waits for it at his new job. A whole year goes by, with nothing spectacular happening and nothing relevant to report, he starts to grow frustrated. One day, on a mission for the newspaper, he comes by an old mine where a man is trapped deep down. He sees an opportunity for a human interests scoop, and quickly starts capitalizing on the emotions of the reader, and starts the rescue of the man. The rest of the film details how the protagonist, Tatum, covers the story and his control of all the events surrounding it. I think this film is perhaps Kirk Douglas’ best performance, even better than in Paths of Glory. He is a cynical business man type, who knows everything about the workings of news and how to utilize the media to its fullest. This is also, actually, one of Billy Wilder’s best efforts, the black and white cinematography of the barren desert is fantastic, and the way he continues to drive the narrative forward is excellent. But also, the film is very different from anything I have seen from Hollywood, it stands as a strong contrast to the classic story, and takes its own unique path, something that makes it one of the films of the time that stands out.

The film is a scathing indictment of the media and its potential to trick people and capitalize on their emotions. For its time, it is truly innovative, and it is kind of scary to see that it actually is worse today than before. The place where the man gets trapped becomes a tourist attraction, and Tatum’s handling of the situation is as brilliant as it is frightening. As the tourist attraction grows, the circus also comes, and it creates a great symbol for the media and the press. This is probably Billy Wilder’s darkest and most negative film, showing the greed of Tatum manifest itself in the community and people that he influences. Particularly the wife of the guy stuck in the mine is a very negative character, and unlike most Hollywood films of the time, here there is no redemption. There is a bit of subtle humour in there as well, and the film does work as a comedy in much the same manner as say Dr. Strangelove, but this is actually darker and more sinister. It is a film that is angry, and it sneers at humanity, as well as aptly point out our mistakes and foils. That is why, for me, the film left a strong emotional impact, and stands above most of Hollywood of the time. Its intelligence, the wry and sharp script, and the great performance by Kirk Douglas makes this film stand a whole bunch above the rest of the crop.

One of the finest by Billy Wilder, this might though not be for everyone’s tastes as it is a much more dark and sarcastic film than most from the time, and people who just want to be nostalgic or have a good laugh with a Hollywood classic might not like this film for its grittiness. However, I can do nothing but heap praise on this film, as it stands out as one of the finest of its time period, and in fact, it hasn’t aged in the slightest.

Out of the Past (Jacques Tourneur, 1947)

2009-05-15T22:17:00.001-07:00

This is it, the classic of classics, one of the defining films of the noir genre, Out of the Past brought Robert Mitchum to fame and brought about the noir genre, dark thrillers where people smoked ridiculous amounts of cigarettes and the femme fatale characters started to come to fruition. Out of the Past doesn’t disappoint as a classic, and reeks wonderfully of dark atmosphere, complicated plot and cynicism.

The film has the archetypal protagonist, a tough talking who is in trouble of some sorts, as well as the two love interests, the nice blonde girl and the femme fatale. Although I haven’t seen any films with Robert Mitchum before, his fame preceded him and I knew quite a bit about him before I saw this. He is, of course, perfect for the role, and helps create the atmosphere of the film. But my favourite character, though, is the villain, played by Kirk Douglas. He is perfect as the sly gentleman like villain who seems as if he will stop at nothing, and while he doesn’t really do much himself, one can always feel his pressing invisible presence, and creates a great role of paranoia and fear. The gritty cinematography is iconic, and it creates a very dense atmosphere that shows the viewer the situation that the character is in. While the protagonist is no saint, he is still very much a character one can identify with, or rather, warm to. This is one of my favourite aspects of the noir genre, because the heroes are usually anti-heroes, and therefore creates an interesting conflict into the persona of the character, very different from the normal Hollywood film of the time. These films explore more deeply the darker side of human nature, and in many ways are more interesting for their somewhat different character development, which rockets their characters through some though struggles.

The ending of the film is also great, and the whole film truly spends a lot of time exploring Mitchum’s character. The ending brings it all together and consolidates his character within a frame, giving us the whole picture of what he and the film were about. I usually find noir films very satisfying to watch, and this was no different. I do love the noir genre, and it therefore becomes quite hard to criticize it. Because Out of the Past is the archetype for noir film, it is really hard to criticize it without criticizing the noir genre. In this way, one could say that Out of the Past is the perfect noir, for better or worse. I might be quite biased here, because of my interest in the noir genre; I also love the look 40’s, which creates a certain nostalgic feeling in me. Not that I ever lived in the 40’s, but I still yearn to, everything about that era is amazing. Well, except the war an all that... Anyway, I’ve seen quite a few noir films, but I think this might be the most impressive of them all, because of the great atmosphere, the plot, and of course the great performances from Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas. The mix of the innocent town setting and the dark cityscape is also very intriguing, and creates some very nice contrasts, which has big significance on the characters psyche.

If you want to get into noir, this is perhaps the essential place to start. Everything about this film screams style and class, and it is an archetype for what the noir genre would become known for, particularly the femme fatale character is great, and adds a lot of conflicting emotions in the protagonist. Also see it for Kirk Douglas’ performance.

Arsenic and Old Lace (Frank Capra, 1944)

2009-05-15T21:26:00.000-07:00

So, after two fairly disappointing outputs by Capra, I watched this comedy classic, and what a laugh it turned out to be. It is based on a famous play by the same name, but I wasn’t familiar with the story, so I didn’t know what I was in for. Safe to say, this was probably one of the sharpest and funniest comedies I have seen from Capra or classic Hollywood even.

So, I’m not going to bother with spoiling too much of the story, as it is quite a joy to watch unfold and therefore I could ruin anyone’s potential viewing of the film. The protagonist is Cary Grant, and he is hilarious in this. The film uses a lot of physical and slapstick humour, and this works well with Cary Grant’s range, which allows him to go to ridiculous lengths to be funny, but never enough over the top to make it idiotic, and that’s quite a skill. The whole cast is great, though, and especially Peter Lorre is fantastically funny in this, with his thin creepy voice. Now, I’ve talked a lot about the depth in Capra films, and well, this film doesn’t really have much of that. But it makes up for it with the superb wit and sharpness in humour. It’s just a very enjoyable film, and takes full advantage of the script to superb effect. Incidentally, because the film is based on a play, there is only one location, really, and despite this, the film never really gets boring, but constantly keeps itself fresh with the development of the narrative. The film takes most use of cinematography as possible, and the black and white is crisp and beautiful, so the film is also a visual treat, which is important considering much of the visual humour. Don’t get me wrong, though, there isn’t just visual humour, the script and dialogue is great and hilarious as well.

From a pure directing point of view, this is perhaps Capra’s most impressive output, his directing is so consistent and spot-on it at times feels as if he was born to make this film. There is particularly one scene which lasts for quite a long while on just a wide shot, and this was one of the most memorable moments in the films, and that requires quite a bit of skill, as if there was any doubt that Capra lacked this. He captures the frantic moments with gusto, and the silent moments are filled with extreme tension. What I loved most about this film, though, was the absolutely unique sardonic black humour, of which I don’t think I have seen the likes of in Hollywood films, and the closest example is probably Dr. Strangelove. Obviously, this is much due to the original material, but it is excellently translated to the screen here. It is really not that easy to successfully adapt plays to cinema, and I have seen many bad examples, but this is probably the single best example of a completely successful translation of the original material into another medium. Really, everything works very well in this film, and it is a joy from start to finish. Yeah, it doesn’t have the depth or subtlety of some of the other Capra films, but it is his most enjoyable film that I’ve seen, and it is a great example of his great directing.

While not a film I would consider among Capra’s best, it is still a pretty damn good film, and the humour is great, supported by the funny interpretation of the roles and actions by the cast. A wonder to behold, Capra’s sense of direction is fantastic, and a great exercise in how to successfully direct a pure comedy.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (Frank Capra, 1936)

2009-05-15T20:49:00.001-07:00

Another film by Frank Capra, and this, just like its title, reminded me a lot of his other film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It has much of the same elements; a young naive man acquires a new post of status and has to adjust himself to the new environment and expectation, but in the end learns that he was better of as he was before the film started. Oh yes, there is also the obligatory love interest.

But Mr. Deeds Goes to Town lacks one major thing that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington had, and that is: Jimmy Stewart. Gary Cooper takes the role as the naive protagonist here, and to say the least, he lacks barrels of charisma. It is so natural with Jimmy Stewart that one almost doesn’t think about it when he acts, but I came tumbling right down to reality when I was watching Gary Cooper, and at times wished I was rather watching a Capra film featuring Stewart. Generally, I don’t rate acting that highly, but in Hollywood films, this is often a very essential part, and that is why I felt the story suffered a lot. But, while the film might have been much better with Jimmy Stewart in the main role rather than Gary Cooper, it still wouldn’t have been as good as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Generally, it lacks the usual flair Capra’s films have, and his directing seems somewhat conservative, and not as spectacular nor as interesting as his films seem, especially his best. So, even though I still enjoyed the previous film I reviewed by Capra, it was still fairly weak for a Capra film. This, though, was quite weak overall, and didn’t have the overall Capra joy or enjoyment that we are usually treated to.

The ending of this film, particularly, is quite weak compared to the fantastic and epic ending of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It all feels fairly contrived, and again, the script seems to be the weak link here. But, the film suffers further from the lack of inventive or interesting directing from Capra’s part. The black and white cinematography is quite nice, but the film doesn’t have that great nostalgic feel that I love so much about classic Hollywood films. The only fairly interesting part of this film is, strangely, the love interest of Gary Cooper. She kind of reminds me of the guy in It Happened One Night. She is a reporter, and tricks her way into his way to get an exclusive on his story to the big times. She is probably the most developed element in the film, but of course, she takes the usual route these characters take, she starts out as a cynical reporter who just cares about the story, but then subsequently falls in love with the protagonist and repents her ways. Of course, here we just see it from her point-of-view, while in It Happened One Night we saw it as a development between both of the two characters, and it was thus even better developed and believable. Well, so what I mean is that, while she is the only interesting character in the film, the relationship itself is not very interesting.

I didn’t really enjoy this film, and it was really a weak film from Capra. Again, it lacked the usual depth his films have, but here, it also missed the charm and joy that he manages to capture, and it thus lost most of my interest throughout. It seems to have a high score on IMDb, so I guess somebody seems to see something in this. Not me though.

You can’t take it With You (Frank Capra, 1938)

2009-05-15T20:15:00.000-07:00

Frank Capra is probably one of the finest and one of my personal favourite directors of the classic Hollywood era. Then there is You can’t take it With You, a film I was left fairly unimpressed with, which is quite a disappointment, because it is the first time I’ve ever been unimpressed by a Capra film. Well, not quite, though, but it wasn’t right up there with his best, and, indeed, there were a lot of issues, particularly with the narrative, that irritated me. It is in many ways good fun, but lacks in some of the elements that makes Capra so great.

So this film deals with a family which is quite out of the ordinary. They believe in doing whatever they want, and have fun. This film also features Jimmy Stewart in his probably least inspired role, as the son of a rich guy who is mean and cynical, I liked him a lot. Yeah, you can already see where this review is going. Anyway, the family house is quite crazy; they even manufacture fireworks down in the cellar. Although they aren’t wealthy, they are very happy. One of the girls in the house is in love with the James Stewart character. You can easily see what way the film will go from here. Two people in love, one of a fun loving family without many riches, and the other of a family of cynical rich snobs. Will the crazy family learn complacency in the end, or will the cynical learn some compassion? Well, take your guess. Anyway, while I always like the themes and ideals Capra tries to express in his films, this film left me confused, as it actually seems to blatantly promote anarchy. The narrative contains some annoying plot-holes and at times doesn’t make much sense, particularly psychologically. The characters, though, are pretty colourful and likable, and the casting, as always with Capra films, is spot on.

Capra does, however, manage to evoke the feeling of joy, which is one of his greatest strengths, and there are many such moments in this film, which gives it an overall likability and makes it really watchable. What it does lack, though, is the wonderful subtlety and depth that Capra’s films usually contain, beneath the layer of the narrative. This might be more to the somewhat blatant screenplay, and less to Capra’s sensibility as a director, because the film, in pure technical terms, is pretty much on the same level as Capra’s other films, or indeed Hollywood in general. So it’s not really a bad film, it’s just quite shallow. There is indeed a message beneath the film, but it is not very subtle, nor is it very interesting. It is life affirming and the kind of “do what you can with your life” philosophy. And while most will probably agree with this nice assessment, the film doesn’t treat its subject with the seriousness it deserves. Well, don’t misunderstand, the film isn’t very serious, and is quite silly, but this shouldn’t stand in the way of a serious message, and this is the other main problem with the film. It knows what it wants to say, but doesn’t really have the means to explore this to its true depths, and thus remains fairly uninteresting in this right.

Still, though, it is an enjoyable film, and a fine entry into the work of Capra. I just wish more could have been done with the screenplay, which I thought was quite lacking. The film is based on a play, so I guess it is there where the problems are coming from. Essentially, it is a mainstream comedy, with little to no greater ambition, but for what it is, it’s still worth watching, and the comedy in itself is quite good.

Oliver Twist (David Lean, 1948)

2009-05-15T19:29:00.001-07:00

Based on the classic novel by Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist is another classic British film by the director David Lean. Of course, this is a very well known book, and there are actually several film adaptations. I am familiar with the adaptation Oliver!, which was a musical, and one of my fondest childhood film memories. So, obviously, this film had to live up to the expectations of the musical. And, actually, it did, to some extent.

This film is much darker than the musical-colour-extravaganza version. The setting, the characters, and the story are pretty much the same, but the tone and atmosphere of the gritty cinematography creates the much more depressing tone of the film. The opening scenes exemplify this strongly, and I was not too surprises when I read that this film, at its screening, caused quite an upset. One thing that upset me, quite a bit, was the character Fagin. In the musical he is such a lovable person, in a very strange way, but here he is much darker, menacing and generally a bastard. I guess this goes for a lot of the characters in this film. Fagin, though, is played extremely well by one of my favourite British actors, Alec Guinness, and this was his first breakthrough performance. Fagin is quite a larger than life character, but Alec Guinness plays him with enough subtlety to give the character some more depth. He does it perfectly, and Fagin is a typical you love to hate him and hate to love him character. Of course, the real bastard in this film is Bill Sikes, and he is much darker than I remember him, but there you go. Mostly, the casting in this film is perfect, except, I think, the role of Oliver. He is a tad bit boring, and doesn’t really do much, and lacks some natural charisma to make him likable. But he is just a kid, though, and the adult actors support him well.

The book, which I haven’t read by the way, I assume is quite long. Because it feels like the film doesn’t leave out too much, but at its relative short running-time, the film seems to zoom by at lightning speed. Everything seems somewhat rushed, as we are just going through the motions to get to the next part of the narrative. This is the thing I remain most critical to, as the film never really slows down and takes its time properly developing the story, but moves too fast from one point to the next. Oliver is also adopted by some rich family, but compared to the musical, this relationship I felt was never properly explored, and I wanted more time spent in such scenes. Comparing this and the musical is obviously quite hard, because of their very different styles, but I must say that, even though I thought this was great, I think I still prefer the musical. It has charm, beautiful cinematography, great acting and a very well developed story which, even with the excess of the songs, doesn’t seem to be rushed. 10-20 odd minutes more could have added a lot of pace and depth to this black and white version. Still, it has all the trademarks of a classic, and deserves its place within British cinema. It has a very dark atmosphere, which is interesting for the time it was made, and has that undeniable British charm that I quite love.

The film is very enjoyable in many ways, but at the end of the day, it suffers from the rushed storyline. Anyway, the casting is mostly great and the cinematography is great, what’s not to like?

Brief Encounters (David Lean, 1945)

2009-05-11T19:01:00.000-07:00

I don’t know much about David Lean, despite having watched several of his films before. I knew him mainly as a director of wide-shot epics, and some of them were my favourite films, particularly The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), which was fantastic. But, David Lean also made some smaller films before that, in black and white. Brief Encounters is quite famous, but it was only recently that I discovered that it was David Lean who directed it.

So this is a shorter, less spectacular film than I have previously associated with David Lean. The black and white cinematography isn’t as sweeping as those other later colour films, but it creates a nice and tight atmosphere, particularly at night. This film is your basic love story, and has been copied and parodied countless times. Luckily, though, the film avoids being a cliché of itself by creating a wonderful melancholic mood and nostalgic feeling to it. There is also laid down a lot of groundwork to get us, the audience, to sympathise and feel the protagonist’s point of view and submit us to the somewhat dreary life that she leads. Although she is not really unhappy, she doesn’t have much passion in her life, and this meeting with a strange man quickly leads to a romance which introduces her to passion again. Of course, both of them are married, and therefore the romance is doomed, particularly in this old day England. Actually, I really enjoyed the setting, and the thick accents of some of the characters are wonderful. The main setting is a small bar at the train station; both of the main characters live far apart, but meet on this station when they are to go home. Interestingly though; many of the supporting characters almost never have anything to do with the actual story, they are just people bantering at the bar. While the danger here is to take away from the main story, it actually enhances it, as it gives the film, which is already quite gloomy, a more lighter mood, and also provides some fun comedy.

One of the things that I particularly liked was the age of the two characters. They aren’t young, but more middle aged. Today, of course, romance is usually only between two young people, but I feel this works better, because young romance is so easy to write anyway. The romance between the two main characters is based on the fact that they both lack something in their lives, and this is important to adding to the particular mood of the film, which is overall, the best element. Despite the sometimes euphoric romance, there is always a sense of doom and inevitability, and it makes every single minute feel like it counts. Actually, the film felt much longer than it actually was, but this wasn’t really a bad thing. Some of the best moments are when the two go for walks in the country, and this really resonates a romantic tone which feels all the more sad when knowing how hopeless the courting is. The film isn’t really that broad, but it excels at what it is trying to achieve, and is a great exploration of romance. The protagonist is continually well developed throughout the film, and this helps create the strong resonance in the film. However, I sometimes felt that the male interest was a bit too hollow, and one really doesn’t get to close a look at his character, and the interest in the romance from this part suffers as a result. But it doesn’t really detract that much from the film overall.

Pretty damn good romance film, as good as these get, I would say. It doesn’t really go many places nor have any broad themes or interests, but for what it is it is exceptional. Not really the kind of film that will become my favourite, but the film is carefully directed and shows great touches of atmosphere and the emotions a film can create. Neat.

Repulsion (Roman Polanski, 1965)

2009-05-09T19:27:00.001-07:00

Roman Polanski is one of the finest directors out there, is sense of space and creating a dark and claustrophobic atmosphere is brilliant, and he showcases this in such films as Rosemary’s Baby and The Tenant, and his Chinatown is just brilliantly directed. Repulsion was his first film outside Poland, I believe, and it is interesting to see what further steps he took his directing to. This was made in the UK, during that infamous flower power era, and this film does reflect that, to some extent.

What is crucial for the film is its quite daring exploration of a woman’s sexuality, more specifically that of Catherine Deneuve, who lives in London with her sister, who have come to work from Belgium, the French part of Belgium obviously. Of all the Polanski films I have seen, this probably has the most sharp directing, which is quite a feat, considering his previous films. There isn’t a lot of dialogue in this film; rather, we see the inner world of the protagonist, as she becomes more and more paranoid about the surroundings around her, and when she is all alone in the apartment. The most memorable image in the film is the rotting carcass of a rabbit in the kitchen. The film slowly progresses and reveals more about the character, and the tension builds effectively. Polanski takes some unexpected routes to get to where he wants, but always to great effect. The film is shot in grim black and white, and properly suits the mood of the film. Deneuve is perfect in her ice cold manner, and although she doesn’t emote much, this works well with the isolated character that she plays. Great example of good casting. Polanski, though, doesn’t mind throwing the audience about a bit, and our senses are distorted at times, which is quite effective. Much of the films strengths is its development and unfolding, so I won’t go too much into it.

Polanski is a master of the exploration of space and claustrophobia, and this is fairly similar to Rosemary’s Baby although, I believe, Repulsion is superior to that film. The intense feeling of claustrophobia, together with sexual angst, grows throughout the film, and builds towards a great climax. This is where Polanski’s sense of directing really comes to its best, his angles, the framing, it’s all great, and helps create the underlying fear of the film. This is a great example of truly telling the story through visual means, the lack of much dialogue helps create the sense of isolation, but also allows Polanski to experiment with the camera, everything is told through the lens, most of the dialogue is superfluous and is just there to add some background information. Isolation and paranoia was what Polanski was best at, and it shows gloriously in this film. In fact, I think this is the best film I’ve seen by Polanski, and I love Polanski. He is without doubt one of the best directors to appear during the early to mid 60’s, and this film is the point where the young director really reached his heights.

Brilliant film, brilliant framing and cinematography. The way tension and paranoia is built is superb, and it is a deep and disturbing exploration of repressed sexuality, not to get too Freudian. Not very accessible, the pacing is quite slow, but properly slow. Indeed, I prefer slow pacing compared to fast pacing. But that’s just me.

Orphée (Jean Cocteau, 1950)

2009-05-09T19:26:00.001-07:00

Well, I might not have been too positive about the last Jean Cocteau film I reviewed, but this was a whole bunch better. Much of the visual fiesta has been preserved, with some interesting and fascinating special effects, a narrative I actually cared about and some more freaky stuff that is quite cool. So, Orphée...

Actually, I don’t have much to say about this film, I liked it, it was okay. Not brilliant, but good. One thing that got to me was why the hell does Cocteau like obnoxious characters? So the sisters were quite annoying, but here the main protagonist is a jerk, he is just insufferable. Anyway, the best part of this is the set designs, the mystery, and the awesome special effects, which are quite inventive. They work well towards the narrative, and help build the uncanny feeling this film possesses. Actually, with both Cocteau films, what he excels is the atmosphere and mystery. What is the story about? Well, I won’t bother elaborating too much about it, because it is a bit complex and I don’t think I could do justice to it. Anyway, it is a love story, of sorts, between this guy and his wife, and it gets solved because death is in love with the guy and... wait no, I’m not going to go further into it. This is going to be a short review.

You might sense that I am fairly apathetic in this review. Well, yeah, while I enjoyed this film, it wasn’t all that, and after all the stuff in the narrative, the only thing that had me really fascinated were the special effects, which were great. I don’t know, I just don’t really care too much for these films, I don’t love them, but I don’t particularly hate them either. They are just uninteresting to me, and at times it even feels as if the films aren’t even interested in themselves. So yeah, I’ve heard quite a bit of hype about Cocteau from the elite, but I just don’t buy it, there isn’t enough there for me to pick from, there aren’t any thought provoking moments, even when the film tries its best to be.

So, two Cocteau films seen, not really impressed, okay I guess, in their own ways. The cinematography and set design is great in both, and the special effects in Orphée are fantastic, and so that at least is something positive. Don’t think I’ll return to this guy in a while.

La belle et la bête (Jean Cocteau, 1946)

2009-05-09T19:25:00.000-07:00

So, like everyone else and their mothers I saw Beauty and the Beast when I was a kid. I watched anew with more mature eyes about a year ago and, yeah, it was pretty good, although I probably need to watch it again now after having seen Jean Cocteau’s French version, which preceded the Disney one, which is cool. Cocteau does add his own style to the myth, and the mystery in the film is quite good, let’s see.

For one, I was actually more scared by the Disney version of the Beast than in this film. Well, it’s really a no-brainer, in the Disney film he moves and roars like a lion, and is seriously threatening. In this, it’s some guy in a suit speaking not so threatening polite French. Ok, so that element was gone, but what was cool was the absurdity of his castle, with live hands holding the candles in the corridors and faces in the walls, but they never speak, they are just silent and watch, which is quite freaky. The atmospheric cinematography is great, and creates the perfect mood for this film, and again, black and white rules. The story is very much the same that as the Disney version, except of course that it doesn’t have a happy ending. Sorry to spoil that for you, but hey, this is a French film, what else do you expect? The ending is quite neat; I am going to have to watch that again soon. Anyway, there are some new characters; Beauty (yes, that’s her name, what pretentious father would call his daughter this?) has some truly obnoxious and annoying sisters, which I suppose are supposed to be funny, but never in such a way as Max Ophüls could pull this sort of stuff off. They are a weak spot of the film, but even more annoyingly so, they are important to the narrative, so one couldn’t have cut them out, damn! Anyway, the film is pretty short so there wouldn’t have been much leeway for cutting it down anyway.

Jean Cocteau said that he never considered himself a filmmaker, and I believe him, because this film has many narrative flaws, most prominently; why the hell does Beauty end up loving the Beast. It is never properly explored, I guess it is because at some point he proves he loves her, but is that really enough? Okay, I admit that I am the sort of guy who never puts too much importance on narrative, but what the hell, this is a pretty damn well known story, and the way the film presents itself here, you would think there was more room for the exploration of the relationship between the Beauty and the Beast. Hell, they should just have cut out those obnoxious sisters and focused on that. Anyway, what is interesting is that the character that is the most similar, strikingly so, to the same character in the Disney film is the human guy who loves Beauty. In the Disney film he was pretty cartoonish, but too my astonishment, he is exactly the same in this French black and white art film as he was in the Disney version. Well, art never grows old, or so it is to be believed, so whatever, let’s just ignore the Disney version for now, and focus on the Jean Cocteau version in its own right. Wait, this review is over. Oh Well.

Sure, the cinematography, atmosphere and set design was both beautiful and inspired, but overall, the visual strengths of this film did not convince me that much. Actually, the Disney version was better, in just so many ways. I particularly despised those sisters, who made the stepsisters from Cinderella seem respectable. Check it out for something freaky, or if you are already into Jean Cocteau, I certainly didn’t get it.

Madame de... (Max Ophüls, 1953)

2009-05-09T19:24:00.000-07:00

Okay, what the hell? Is this some sort of tease, does Max Ophüls want me to give up all hope for contemporary cinema? Why doesn’t filmmakers make films like this anymore, this is as close you can get to pure cinema and still have a strong narrative intact. This is epic, visionary, beautiful, poignant, and all other words that mean some sort of euphoria. This film sums up everything Max Ophül’s cinema is about, and at the same time avoids any form of pretentiousness.

This is a story about some earrings, belonging to Madame de, given to her by her husband as a wedding present, but she doesn’t care too much for them, and decide to pawn them off. Then all goes to hell. That is as much as I am about to say about the story, but, what is important here is the brilliant progression of the story, which at the end concludes everything perfectly. This film captures life, in so many ways, that one is inclined to feel that there couldn’t be anything more beyond the film. Peoples relationship with each other, the world around them and objects is studied carefully, and the setting is perfect for this, the typical turn of the century upper-class setting that Ophüls loved so much. Lavish sets and costumes are part of this film, and they have never looked better in the beautiful black and white cinematography, damn colour! But, I’ve already talked too much about the cinematography of Ophüls, already in two reviews, so why continue the same discussion? Well, here he actually takes it to another level! The opening take is a gorgeous tracking shot, and this style continues throughout the whole film, it is so damn impressive, I have a loss of words for the excitement I feel when watching an Ophüls film.

The cast is great, particularly the actress playing Madame de and her husband are very enjoyable to watch. The relationship between the two characters is built up throughout the whole film, and setting them in the upper-class environment is at times hilarious, for example when the wife pretends she has lost her earrings, and the husband, in all his military clothing, goes around an opera looking for them, creating mass confusion. The same sardonic humour and cynicism from La Ronde returns gloriously in this film, and at times the parody and hypocrisy of the upper-class is hilarious. This criticism, though, isn’t overbearing but sharp and witty. Criticism of the upper-class too often becomes bitter and boring, while this film just has a good laugh at the lot of them. Comedy done well, something we don’t see too often. Anyway, this is Max Ophül’s best film, without a doubt. It has all the subtle gestures and visionary camerawork that has become so normal in his films, but while La Ronde was damn impressive in itself, Ophüls actually had the guts to take that further and improve his style, and it is gloriously realised in this film.

Yeah, I know I am hyping this film a lot, but it is THAT good, and deserves all the praise it can get. It is the height of Ophüls power, and one of his last films. I think he made two more films, but a large part of his work hasn’t been released on DVD, so damn if I know how good they actually are. If they are released, though, on DVD, I will definitely get them, because this director demands you explore his work. Fantastic!

Le plaisir (Max Ophüls, 1952)

2009-05-09T19:23:00.000-07:00

So, the second of Ophüls French escapades, Le plaisir was made two years after La Ronde, and is in many ways in the same spirit, dealing with many of the same themes, although, I felt, it didn’t quite try to reach as far as La Ronde. But it is pretty much as delightful as La Ronde, and the same style works fine for a second time, hell, I could watch a hundred of these films and not get bored, Ophül’s style is impeccable.

Le plaisir follows in many ways in the footsteps of La Ronde. It has that fragmented storytelling and also the same stylistics as La Ronde. Le plaisir, though, is not connected in such a way as La Ronde, but is rather three different short films connected together. Well, the first and third are fairly short, the middle one is almost as long as a feature, so it is more like a sandwich, in a weird way. These stories are slightly less cynical than the ones from La Ronde, and are much more heartfelt, being uplifting instead of dark and sardonic. But much of the humour has been kept, and the distanced camera is still apparent. The first is about an old man who puts on a mask so he can go out to dance and party with the beautiful and sophisticated, the second is about a group of prostitutes who take a trip out to the country, and the third is about a painter. Particularly enjoyable in the second is the scenes where the brothel has been closed without warning, and all the men walk around at night without knowing what to do, now that the local “entertainment” is gone, for the night anyway, and the streets almost burst out into fighting. This story is the strongest, although the other two are really enjoyable, they are short, the first being the best of the shorter ones, and is one of the finest short films I’ve seen.

Ophüls stretches his imagination and vision even further here, and some of the camerawork is simply astonishing, particularly in the first act. The black and white, again, looks gorgeous, and the country side part of the second act are particularly beautiful, filled with peace and serenity, in contrast to the dark tones of the city. The Brechtian overtones are here again, but hey, what else do you expect from a filmmaker who worked as a director in theatre in Germany during the 1920’s? It is not as apparent here as in La Ronde, but the traces are still there, particularly the style and setting which mirrors much of the one in Brecht’s plays. Overall though, I didn’t find this as interesting or coherent as La Ronde. It was still very enjoyable, and shared many of the same strengths as La Ronde, but the fractured style didn’t work as well for me as in the previously mentioned film. Then again, you can’t really go wrong with Ophüls, and this is another testament to his incredible visual talent. The long takes are, perhaps, even more impressive here than in La Ronde, and more visionary and epic. The first act is just brilliant cinema.

Check it out, but La Ronde is better, in my opinion, and a better starting point. Well, Letter from an Unknown Woman is probably the best starting point if you want to check out Ophüls, but hell, all his films are great!

La Ronde (Max Opüls, 1950)

2009-05-09T19:22:00.000-07:00

I’ve been very curious about the French work of Max Ophüls, after he left Hollywood. He did make some fine films in the states, particularly Letter from an Unknown Woman, but I imagined, and I was right, that he would have even more liberties with the films he made in France, outside the constraints of the censor. Criterion released three of the films Ophüls made in France, and this was the first one of those releases. And, yeah, it’s great.

The film opens with a scene that is absurdly Brechtian, narrated by the wonderful Anton Walbrook as he walks through different sets, very cinematically, and talking about the story that is about to unfold. Brechtian cinema can be both great and horrible, depending on how it is handled, and here it is extraordinary. Ophül’s use of Brechtian techniques in his American films was already apparent, but quite a bit more subtle. These techniques are clearer in La Ronde, but the way they from the start take centre-stage is great, and it doesn’t become an overburden, as it so often is inclined to. Anyway, the film doesn’t have a story of sorts, rather, let me explain this, it follows people as they sleep with each other. The film starts out with a prostitute, who sleeps with a soldier, we then follow him, he sleeps with some girl, we then follow her and so on it goes, until the last person sleeps with the prostitute from the beginning of the film. It is a nice tool the film uses to cover a lot of ground, about several different people and levels of society. Ophüls, of course, loves to explore the upper class and all its facets, and while he is quite critical of these people, he also manages to remain coldly distanced. My favourite part is some rich brat teenager who sleeps with the maid, it is actually a hilarious and sardonic scene when he tries to court her.

The more I watch these kinds of films, the more I course the fact that they invented colour film, because the crisp black and white in this looks absolutely gorgeous. Ophül’s sense of pacing and framing is spot on here, and his long takes, well, the opening scene I earlier described was just one long take, are fantastic, and he was an important inspiration for Stanley Kubrick, and it shows. But this is more than technical showings, because every shot in Ophül’s films are very significant, Letter from and Unknown Woman has so many layers, subtexts and clever camerawork it is insanely complex. I didn’t get as much time to look deeply into La Ronde, but believe me, this is even more complex, and believe me when I say that I was able to write a 2,500 word essay one just one 10-minute scene from Letter From an Unknown Woman, and with ease. So yeah, there is a lot to pick up in his films. Ophüls was one of those great German Hollywood directors who perfected his craft in Hollywood after escaping from Nazi Germany. But I believe, though all the frustration he had with the Hollywood system, that he gained a lot from it. I allowed him, or rather forced him, to make his works more subtle, apply crafty subtext, and such. As a director it brought him to maturity in many ways, although the road might have been arduous.

Great film, fantastic, I love the style, the setting, the narrative, the Brechtian techniques, and the wonderful cinematography. It is really a step further stylistically, but Ophüls avoids the traps of style, and creates a deeply profound film about life in so many ways. Style can be so many things, and is usually overexposed and overused by directors, particularly today, but Ophüls doesn’t miss his mark, and this is a masterpiece.

Faust (F.W. Murnau, 1926)

2009-05-09T19:21:00.000-07:00

Now we’re talking! Murnau was the greatest master of the silent drama, and this is perhaps one of the finest of his films, Faust, a film that envelops so many themes, ideas, beautiful shots and actions that I am astounded he managed to stuff it all within one single film! It is like several films into one, yet the story is so idiotically simple. Along with the discovery of Pandora’s Box, I think that exploring the works of Murnau has been the most worthwhile while watching all these silent films recently.

As said, the story is simple: The devil makes a bet with an angel, or God, I’m not sure, maybe the angel was a representative of God, whatever. The bet is that he can turn Faust, a devoted Christian, into the way of the devil, kind of a version of the Book of Job. So the devil, in some absolutely awesome special effects that are way more effective than anything made today, spreads the plague in the town that Faust lives. Faust, being a doctor, is unable to help anyone from the rampant plague, until Mephisto, brilliantly played by, again, Emil Jannings, offers him the opportunity to have all the powers of the devil, and thus save the people of the city. Eventually, he agrees, and many events unfold later which I will not reveal here. The only thing I will say, and complain about, is the somewhat disappointing ending, but that is the only bad thing about the film, the rest would be useless nitpicking.

What is the most astounding about this film is its technology. The special effects are great, and aren’t there just for show, like most today, but have great emotional effects, drive the narrative forward or otherwise making the film more epic, making us realize that it is more about the big picture than just the man Faust, although it also is that. There is the inevitable thing that people will ALWAYS complain about, and that is that they believe silent films are DATED. At times I might, and have indeed, be called a film snob, but I actually, to some extent, agree with the sentiment. Some silent films just are dated, but still, the best of the pack, are not, such as Faust, or the Pabst films, or many of the comedies such as Chaplin and Keaton. The great films never date, particularly such a brilliant film as Faust, where the sheer fantasy of the special effects transcend time. What I am saying is that, many silent films are dated, but if you believe that films such as Faust is dated, excuse me for being a film snob, you are ignorant and cannot see beyond the screen. Fact.

So, there my recent stint into silent films ends, and on a high note as well. I will come back in some time, but as always, when I have seen many films of the same type, I grow tired of them, and for now I am tired of silent films. The best ones were Der Letzte Mann, Faust, and Pandora’s Box. Great films all of them, and I actually didn’t see any stinkers, so well done.

Michael (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1924)

2009-05-09T19:19:00.002-07:00

More silent films to watch, then, and the next on my list was the German-produced Michael by the Danish director Dreyer. I had never heard of this film before, but apparently it had been “rediscovered” by the Masters of Cinema collection and was one of their earliest releases. So of course, I was interested in watching this. I wasn’t too fascinated with Dreyer’s Le passion de Jeanne d’Arc (1928), excuse me, but I loved Ordet (1955) and Vampyr (1932). Incidentally, Vampyr was the first film I reviewed on this site, so good to come back to Dreyer after all this time. Anyway, Michael...

The story is about a famous and prestigious painter. One day, a young aspiring painter comes to meet him and get some sort of advice. Instead, the older painter wants to use this young man, Michael, as his new model, and he becomes a whole new inspiration. What is most interesting about this film is how, the old man is completely isolated in his world of art, except of course for Michael, who becomes his closest friend and companion. As we would expect, things don’t always stay perfect, and eventually Michael and the old artist start to fall apart, especially when the old artist starts to paint a young woman instead of Michael, who falls in love with this young woman. The core of the story is the isolation and tragedy of the aging artist, who only lives for his art. However, there is a strong sense of the aging artist having a homoerotic relationship with Michael, and all the conflicts are concerned between these two men. Much like Pabst’s films, it is a bit astounding that they explored such issues in the “old days”, but then again this wasn’t Hollywood, and it is probably more that we are not so used to such themes in old films, at least far from as much as they do today.

One of the main selling points of the film is its great cinematography, which really captures the space of where the artist lives and creates a very dark mood. The accompanying music was also helpful, although the Masters of Cinema DVD provided me with the option of two different tracks, and I only listened to one, so I can’t comment any further than that. This being said, this is not my favourite Dreyer film, hell, it’s not even my favourite silent film, by far. It is a pretty damn film in its own right and an interesting addition to the films I’ve seen by Dreyer, but, somewhere I felt it lost the plot. The theme about isolation and loneliness are interesting, but are rather thin, and I definitely felt that the film could have been shorter and more focused, a problem I often find with films. Less is more, that insipid cliché, is even truer for cinema. I am happy that I saw this, though, and for anyone interested in the works of Dreyer, definitely check this out, it is better than that OTHER overrated film of his. I you are not that interested in Dreyer, though, I would recommend any of the silent films by Murnau over this, they are mostly all fantastic films.

Pretty good silent film by the master Dreyer, but I felt somewhat cheated; there could have been more in certain areas, and less in others. Otherwise, a very enjoyable film in its own right, and worth checking out for Dreyer enthusiasts.

Tagebuch einer Verlorenen (Georg Wilhelm Pabst, 1929)

2009-05-09T19:19:00.001-07:00

So, after the absolute delightful experience that was Pandora’s Box, I was quite excited to watch the other pairing up of Louise Brooks and Pabst. This was indeed quite a different movie from Pandora’s Box, and not as good either. Still, it had its strength and well worth checking out, but unlike Pandora’s Box it didn’t feel like it had the same impact as the former. It suffered somewhat from structure, and the impact wasn’t as strong, as well as the themes weren’t as interesting. Still, lets take a closer look.

The character Louise Brooks plays here is quite different from Pandora’s Box. While she there was able to seduce men, and did so with gusto, here she seduces men, but rather against her own will and wit. She is a victim of men’s lust, and in a strange way the themes from the first film are the same here, but warped somewhat. A man forces himself on her, and she becomes pregnant. Now, when the child is born, her parents want to force her to marry this guy, who is by the way an absolute bastard. Of course she refuses and is sent to some prison of sorts with other “deviant” women, her child taken away from her. Here she is monitored by some sick nun and her large bald friend who ensures peace is kept. This part was for me the most interesting part of the film, as the audience are showed some interesting actions and the nun is a great character, who tortures the women at the prison for her own warped sexual pleasure. It is fairly disturbing, and I’m surprised they got away with this in the old days. The implications are great though.

The film lacks a certain drive that Pandora’s Box certainly had. There is a lot of emotional stuff in there, but it just doesn’t tie together as well as the previous film. That said, there are some great scenes, and the film relies on these exceptional sole moments to create its power and meaning. The major problem, compared to Pandora’s Box, is the climax. The climax isn’t that strong, and falls short off the mark, much due to the structure of the film. I know I compare the film too much to Pandora’s Box, but considering the absolute perfection of that film, I feel it is reasonable. Louise Brooks, though, is still great, and the portrayal of the simple naive girl is wonderful, and she truly keeps our interest and concern. Unlike Pandora’s Box, where she was a great asset, here she is basically the saving spirit, although the film craft itself is fine, she does heighten the film to another level. That is not to say that the film is average, it isn’t. But one feels that it could have achieved more, and could have been better. It is still a damn good movie; it just doesn’t reach the cathartic heights that Pandora’s Box did.

Watch Pandora’s Box first, it is a superior movie. However, if you like it, there is not real reason why you shouldn’t watch this film. It still has a lot to offer, and stands fine on its own, and featuring Louise Brooks it is a definite sale. Still good, but falls off the mark compared to the fantastic Pandora’s Box.

Die Büsche der Pandora (Georg Wilhelm Pabst, 1929)

2009-05-09T19:16:00.000-07:00

So I’ve been gone for a long while, I’ve been incredibly busy and have had too much to do, so had to push this page out of the list. I have now, though, handed in all my work for university, and have about a month with nothing to do, yay! I’ve seen quite a few films though, and I’m going to start right where I stopped, in the midst of the German silent era. The film is Pandora’s Box, directed by Pabst who had also done the Three Penny Opera, which I reviewed earlier. I was quite interested in these silent films, as they had been recommended to me by one of my professors. To say the least, I was not disappointed.

The film is staged around its illustrious star, Louise Brooks, who made her career in Hollywood, but left for Germany because of the advances of sound. She gives perhaps one of the finest female performances I’ve ever seen and in a silent film as well! This is a natural, her face looks absolutely perfect on the screen, her facial expressions are always meaningful and simple, conveying the mood and thoughts of the character in a way dialogue never can achieve. As I noted in my last review of a Pabst film, I was impressed with his style, but here it is at a pitch perfect. There is a scene, I won’t spoil it here, which is one of the most effectual I’ve ever seen in cinema. Incidentally, Louise Brooks does not feature in this scene, which makes it even more astounding how effective that scene is. Throughout the film, though, what the film relies most on is the sexual presence of Louise Brooks, who is effective at using her natural charm, and the film portrays this fantastically. Both the audience and the male characters in the film are drawn to her, as she takes centre stage. A lot of the cinematography is crafted around her, and in the process creating some of the most beautiful and alluring shots in cinema. The close ups of Louise Brooks are, as much as the narrative and beautiful story structure, the biggest selling point of the film. But it isn’t cheap, like so much of Hollywood, but rather heightens the film, most importantly because of the story and the subject matter.

Louise Brooks plays a prostitute, who can easily get whatever she wants because of her natural “talents”. But the film doesn’t portray her as a deviant; rather, she is portrayed as an innocent and somewhat naive character. The events that occur are because of her, but less because of what she specifically does and more because of the obsession the men have with her. Of course, this all leads to both horrible and hilarious incidents, and at times the Louise Brooks character is nothing more but a mere spectator. The power of the movie comes from the tragedy, of course. But the film never uses cheap tricks, and one feels that all the elements of the narrative bond together very well. This comes from the exceptional episodic structure of the film, which shows how important editing, in terms of the overall narrative, is. The progression constantly and effectively builds up the tension and themes, and when the last couple of striking scenes come up, one cannot help but be astounded by the completeness of the film and the impact is made strong by this. Indeed, the playing time of the film feels perfect, as it is not too long nor too short, which is something films frequently suffer from. Great stuff!

This is, perhaps, one of the best silent films I’ve ever seen. Everything in the craft is damn perfect, and the presence of Louise Brooks comes as a great addition to all that. The film would still have been great, but she adds so much that it is impossible to imagine the film without her. She is a natural, and she was in another German silent film directed by Pabst, great!

Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari (Robert Wiene, 1920)

2009-01-30T07:35:00.000-08:00

This film I’ve wanted to see for years. I just haven’t taken the time to acquire it, least of all actually sit down and watch it. Now that I started looking into more German silent films, it seemed like a good time to watch it, and add to my growing knowledge of this area of cinema. Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari is extremely famous and hailed as being one of the first films that spawned the horror genre.

One of the most interesting things about the film, and which has obviously been written the most about, is the highly impressionistic set design. Shadows are painted on the walls and floor, there are detached and eschewed angles, and overall the film looks very otherworldly. I am usually very suspicious of a film that tries to be “realistic”, and is therefore very excited about this film, which goes against realism. The effect at times is remarkable, and ominous. This works very well with the horror theme, and one can see why American films such as horror or noir films are influenced by the style of Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari. The style is highly aesthetic, and very interesting and pleasing to look at. It is impressive that the film was shot in studio this way, and the film goes to show that realism isn’t always the way to go. The sets show the characters state of mind and the camera angles work well to establish the madness of it all. Indeed, anyone could go mad living in a place like the one portrayed in this film. Even with the great set design, the film wouldn’t be as good without the intricate cinematography and directing, which equally complements the set design. The style of the film is very coherent and it all goes towards a single goal. I believe this is very important to any film, and this film doesn’t just use style arbitrarily, but for a goal and specific purpose.

The plot is fairly simple, but it is enhanced with being of the mysterious nature. The mystery, the unknown, form the basis for the horror, and the audience will be at times asking many questions about the narrative and how it is going to unfold. There are some questions about the ending of the film, and apparently, the film company of the time tacked it on to please the audience, much to the avail of the writers of the film. I’m not sure exactly how accurate this is, but regardless, I find that the film works, both in narrative and thematically, better with the ending rather than without. The mysticism around Dr. Caligari is what I found the most fascinating about the film, and the horror that he creates around the city and some of his scenes are the best. Strictly speaking, the narrative is fairly simple, but for its time, I assume, it was something of a milestone. I’m not really for all that “appreciating something of its time”, even if a film might have been good 80 years ago, it doesn’t mean it is good today. Or perhaps, it wasn’t good in the first place, but people back then were idiots. Regardless, I can greatly appreciate silent films, if they are well crafted. Murnau for example, his films are better crafted than most films of today, so his films haven’t aged a bit. In narrative terms, I feel that this film is slightly dated, but in the end, it doesn’t hinder the great set design and chilling atmosphere from still being powerful to this day.

I like Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari a lot. I had some issues with the narrative and some of the structure of the film, but overall the main points that makes this film so famous, the great set design and cinematography, as well as the mysticism and cult of the film makes it worthwhile to watch to this day. Films don’t really age, if they are bad today; they were bad when they were made. Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari was good when it was made, and is still equally good today.

Tartuffe (F.W. Murnau, 1926)

2009-01-29T17:49:00.000-08:00

This film is based on a play by Molière, a French playwright. He is known to be one of the greatest comedy playwrights of all time. I read Tartuffe some years ago, and couldn’t remember much of the plot, but the play has always stayed with me. It is an indictment of hypocrisy, particularly religious and Christian hypocrisy. I recently saw Pabst adaptation of Brecht’s play The Threepenny Opera, and had some critical points on it. I was concerned whether or not Murnau would fall into some of the same traps as Pabst.

Seeing this just some hours after seeing the phenomenal Der Letzte Mann (F.W. Murnau, 1924) is probably not such a good idea. It is a bit of a disappointment compared, although it does have its strengths. One of the crucial points is that Molière’s play was a comedy, and this should be too. Due to the play being a comedy, much of it was based on dialogue, rather than physicality, like say Chaplin. Dialogue driven comedy wasn’t really the strength of silent cinema, and it does show to some extent here. The film isn’t that funny, although it does get the themes and irony across. Due to the film not being very funny, it felt a bit flat, and the plot didn’t quite complement the mood. Although the atmosphere is great, like any Murnau film, it worked much better in Nosferatu (F.W. Murnau, 1922) than here. Emil Jannings returns for Murnau here, playing Tartuffe, and the contrast is big. He looks like pure evil in this film, while in Der Letzte Mann he was a very sympathetic character. Good trademark of an actor I guess. The film also felt more stilted than Murnau’s other efforts, the technique he has otherwise showed is not here, and as a consequence it felt less interesting. I know it is not all about technique, but Murnau’s use of it was so good that I really missed it. I felt that the adaptation of Brecht’s play was stronger than this, but that might have something to do with that film being a sound film with monologue. Tartuffe is silent, and with only writing on the screen to substitute, a lot of what was good about the play is gone, or harder to get across.

The film is not quite that close to Tartuffe in many ways. In a way it is a film within a film. There is a plot, set in modern times, which is a parallel to Tartuffe. An old woman who takes care of an old man manages to convince him that his grandson is no good, as he is an actor (oh the horror!). He is convinced, and signs over his will to this woman who cleans his house. To get to his grandfather, the young man dresses up as a man going around town and with a projector showing films. The film he shows is, of course, Tartuffe. With this wraparound plot and the very short running time of the film, just over an hour, the film has omitted much of the narrative from the play. The film does feel quite unsatisfactory with its short playing time, and I believe that with a longer running time and more story the film could have been significantly improved, adding more meat to the plot. While I have criticized this film quite a bit, I did like it, but it doesn’t stand out as a classic, and is indeed the weakest I’ve seen by Murnau. I think there are some silent films that were successful adaptations of literature and theatre, but in many ways this format is perhaps not the best platform. Sound films have a better potential, considering that play and literature are mediums which rely very much on the written word, while silent film, to a much greater extent than sound film, is a visual medium. Perhaps it is better that films don’t adopt so much from other arts, but then again, there have been some fantastic films based on great works from other mediums. This is not one of them though.

An interesting watch, if nothing else, I remember liking Tartuffe, the play, quite a lot, and was sadly disappointed with this. Still, I am even more excited about watching more silent films from Germany, and while this may be one of Murnau’s weaker films, there is still a lot of good craft shown here, but the painfully short playing time, the lack of a structured narrative and the lack of true comedy makes this come short compared to the original play.

Der Letzte Mann (F.W. Murnau, 1924)

2009-01-29T16:29:00.000-08:00

I am really starting to get more into silent films. I’ve watched some of the classics and obvious ones, but I have never really taken the time to really explore this area of cinema history in any sort of depth. I have therefore decided to attempt to watch more silent films, and I’ve got quite a bunch of German silent films waiting for me. The obvious start is Murnau, arguably one of the masters of the silent era.

I hadn’t heard much about Der Letzte Mann, compared to probably Murnau’s other two most famous films, Nosferatu (1922) and Sunrise (1927). I’ve seen both of those, and to my surprise, I liked Der Letzte Mann much more than both of those. To me, the film had an incredible staying power. Additionally, the film doesn’t use any dialogue. Of course, in terms of silent cinema, that means no title screens. This makes the film flow really nicely, because “dialogue” in silent films can sometimes be a distraction. Here, though, the film relies solely on visual storytelling, and becomes much more powerful because of it. It is also helped with an inspired performance by Emil Jannings, who plays the character with great sympathy. At the core of the film is a theme about the nasty evil within humans, and the film is at times very sad. It’s not just a critique of the upper-class, which it also is, but a critique of people of all stations, poor or rich. It also takes a stab at how people perceive each other on the basis of status in society. All this is developed quite nicely, but one of the things that make the films so worthwhile is the performance Emil Jannings. Without the benefit of dialogue Jannings still manages to capture the protagonist in a wonderful way, in his happiest moments and in his saddest moments. There is both naivety and desperation in his character, and his presence on screen is always wonderful.

With this film I finally, really, get why Murnau is cited as one of the greatest filmmakers of the silent era. The film uses an impressive array of techniques that I have never seen in such early films, and I am sure that Murnau pioneered many of these, including a wonderful dream sequence that is very Freudian. But its not just about the techniques, Murnau’s shot composition is at times fantastic, creating some really emotional strong shots. He is also great at using tracking shots and at times handheld camera. All the array of little tricks that Murnau has makes his film very memorable, and some scenes are truly inventive in their structure. But there is also a very important point in that the film manages to have drama that isn’t flat, but interesting and changes pace throughout. The film also has quite an ominous message, it is quite dark. At the end, there is tacked on a “happy ending”. Now before this “happy ending” comes, the film announces that, unfortunately, these “happy endings” do not occur in real life. This is quite a brave move, and absolutely justifies the very deus ex machina ending. Without it, the film would have been much weaker than it is, and despite having a happy ending, being quite dark in its message. Der Letzte Mann is probably one of the best silent films I’ve seen, and truly shows Murnau at the top of his power as an inventive director.

I wasn’t quite sure what I would thing of this, but it turned out to be a right out masterpiece. The scene structure, the shot composition, the wonderful performance, and the very simple but effective plot all go towards creating a unique and wonderful cinematic experience which makes me really want to watch more of these German silent film classics. All the Murnau DVD’s I own are Masters of Cinema releases, and they are very good, I definitely advice anyone interested to get these great DVDs. Masters of Cinema rule.

City Lights (Charles Chaplin, 1931)

2009-01-27T16:09:00.000-08:00

The famous tramp, Charlie Chaplin, is such an icon that I’ve seen references to him almost everywhere. The charm and comedy of Chaplin is undeniable, but what is more interesting is his skill as a filmmaker, as an artist. Indeed, Tarkovsky who I recently reviewed saw Chaplin as one of the greatest and most poetic filmmakers of all time, and this came from a man who generally hated Hollywood and the studio system. One of my favourite films of all time is the hilarious and poignant The Gold Rush (Charles Chaplin, 1925). Indeed, Chaplin has all the elements that makes one an auteur; he writes and directs all his films, star in them and created the iconic character of the little tramp. I was quite looking forward to seeing City Lights.

City Lights is seen as one of Chaplin’s greatest masterpieces. And indeed, the film consists of all the elements that make a great Chaplin film. It is very funny, but still has place for heartfelt emotions. His films also have a slightly dark undercurrent, and are sometimes quite depressing, albeit making fun of this depression, which is one of the main things that makes his films so poignant. One thing about City Lights that is notable is that, while most of Hollywood was turning towards talkies, Chaplin continued to make his films silent. I think that such an iconic character, which made his name on his physicality, this was a good call on Chaplin’s side, although The Great Dictator (Charles Chaplin, 1940) was an astounding achievement even though it was a talkie. The physical humour is fantastic in this, from the first scene where the tramp causes havoc at a gathering, going out to drink and eat with a wealthy drunk, or in the famous boxing sequence. Much of the best comedy, though, works by juxtaposition of sentimental moments with silly gags at the expense of the tramp. For example when he is deeply in love and a cat knocks over a flowerpot that hits his head. These kinds of gags make the film stronger, as it manages to create an assortment of emotions while yet keeping the humour up throughout the whole film and creating a strong bond between the audience and the protagonist. Most comedies, not just today, but ever, have always had a hard time doing this. The tramp character is silly, but ever resourceful, set on his tasks and never gives up. Chaplin early on clearly sets out the characters goal, and he sticks to this throughout the whole film. This kind of persistence is what makes him so lovable for audiences, even today.

The film is sweet at heart, but there is also some darkness in there. This was made during the depression, and this fits well with the tramp. A great scene, which symbolises this in a great way, is where the tramp has acquired fine clothing and an expensive car, yet he has no money. He sees a rich man on the street throw a cigar on the street. Chaplin charges for this and takes it, beating another tramp to it, goes back into his car, exchange looks with the other tramp and drives off. It is a hilarious moment, but also has some true resonance for the time. The film is a love story, and a sweet one at that. The tramp falls in love with a blind flower girl, a very interesting choice for a love interest. This creates further resonance and bonding with the audience, as they identify with the tramp trying to help someone fairly helpless. Another highlight of the film is the tramps friendship with the rich man. Although it is a fairly unstable friendship, as the rich man only recognises the tramp when he is drunk. When he wakes up sober, he becomes a mean man who usually throws the tramp out of his house. The tramps confusion over this is hilarious. Audiences love to know more than the characters, and Chaplin has often recognised this to create some very funny situations. Chaplin’s timing is also for most of the time impeccable. Particularly when the tramp is walking back and forth on a sidewalk, and right behind there is a trap door in the pavement that opens and closes. This creates great expectation with the audience, then retracts it, and gives it again. Chaplin is also a master of sustaining a laugh, repeating gags with subtle differences and makes them seem fresh every time. But at the heart of his films, what is important with Chaplin is the poignant moments, and while the comedy is great, it is these poignant moments which elevates his films above the rest, and become more than mere comedies for a laugh.

City Lights is a great film, a masterpiece in fact. It has the perfect blend of humour and subtlety, with the charm and naivety of the tramp as a way of driving the film forward. These are some of the reasons why Chaplin is still so well remembered today, because he can create great emotional resonance in his audience, unlike almost all other comedians and comedy films. They are more than comedy films, and I hope to see more of these great films.

Nostalghia (Andrey Tarkovsky, 1983)

2009-01-27T15:12:00.000-08:00

I’ve been quite fascinated with the idea of being in a foreign country and strongly missing your home country. There is something peaceful about that idea, and could lead to many interesting themes. In Nostalghia, a Russian is staying in Italia while missing his home back in Russia. Of course, this is the kind of thing that Tarkovsky does very well, he has similar ideas in many of his other films, such as Solaris (1972) where the protagonist misses his home, or Stalker (1979) where the Stalker misses something else than the dreary urban landscape he lives in, and yearns for something better. And indeed, Nostalghia doesn’t miss its mark.

As always, the cinematography in Tarkovsky’s films is fascinating, to say the least, and this might yet be the most beautifully shot film I’ve seen by him. The colour, the black and white, the monochrome, it is all very beautiful, and his shots evoke so much emotion and ideas that it is astounding. There are several visual elements that echo Stalker; one of the most profound is an image of a dog, which reminds me of a similar shot from Stalker. Much like Tarkovsky’s other films, but even more here, the film is drenched in water. The walls and ground is soaked, mist hangs in the air and there are plenty of water pools. As well, it rains inside, something we also saw in Stalker and Solaris. But the films highlight is its pacing. This is probably the best pacing Tarkovsky has managed to create in any of his films, and it is quite hypnotic. The long takes, the slow pans and tracks, it all evokes a feeling of timelessness, like being lost in a dream. The film is shot in both colour and black & white, however, the colours are toned down to such an extent that it is at times close to looking like black & white. This further works to create the hypnotic effect. Like much of Tarkovsky, the film walks the line between real and dream. The shots of homeland Russia are noteworthy impressive, most of them shot in slow motion, but less than normal slow motion, meaning that it takes some time before the viewer realizes it is slow motion, but can still sense something else, something intangible, about the images. In many ways, Tarkovsky’s films are intangible, but that is one of the undeniable charms of his films, and makes them unique pieces of cinema and confirms him as one of the masters of the craft.

There are a lot of images and physical objects that makes appearances in almost all of Tarkovsky’s films. Like the bed the protagonist sleeps on in Nostalghia, an almost identical bed is seen in both Stalker and Zerkalo (1975). Or milk, which is a prominent image in the aforementioned films and Andrei Rublev (1966). These images creates an interesting continuity in all of Tarkovsky’s films, which makes them interesting to see as experienced audiences can recognise these recurring images. These images also have certain meaning to them, but as Tarkovsky pointed out himself, these meanings are individual to each audience who sees his films and evokes something different in everyone. His images aren’t symbols, because he didn’t create them with a specific meaning, or, they did mean something specific to him, but he created them on screen in such a way that everyone can respond to these images on their own, instead of interpreting what the director is “trying to say”. For me, this gives Tarkovsky’s films a special reverberation with me, because I as an audience can take what I interpret from the images. One does not need to create an elaborate meaning of what each image “means”. This is very open ended directing, and within the film allows the audience to have a conversation with Tarkovsky, although he is usually hard to get at some points. Still, the film is simple and beautiful in its images and themes, and the hypnotic pacing allows much room for reflection. Indeed, this isn’t one of Tarkovsky’s best, but I still haven’t seen a film by him that wasn’t really good, so it doesn’t say much. The film borders on being a masterpiece, and I think it will reward being watched again.

A wonderful exercise in filmmaking power from Tarkovsky. The films pace and cinematography remain the most crucial aspects to the films success, and the images are able to evoke strong emotions and reflection. Pure cinema, in many ways. Tarkovsky continues to impress, and this film stands as the most reflective and “pure” that I have seen by him.

Le Boucher (Claude Chabrol, 1970)

2009-01-24T12:12:00.001-08:00

Claude Chabrol is known as the French Hitchcock. In Le Boucher this is probably more apparent than ever. There are many elements at use here that are similar to Hitchcock, but at the same time, Chabrol manages to make the film and style his own, transcending what Hitchcock did. It is difficult to say whether Chabrol is better than Hitchcock or not, I would say that they are both very interesting, and have their different strengths. It is a bit unfair to compare Chabrol to Hitchcock so much, because it never seems like he is plagiarising Hitchcock in any way, and his films are quite unique to him.

The setting is a small town out in the country, a fitting scene for these kinds of film, and indeed, Hitchcock used this himself on occasions. One thing I can now say, after having watched this film, is that Chabrol is a clever director. In good films, it is like having a conversation with the director, discussing, arguing, and so forth. I also felt this in Le Boucher, and my conversation with Chabrol was interesting indeed. Chabrol was good at subverting my expectations, and then making me happy afterwards with some reveal. Actually, this is a film that will make you ask questions in your head, but most importantly, it allows you to delve deeper into the characters, and analyse and question their actions and motives. The atmosphere in this film is probably the most unnerving that I have seen in a Chabrol film. While much of this is due to the great camerawork, I should also mention the absolutely fantastic and chilling score that accompanies the film. The sound design is also impeccable, creating an eerie mood throughout the film. The film also has one of the greatest reveals of a dead body, a moment that truly stands out in all of the great scenes from the film. Something else that Chabrol also does very well is changing the perspectives of the audience. We are never left alone, and the film perks at our suspicions and beliefs. This makes the film far more interesting than most other similar films, but then again, this isn’t like any murder film you’ll usually watch.

At the heart of the film, though, is the relationship developing between the two lead characters. Chabrol uses the same actors as before, but I don’t mind really, and they usually do such a good job that it doesn’t matter anyway. The crime going on in the small town is a good backdrop for the relationship, and it exposes the characters to some degree. Bergman tried something similar with using war and animal slaughter in Skammen and In Passion respectively, and for him it worked better in the later than the former. It works quite well for Chabrol here, and it is a technique that can be effective and hasn’t been utilized by filmmakers enough in modern times. The characters are deep enough to keep one interested, and even in its quiet moments, the film feels very intense, much due to the great sound design. There is always something unnerving about this film, and this is one of its greatest strengths. The plot itself isn’t that interesting, but it’s not supposed to be. Some modern day viewers, who are used to the plot being the most important thing in film, will probably be put back by this, but it is by no means unusual for European films, particularly during this era. I like it when plot becomes just a backdrop, because it is so simple to make up plot. The hard thing for filmmakers is to make their films something beyond plot, and I feel that Chabrol is quite successful in his attempt here.

An excellent film by Chabrol, it is unnerving, has great sub-text and develops its characters well throughout the film. The atmosphere and music is impeccable, and goes a long way to making the film even more interesting. The audience almost feels that it is at no time safe, and credit to Chabrol; he does a good job at achieving this. Chabrol is a very interesting director indeed.

Die 3 Groschen-Oper (Georg Wilhelm Pabst, 1931)

2009-01-23T18:32:00.000-08:00

I watched this curiosity due to my fascination with the German playwright Bertolt Brecht. This is a filmed version of his play The 3-penny Opera, a musical. It is not the kind of musical one is used to, such as Hollywood musicals. Regardless, the film and play are an indictment of bourgeoisie society. It uses irony and satire to creating its scathing criticism of society and individuals. The Brechtian technique is not too apparent here, but that is reflected in that Brecht subsequently sued the company and the filmmakers for ruining his work. Still, I found there was more than enough interesting stuff in the film to keep me from turning off.

The film presents an almost apocalyptic view of society, penetrating through all the filth and hypocrisy. For a film made in the 30’s, this film is quite remarkable. The filmmaking craft is impeccable; the shots are extremely well created. Then again, Germany at the time was one of the cinema powerhouses of the old days, so it is not too surprising. For a film based on a play, it is quite far removed from theatre. This is a musical, so there are a few musical numbers, but very different from what one would expect, being mostly used to Hollywood musicals. But the songs themselves are really good, the score is good, and the lyrics are great. Somewhat, though, they don’t seem to fill the gap enough, there could surely have been more songs. Still, what goes on screen is enough to create the drama, although this could hardly be categorized as a drama film. The sometimes quiet moments are contrasted with scenes of high intensity. The film is also very funny, in its own way. The hypocrisy and evil is so wonderfully portrayed, the characters are for the most part a blast, particularly the main character, who is a schemer and ladies man. The characters antics are quite amusing, and this is one of the main attractions of the film. Brecht has always been great at using stereotypes in a very unique way, and this shows clearly here. Another amusing character is the beggar’s king. He basically runs a business where he makes poor people dress up as dreadfully as possible to make people have pity and give money, then take in some of the profit. A wonderful character, in a quite unusual business, and it summarizes much of what the film is about.

Brecht hated this film, and to some degree I can see why. Yeah, it is true that Brecht didn’t quite appreciate the full extent of the artistic value of cinema. The film doesn’t quite utilize the techniques of Brecht’s Epic Theatre, and it doesn’t try to alienate or create the effect that theatre was supposed to, according to Brecht. Other than the musical numbers, the film doesn’t use any techniques such as Brecht used. In this respect, the film is fairly classical and uses techniques already fairly established in cinema. And actually, the film could have been stronger if it used the techniques of Brecht, to create some fluency between the source material and the film. The film doesn’t quite work according to the ideas and theories of Brecht. Although I am usually adamant that films should be liberal when adapting source material, such as literature or theatre, in this instance it could have helped. I still like the film, but one feels if it should ever have been made in the first place, it is a bit unnecessary. Still, some of the greatest directors of all time, in particular Mizoguchi and Kurosawa, made their best film based on literary source material. The problem here though is that while the film doesn’t adhere to the rules of Brecht, and don’t enlarge his themes, the film in itself doesn’t really say that much otherwise, which is its biggest flaw. Although I do think that Brecht did go a bit out of his way in suing the filmmakers, as they in many ways did do quite a good job, and in the end, so what, they created a film out of his play, but it doesn’t really hurt his original material, and in the end, it seems like he is nitpicking a bit.

There are lots of merits to this film, but overall it wasn’t the greatest film experience I’ve had. There is a lot of wonderful stuff here, but mostly as a result of the great source material the film adapted. I feel the filmmaker wasn’t quite able to make it his own, and neither was he able to make it very Brechtian. It is an interesting little curiosity, and Criterion actually released it, in a quite outstanding edition, with lots of neat extras. If you love Brecht, then this is worth checking out, but otherwise, the average film buff won’t find that much interesting material in here.

Effi Briest (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1974)

2009-01-23T16:19:00.000-08:00

Fassbinder, the ever so reclusive German and fellow Brecht admirer, is a director that I’ve been looking forward to explore for quite some time now. I’ve only seen one of his films before, Angst essen Seele auf (1974), and it is a masterpiece, so Effi Briest looked like a decent view. The title is actually much longer, but I can’t be bothered to list the whole long one up here, check it on IMDb. Regardless, Effi Briest turned out to be quite an interesting and unique watch.

We are brought back to the late 19th century. A young girl is married to an elder man of some prestige and wealth. Now, what was most interesting about this film was its style and structure. For certain, if you don’t understand or appreciate Fassbinder’s techniques, then you might not like his films. The film is very detached from the events that take place on the screen. For example, if something very emotional has happened to a character, instead of showing that scene, Fassbinder will just shot a tracking shot of that character walking, and a narrator will in an impassioned voice talk about the incident. He also uses a lot of text, to illustrate to the audience what is going on in the characters mind. Fassbinder does go through a bit of pain to elaborate what he is trying, but I think, to quite some extent, he succeeds here, although not on such a grand scale as Angst essen Seele auf. But it is definitely a progression of Fassbinder’s style, and I find it endlessly fascinating. It is sort of his own brand of Epic Cinema, and I think it will be enjoyable to explore more of these methods. Fassbinder doesn’t allow much for psychological interpretation, like say Bergman. His alienation techniques work well though, and the idea about the film not being a character drama but about something larger, is quite good. The film uses the characters for its own purpose to create meaning and themes about society and, in particular, criticize the bourgeoisie.

I wouldn’t find it too unreasonable that someone might not like Fassbinder’s style. It is at times quite imprudent and difficult. But, if you go into his films with a certain mindset and are aware of his style and the theory behind it, one might find a lot of worth in these films. There is an idea in drama about “pressure and release”. Take any scene from most films. It starts out calm, and then becomes very intense, and at the end, it is calm again. This effect is utilized a bit differently here, sort of. Basically the pressure is held for most the film, but when it is finally is released, the moment is absolutely fantastic and powerful. It quite reminded me of the book The Stranger by Albert Camus, if you’ve read that. The effect is similarly stirring. The film is an excellent exercise in technique, but it is also a strong piece of cinema in its own right. The black and white cinematography is quite captivating, and Fassbinder’s fascination with using mirrors in many of his shots is interesting, as well as aesthetically beautiful. It is also one of the films, theoretically and aesthetically that is, that I have found the most interesting in quite a while. Fassbinder made an impressive amount of films in his relative short lifetime, and he brilliantly exhibits his talent here. In some ways I found it an artist trying to reach for too much, but then I remind myself how successful he is at all of it in this film, although his techniques still could use a bit more polishing. It is always fascinating to watch a director trying to develop his style across several films.

A brilliant film in many ways, an infantile film in others, much like Fassbinder himself seemed to be. Regardless, Fassbinder is a fascinating filmmaker, and he takes his cue from Brecht brilliantly here, while at the same time creating an idiosyncratic and personal style of his own. If you though I am Legend was the best film of 2007, don’t watch this, but if you thought it was utter shit, then this might be something for you. Also strongly recommended for any admirers of Bertolt Brecht.

En Passion (Ingmar Bergman, 1969)

2009-01-22T19:33:00.000-08:00

Finally were getting back into what it’s all about; careful, intense, small character studies. This is what Bergman masters best and he can repeat it many times without going over the same kind of thing twice. One thing that surprised me was that the film was in colour. It was made just a year after Skammen (Ingmar Bergman, 1968), which was in black and white. But it’s okay though, because the cinematography is beautiful throughout. It still doesn’t hold up to Bergman’s best colour film Viskningar och Rop (1972), but it has many admirable strengths. Hey, and I’d like to complain again. This film was released by the same company that released the Skammen DVD, and what is up with the DVD menu? It looks like something cheaply made in some bad program. Ah, it’s just annoying.

Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann return again, featuring their tortured faces. Bibi Andersson is also cast, and thank God because she does add her usual spark and liveliness to the film. Sydow and Ullmann’s performances are even stronger here than in Skammen, and they truly encapsulates the dreary and dark universe that Bergman creates. Sydow looks like a tortured soul, and Liv Ullmann has rarely looked sadder. What I complained about in my Skammen review is all gone like a bad dream, and here we are given the pure core of the material, rather all that other bullshit to fill the gaps. This is a character drama, and a pretty damn strong one at that. There are hints and clues at the cracks in the characters psyche, and we are given an open-ended look at their character traits. There is a lot of room for interpretation, and yet the characters still remain quite ambiguous to the end. Bergman is also one of the greatest at exposing the weakness and hypocrisy in human relationships. The gaze of the camera is penetrating in this film, and again Bergman uses his great skills with the camera to create some great shots. Actually, there are less of those kind of shots that I love than in Skammen, but here they are used to greater effect and the film overall is better structurally, so it doesn’t matter much. Also, I am a sucker for black and white cinematography. Sure, the film does look great, but I will still any day take black and white over colour. Incidentally, on IMDb, at the moment, Skammen got an average rating of 8.1, while En Passion “only” got 7.8. It just goes to show how superficial the average Bergman viewer is.

Probably one of the most powerful moments of the film is when we see several slaughtered and mauled sheep lying dead on the ground. Some jackass is running around the island the film takes place and is killing and torturing animals. While Bergman makes the audience try to figure out who did it, I don’t believe Bergman would care much to provide a clear answer to the question, but only make us pry into it. It is never clear, and it was never supposed to be. This is one thing I often hate, people asking “who done it?” Does it really matter? No it doesn’t, especially in films such as this. There is something more important about this being done, it is creating associations in our heads, further reasons to look into the characters psychology and works well with the rest of the narrative. It is done for something bigger; Bergman doesn’t have time to provide answers for such meaningless small narrative queries. The characters are fascinating, dark and there is enough sub-text for the whole family. Actually, I would recommend watching this with your family; maybe you’ll learn something about each other. The film is, quite surprisingly, fast paced. Obviously, the average audience will feel that this is slower than taking British Rail, but in many ways, compared to other Bergman films, it is quite fast. It may have something to do with the intensity of the script and narrative, as well as the performances, but I did like the pacing of the film. It still is able to take the odd moment to reflect on the world, but never more than necessary. Bergman is as usual great at creating fantastic and powerful endings, hopefully without that sentence sounding too much like an overused cliché, this is no exception.

Great to be back in familiar Bergman territory. The two last ones were alright, but this is the real good stuff of his work. Dramatic character studies will always survive, because they are so universal and powerful. Sydow and Ullmann are both great, and it is always a joy to see Bibi Andersson’s presence on the screen. It is dark, bleak, and dreary, exactly as vintage Bergman should be. Watch it at the expense of your own optimism.

Skammen (Ingmar Bergman, 1968)

2009-01-22T09:43:00.000-08:00

Skammen, another Ingmar Bergman film that isn’t among his most famous, but I’ve heard enough praise to want to see it. Apparently, the film I watched, the DVD version, is in wrong aspect ratio. But then again, I didn’t notice, and the amount of DVD releases for this film aren’t exactly plentiful, and regardless, it cost me 4£. Besides, I didn’t quite notice this while watching it, so how bad could the transfer have been. Still, I will use this opportunity to complain about this issue. Why can’t these people release the films in their original aspect ratio, what is so hard about that?

Anyway, in Sweden, for some reason, war is raging and a married couple, played by Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann, two people quite regularly cast in Bergman’s films. Everything starts out nice and idyllic; although the married couple has personal problems, like any other. But oh damn! War hits and the people suffer psychologically and are torn apart by the atrocities of war. The film is quite bleak, but not bleaker than many other Bergman films. The film does contain some fantastic moments, and some of Bergman’s camera setups are absolutely fantastic. But the film does suffer a bit. Fine, it’s about war, but I’m not sure if this is the area that Bergman tackles the best. In fact, I was bored during the “war” scenes. The style adopted for these doesn’t suit the rest of the film, and as a consequence, it seems to vary a bit between the phenomenal and the dull. The films highpoints, regardless, are still great, but they polarize the film too much. The cinematography is though some of the best I’ve seen by Bergman, but best at its most simple moments. The close ups, and wide shots, equally, are great, and throughout we are given moments of extreme intensity and emotional impact. I think the film might have been better if it limited itself, at times it seem too big, too big for itself. Bergman’s best films have always been small quiet dramas, and while Skammen has these moments, it is obscured too much with the overload and pompous war scenes.

Another area that isn’t as strong here as his other films is the psychological development of the characters. Sure, it is better than most other films, however, we are talking about Ingmar Bergman here, one of the greatest directors of psychological cinema, so our standards should be quite high. It is adequate. Sure, we get it; they suffer mentally because of the war. It can all become a bit overbearing. However, some of the early marriage stuff is great, and the opening has the best moments, although the end is fantastic and very strong. The film starts off fantastically, takes a dip through the middle, and grabs itself up by the end. For all its faults, the film is still very powerful and the moments as such aren’t spoiled by the less interesting moments. Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann also do great jobs at their respective parts, although it is always quite amusing to listen to Liv Ullmann attempt at speaking Swedish. One of the points of the film is how innocent people suffer in the brink of war, and to this the film does quite well. However, the overall theme of war and the psychological development of the characters is not explored well or thoroughly enough. Ultimately the film suffers from being made by Bergman. I have grown accustomed to expect a lot from Bergman films, and this one falls a bit short of the mark. I guess I have come to the level where I have, like with Fellini, Kurosawa and Hitchcock, seen the most of his greatest films, and all that is left are the curiosities in between. It is a bit sad, but also slightly exiting, as I know there are probably some hidden masterworks somewhere that I still haven’t seen by Bergman, but still, my extensive exploring of his work is probably over. For now anyway.

The film is very good. However, it is average Bergman. That doesn’t say a whole lot, and the film is filled with some of his best moments of extreme emotional impact. The cinematography is at times wonderful, stark and beautiful. The ending is also fantastic and very Bergmanesuqe. Recommended for experienced Bergman viewers, but for people just starting out, start somewhere else.

Laura (Otto Preminger, 1944)

2009-01-22T08:25:00.001-08:00

I have to say, the noir genre is starting to really appeal to me. I like the settings, the main characters, the film craft and cinematography, as well as the plot twists. I don’t know exactly what it is specifically, but it is a genre I will like to explore much more. Laura is a noir film from the classic period, and one can see all the elements that made the noir genre in this film. This is probably also one of the most well cast noir films I’ve seen, with great performances across the board.

Laura is murdered in her apartment, and there are several suspects. It is up to Lieutenant McPherson to solve the murder, and go through all the suspects. There are two men that were intimate with Laura, that are suspects. One is Shelby, played by the creepy Vincent Price. The other is Waldo, and intellectual journalist, played by probably the best actor in the film, Clifton Webb. He is wonderful as the sharp-witted journalist with a poisonous tongue. The film is full of twists and turns, but surprisingly it never gets too complicated. The film is at such straightforward, but it is always focused and has a specific path it goes. Some noir films seem to move about quite randomly, but not this one, which was nice. The directing is top notch from Otto Preminger, the way he moves his camera is at time amazing, not because it is extremely technically complicated, but because he makes the movement so beautiful. There are also small clues laid out throughout the film, so audiences who keep focused can to some degree see what is going to happen and what will have importance later on, which does feel quite rewarding. It isn’t that often that noir films do this, but I was happy that it was done here, because it gives a bit of re-watch value, as well as makes the film a richer experience.

The score for this film is beautiful, and goes a long way to add to the atmosphere of the film. The cinematography is moody and also helps create the pressing atmosphere. The film uses some flashback techniques that I wasn’t too happy about, but then again, this is Hollywood, and I guess they are part of it. They could have been used a little more cleverly though, there are many different examples of different clever ways to use flashbacks, such as Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) and It’s A Wonderful Life (Frank Capra, 1946). It is bit disappointing, but anyway, the film otherwise, and the flashbacks themselves, are good. The film is quite short, just over 80 minutes, but it works quite well, and makes the films structure more tight. This is also the kind of film that doesn’t hold up well if it is too long, due to losing the suspense when dragging on. For the most part it all works. The thing about Laura, though, is that it lacks that little extra something to make it a great film. It is good, very good in fact, but overall it doesn’t seem that impressive compared to all the other great classics of the era. But the film is unique in its own way, the cast is great, and it does offer something new to an audience who are already familiar with the noir genre.

I enjoyed watching Laura. Not the best of the classic Hollywood era I’ve seen, but also far from the worst. It was bit sad that I couldn’t get more out of it, but the film does deliver, and one can’t really want much more from this type of film. If you like noir, definitely check this one out. And get the excellent Cinema Reserve version.

The Man Who Fell to Earth (Nicholas Roeg, 1976)

2009-01-21T18:13:00.001-08:00

Alright, I am going to be completely honest here. This is going to be a biased review. The reason is that this film star David Bowie and one simply cannot criticise anything that Bowie participates in. It’s simply not heard of. Listen, this guy owned the 70’s. Ziggy Stardust? Station to Station, Low, Heroes, Scary Monsters and many more. And in his coke-fuelled madness of creating music Bowie also found time to star in Nicholas Roeg’s The Man Who Fell to Earth, playing the alien. Fittingly, actually, as aliens and outer space are often subjects of Bowie’s music. And indeed, Bowie is quite freaked out as the man from outer space in this.

So this man from outer space lands on earth, in search of water for his family back on his home planet. The plot maybe doesn’t seem too intriguing, but the execution, and perhaps more importantly, the development of Bowie’s character is what is important in the film. Along the way he is sidetracked by all the wonderful attractions that earth has to offer. Or wait, actually they aren’t that wonderful. The alien is caught up in an endless spiral of sex, alcohol and materialism, and loses track of his ultimate goal. Like most of these types of films, it is rather a scathing criticism of human nature and society rather than a simple story of an alien coming to visit (E.T. anyone? Or Close Encounters of the Second Kind? In fact, everything Spielberg ever made. Except for Jaws, of course, Jaws was awesome). There is one thing about Roeg’s directing that ticks me off, and that is his insistent use of the zoom button on his camera. It is at most times annoying. However, it is not overused otherwise. Which is great, because every other single element of Roeg’s directing is brilliant and flawless. The cinematography is unique and beautiful in its own gritty way, his editing flows like no other film, and his sense of pacing and atmosphere reaches new heights in this. So except for the use of the zoom, the film, aesthetically speaking, is perfect and beautiful in every way.

Actually, I can’t understand why this film isn’t as iconic as it should be. It features one of the most iconic artists of the 70s, the style is perfect for the era but still completely unique to Roeg. I also don’t understand people who say they can’t “get” the film. What is there to get? Alien comes, looks for water, stays. It couldn’t be simpler. But then again, the average audience will let an aesthetic style that is slightly different from the Hollywood standard obscure an otherwise simple narrative (Mirror by Tarkovsky is a good example of this). Bowie is perfect in this. There is, even outside this film, something strange and otherworldly about him, which makes him so perfect. Also, at the time his nose was for the most time buried in cocaine, which might contribute to his “strangeness”. But there are also some emotional moments that seem very true, and his performance is very versatile. There are other actors, and they do good work, particularly the lead lady, but don’t forget, this is Bowie’s film. His presence on screen gives the whole feel a strange atmosphere, and coupled by the brilliant and unique directing from Roeg this is indeed a wonderful mix. They are both equally important to the film, and it couldn’t have been as good without either of them. The themes developed are also very interesting, and the film is quite intense at times.

Brilliant aesthetically, a brilliant Bowie with his head in coke, a Roeg on the top of his game and we have probably one of the best films of the 70s. And that’s not an overstatement, because I really believe this. The hypnotic feel of the film makes this stick to my mind, and a re-watch seems imminent. Watch it, you may not like it, but you will never see a film like it. Unless, of course, you watch another film by Roeg. But then again, his other films don’t feature Bowie. “There’s a starman waiting in the sky. He’d like to come and meet us. But he thinks he’d blow our minds.”

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (Frank Capra, 1939)

2009-01-20T16:45:00.000-08:00

Okay, sorry, I haven’t reviewed here in a long while now, but I’ve had much work to do lately; essays, scripts, journalistic work and getting drunk with my friends. Hopefully, after Thursday most of the heavy work should be done and I’ll be back on track. Regardless, the last film I saw was another Frank Capra film, and it was quite damn good, to keep it short. I’m starting to get more and more impressed with this director, and I have acquired more of his films to watch.

Mr. Smith is a naïve young man who gets through some incompetent and corrupt politicians gets to go to Washington and become a senator. We are given imagery of sickening patriotism, pompous shots of the American flag in all its eternal glory, and discomforting angles of the statue of Lincoln. But all is not well in Washington, and Smith (so extremely well played by the fantastic Jimmy Stewart) soon realizes he is nothing but a puppet, and his illusions of the greatness of democracy are shattered. It is the struggle of one individual man against a system, but not without its fair share of optimism. This is one of my favourite elements of Capra’s cinema, how he juxtaposes the individual to the collective, and optimism in the face of hopelessness. James Stewart does a great job portraying the young naïve senator who has to face up to reality and realize something about himself and the system that he thought he knew. The supporting cast is equally excellent, with the great Claude Rains as the great support to Stewart, but also holds up well by himself. This film also features some very dark moments, but they are throughout illuminated with light of a positive message.

This is also probably, of the Capra films I’ve seen, Capra’s most impressively shot film. The angles are great, every shot has significance, and the cinematography is at times stunning. Particularly the dark moments are properly and well lit, and do give the audience a feeling of desperation. While some viewers have distaste for Capra’s sometimes very positive message, I would just like to say: grow up. While I guess this is a bit of personal taste and subjective opinion, I will still stand by that Capra’s films are incredibly well crafted. While I do enjoy the message of the film, what stands out for me, and is ultimately most important, is the filmmaking craft. Capra has showed through his films that he is a great storyteller, but also a great artist and poet of the filmmaking craft, and his films are beautiful examples of filmmaking, surely some of the highlights of the Hollywood golden era. If you look beyond all the other Hollywood bullshit, you will see in some of the greatest films of the era that there lies a true brilliance in the crafting of these wonderful films, and they are in fact pure cinema, pure filmmaking, with all the other stuff that has to be thrown in there for the audience of the time just being filler. You remove all that, and the films show their wonderful structures, the elegant storytelling and auteur views of the world.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a great example of the height of the Hollywood golden era, and is a very impressive film by Capra. The beauty lies in the simple shot structures and the emotional drama that is achieved. The later part of the film is pure brilliance, but the beginning of the film is also great. James Stewart never fails, and he delivers everything that is great about him here, and does perhaps one of his greatest roles. What an actor…

It’s a Wonderful Life (Frank Capra, 1946)

2009-01-05T09:04:00.000-08:00

I usually try to know as little as possible about films I am going to see, so I see them without any particular expectations or knowledge. With some films though, this is impossible, because they are so much part of pop culture, that you know them almost beat by beat. It’s a Wonderful Life is a victim of this, and because of that I basically knew most of the story of the film. One wonderful surprise that I didn’t know was that the film starred one of my favourite actors, James Stewart. I’ve only seen one film by Frank Capra, It Happened One Night (1934), so I was looking forward to watching this. It’s also one of those classics that everyone should have watched, so it felt necessary to watch it.

The story is very well told and has a very positive message. Some don’t like Capra’s films because they are too positive and upbeat, however, I resent this. It doesn’t in no way hinder the craft of the filmmaking, and people who don’t like films that are upbeat should stop watching films. But I digress, on this film itself, it is a wonderful piece of filmmaking, and James Stewart’s character is so well defined. The structure of the film is that it is a flashback sort of film, where we see the life of the character. It is really nice to see the whole story of the character, how his life turns out and how he develops. This is where Jimmy Stewart shines, his assuredness and honest character has always been one of the great aspects of his acting. He is also great when the character starts to delve into despair. Stewart is accompanied by lots of great supporting actors, particularly Donna Reed as Stewart’s love interest, and Thomas Mitchell as his uncle. As far as I’m aware, the casting in Capra films is always superb, and this shows here. It is very important to have good lead actors; however, having interesting and good supporting actors, even for small parts, can be vital, especially for this kind of film. The cast does a great and variable job, and throughout the film we are given performances that are as good as Jimmy Stewart’s performance. It is also nice to see a younger Stewart, as most films I’ve seen with him were made after he turned 40, and thus featured a fairly old, but still great, James Stewart.

Other aspects of the film are well done, the cinematography looks really nice, and does remind me of It Happened One Night, as well as the editing and story structure is almost perfect. The film also kind of reminds me of Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941), studying in flashbacks the life and development of a man, but of course, there are many differences, but it is still interesting to see the parallels between the films. We are brought to relate to the main character and hope he has a happy ending. While I usually don’t agree to such one-sided characters, Capra handles this really well, and this is supported by the building up of the story. This is seen widely as a Christmas film, however most of the film doesn’t take place during Christmas, but I understand why it is seen as such. Particularly because of the message of helping others and all that jazz, but this sort of thing doesn’t detract from the films quality. The film does move into darker territory later on, and these parts are really good and uncomfortable. This is really where Jimmy Stewart shines, managing to balance the emotions of the character in a really impressive way. This part also contains one of the best close-ups I’ve ever seen in cinema history, with James Stewart turning towards the camera and the background being skewed. The structure of the film does build up expectation of ruin, and this is one of the things that make the film seem interesting throughout. The conclusion is also one of the most wonderful I’ve seen, and gives the audience a feeling of satisfaction.

It’s a Wonderful Life has become one of my favourite films, and is deservedly so a classic. James Stewart gives a fantastic and sympathetic performance, and the supporting cast likewise gives the story depth. There is quite a bit of sub-text running throughout the film, and this gives audiences a reason to re-watch the film over and over again. I actually wasn’t that looking forward to this, but saw it as a film I just had to watch due to it being a classic. But it turned out to be fantastic. I’m definitely going to watch more Frank Capra films.

Forbidden Planet (Fred M. Wilcox,1956)

2009-01-04T17:18:00.000-08:00

I am willing to watch out most films, age, country, genre and movement. When I saw the cover for Forbidden Planet, I had to watch it. I am surprised that I haven’t heard much about Forbidden Planet, for to me it seems like a classic. It has many great elements, and I’m not too familiar with 50’s science-fiction films. There are quite a lot of allegories for the cold war, which today seems a bit trite; however, it never becomes an over-burden. This is the kind of film one would thing of as trashy, but the film is well produced and looks very good.

Actually, this is quite a crazy film. One of the highlights, and probably what the film is remembered the most for, is the robot, Robby. Every single line uttered by the robot is pure gold, and very humorous. The film has a very interesting aesthetic; it is very cold and distanced, with a psyched out electronic music track. This gives the film a very unique feel, and this style is kept throughout the film. There isn’t often one sees this kind of aesthetic in Hollywood films of the 50’s, so it was quite an interesting view. A lot of classic Hollywood elements, such as close ups and dramatic music in romantic scenes are omitted. Further, the film takes its time to discuss contemporary issues, such as humans (mis)use of technology, and also dwells into the human psyche. The films dwells into psychoanalysis, which usually isn’t very good for films, as such complicated issues are usually ham-fisted when dealt with, a good example of this is Spellbound (Alfred Hitchcock, 1945). But it doesn’t rely too much on this issue, and the stuff it deals with in psychoanalysis isn’t too deep, so it is fair, however my brain always turns on an alarm when films do this, as it is usually not a good sign.

Many complain about the outdated special effects, however, I feel we shouldn’t be so jaded that we can let outdated special effects get in the way of our appreciation of some wonderful art design. Robby the robot looks absolutely hilarious, but in a very good way, and not in an “Ed Wood” kind of way. The scenery paintings of the planet look great, so does the look of some of the architecture in the film. It’s kind of like 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968), which has some of the most beautiful special effects ever made. They may be outdated compared to today’s standards, but the art direction is still wonderful, fantastically unique and beautiful. Besides, why get so carried away about special effects today when we know our kids will be laughing at how horrible today’s films look anyway. So the film, adopting a unique aesthetic is also very visually pleasing, and it never seems as if it is doing it just for the sake of the special effects, unlike so many films made today. The films structure is also good, if adequate; however, the middle part is stretched out a bit too much, while the later part is done to quickly. The film could easily have solved this by being something like 15 minutes longer; however, my guess is that production costs got in the way. It’s not a big draw though.

Forbidden Planet is a wonderful film, in so many ways. The inspired art direction, the wonderful scripts, the unique aesthetic style, and of course the quirky electronic soundtrack. It all fits neatly together, and is overall one of the more enjoyable science-fiction films I’ve seen from this period of cinema. Some may criticize the acting; however, I wouldn’t dwell on it. It works sufficiently, and is proper to the style the film has. I haven’t heard much about this film, but it is a great watch and recommended for all film buffs.

Burn After Reading (Joel & Ethan Coen, 2008)

2009-01-02T07:42:00.001-08:00

The Coen brothers turned out one of the best films from American cinema this decade last year, and possibly their best film, No Contry for Old Men of course. So now, just a meagre year later, they have another film ready for the cinema. Throughout their career they have had a tendency to make a slightly more silly film after their serious film. This is apparent here as well, as No Country for Old Men was quite a thoughtful and serious film, with the slight cameo of the Coen’s own brand of dark humour.

In Burn After Reading this dark humour is the core part of the film, and for what it is worth, it is probably the Coen’s best straight comedy in quite a while. The film is filled with dark and almost nihilistic. The characters are simply all idiots, not likable, and generally self-centred. But this works quite nicely, because it creates a nice little unique Coen world, where the rules are somewhat bended compared to the “real world”. The cast is also fairly vast, featuring George Clooney, John Malkovich, Brad Pitt, Richard Jenkins, and of course the wonderful Frances McDormand, who was great in Fargo (Joel Coen, 1996). They all do an adequate job, but I thought George Clooney was one of the better ones, creating a very strange character, but the team of McDormand and Pitt was also very funny, and an inspired pairing. The main point of the film is that all the characters are after something, however no one has any idea of what the hell is going on. Characters are misled, they believe things that aren’t true, usually because of their own idiocy or misjudgement, and in the end nothing really resolves. It is a film that was made just for good fun, and I thought it worked quite well at that, the humour is at time sublime, however, as a piece of filmmaking one cannot deny that it comes well short of No Country for Old Men. The story is interesting though, the characters are quirky and fun, and the structure of the film keeps one interested throughout.

I’m looking forward to seeing what more the Coen’s can come up with. They had quite a spell where most their films were quite sub-par, but with these recent two they seem to be back on track. Well see what kind of film their next will be, but I sort of doubt that they will in the foreseeable future make a film that tops No Country for Old Men. Back to the film itself, it will never become a true Coen classic, it doesn’t have quite the darkness and cleverness of Fargo, nor is it as funny as The Big Lebowski (Joel Coen, 1998). It is a nice and quirky little piece of comedy that probably will stay as one of those Coen films like The Hudsucker Proxy (Joel Coen, 1994). The Coen’s are in this way similar to Woody Allen, coming up with new films almost every year and have had quite a quality curve. One thing I like about Burn After Reading which I usually wouldn’t like in films is that the characters have minimal development, and don’t really learn anything. This is due to their exceeding stupidity. A lot of people hated Burn After Reading, calling it perhaps the worst Coen film. I don’t agree with this though, the dark humour works well, several times I laughed, several times I laughed a lot. The ending was also fantastic, and punctuated the film in a great way. I thing the reason why someone might not enjoy the film is because they will be quite detached from the characters. But I like the detachment, because it works well with the dark humour and ridiculing of the characters.

All in all, I enjoyed Burn After Reading. It is an enjoyable comedy, but not a great piece of filmmaking. It’s a good outing from the Coen’s, but I think we will see better films than this to come from them in the years.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (John Ford, 1962)

2009-01-01T16:13:00.000-08:00

Westerns often discuss the same thing. They look at the relationship between the Wild West and the approaching civilization of law and order. The Searchers (John Ford, 1956) did something similar to this, and it featured western legend John Wayne. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance also has John Wayne, although in not such a big part. The main protagonist is played by maybe one of my favourite actors of all time, James Stewart, who to me became a legend in the Hitchcock films he did. Some claim that he was miscast as the character is supposed to be a young lawyer right out of university, while Stewart at the time was over 50 years old. However, he fills the role with such grace and his undeniable strength of character that I can’t imagine anyone doing it better. I’m not quite on the level with the morals and what the film is trying to say, however, unlike before, I won’t let this influence my perception of the films quality.

Again, I’m looking into these old Hollywood films, and this is one of the late classics of the golden years of Hollywood. While some of the films made previously by John Ford were in colour, this is in black and white. The cinematography was very nice, creating the strong and tense atmosphere in the small city. Much like Howard Hawks who I previously talked about, John Ford’s directing here is very tight and slightly distanced from the events on the screen. Ford has also put some limits on the use of music of the film, avoiding the very heavy scores Hollywood films used to use, although I at times usually loves them. The most spectacular aspects of John Ford’s films are his wonderful wide shots of the wilderness of the west, and there are several of these shots in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, although not as many as one would like, or as there were in The Searchers. But, it’s adequate, and leaves room for more interpretive drama, which is one of the strongest points about this film. Another strong point about the film, which is supported by the first point, is the interesting conflict between James Stewart’s character and John Wayne’s character. While they are not direct enemies, they both have different philosophical points of views and looks on the world. This philosophical debate between the two characters creates much of the drama in the film, and builds up the challenges that James Stewart’s character has to face. While westerns often discuss this issue, the Wild West versus law and order, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is probably the best example and execution of this debate, and creates serious questions about how to act in society, which doesn’t reveal what is right or wrong, but asks the audience to question these issues themselves.

Moral dramas are interesting, but often become tenuous because too much stuff is gutted down the audiences throats. This is not done to too much of a degree in this film, and there is a good degree of personal interior drama, and mixes this with the philosophical drama of the two main characters. I love James Stewart, and he is great in this. But a lot of credit should also be given to John Wayne, who does the best role I’ve seen by him. Stewart is great at bringing naivety and a strong belief to the film, while Wayne brings his assuredness and physical presence. When the two characters clash, it works out as a great combination, and John Wayne creates a great cockiness towards Stewart’s character. But, John Wayne probably brings us the best scene in the film, alone, late in the film when he has an outburst. This is one of the best moments of a interior outburst that has ever been brought to the screen, and John Wayne brings so much emotion to it, showing a man who once was very self confident loosing his head and feeling lost. Of course, this is assisted by John Ford’s great directing, which escalates the scene. I’ve not seen many of John Ford’s films, and I’m not a great fan of westerns, but this is the best film I’ve seen by John Ford and the best western I’ve seen. As said, I was also very much impressed by John Wayne, who I’ve never given much credit, you can always see in stores cheap DVD boxes with 4 or many more John Wayne westerns, and I’m sure that for the very low prices they go for, they are quiet crummy. But while John Wayne was way too typecast throughout his career, his performance in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance really shows what a great presence he could be to a film and what kind of interesting and multileveled characters he could create.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is continuing to make me more and more excited about old Hollywood films. I’ve said it before, I have been sceptical of these kinds of films, but lately I’ve really began to discover some of the greats of classical Hollywood, and this film fills the rooster. It is a great film and remarkable piece of cinema. I am going to continue exploring more and more of these wonderful films, and I am continuously being fascinated by them. All hail the golden era of Hollywood!

Scarface (Howard Hawks, 1932)

2009-01-01T09:25:00.001-08:00

Howard Hawks is a director I’m starting to find more and more fascinating. Compared to many other Hollywood directors or films from the times, Hawks seem almost like a minimalist. He doesn’t use too much music, uses a lot of long and wide shots, and few cuts, especially avoiding close-ups and shot-reverse-shots. I watched the remake of Scarface featuring Al Pacino, and liked it at the time, but in retro perspective hasn’t remained much with me. So I was quite excited about watching this one.

Also compared to most Hollywood films I’ve seen from this period, Scarface is quite brutal and violent. The film throughout escalates into violence, shooting and killing. It is refreshing to see this kind of film from the early days of cinema. It is also quite astounding that the film had such great quality in cinematography and sound despite the fact that it was made all the way back in 1932. After silent movies disappeared in Hollywood, the quality of the films dropped, due to the limits of the sound recording equipment at the time. Scarface though shows that the technology has started to manage to improve the quality to allow good filmmaking not worrying about the sound recording. Hawks manages to create a strange relationship between the audience and the main character, while he is a murderer, beats his sister and is generally a bastard; one still is swayed to empathise with him, and his struggle to rise above his superiors. The ending is also quite astounding, mixing many different emotions, and the lead character’s insanity rose to a manic height.

But, Hawk’s great directing also distances the audience from the action on screen. The long takes, the wide shots and few close-ups leaves us at a distance, not allowing the audience to become too close to the characters. But there is still a feeling of sadness throughout the film, and coldness to the business of the gangsters. In the beginning of the film there is a title card which is talking about how horrible the gangsters are and that it is up the people and the government to clean the streets of criminals. This gives the film a bit of a political context, which is something I usually don’t enjoy; however, this doesn’t become too apparent throughout the rest of the film. Also there should be given some credit to the star of the film Paul Muni, who plays the lead character, Tony. He portrays the coldness of the gangster, never flinching nor being scared of the thought of killing, did often almost seeming excited about it. This adds greatly upon Hawks cold and detached directing.

I really liked Scarface; it’s a great exploration of the gangster environment, as well as Hawks great directing and the performance of Paul Muni. I think this is the best film I’ve seen by Howard Hawk, and I am really enjoying exploring these old black & white Hollywood films, and Hawks is a director I am certainly going to explore further. I still prefer John Huston slightly, but Hawks is impressing me more and more through the films I see by him.

The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008)

2008-12-26T16:56:00.000-08:00

We are nearing the end of 2008, and so far cinematically it has been fairly disappointing compared to the phenomenal year of 2007. The rave of the year has been the follow up to Batman Begins, the new instalment of a series of Batman films, furthering the concept since the interpretation started by Tim Burton. I asked myself: Is it really a good idea to create a realistic environment around a character and idea that in of itself is unrealistic and stylistic. Furthermore, the role of the Joker has been hyped up to a great degree, to the degree of annoyance, due to the unfortunate death of Heath Ledger. These things make me suspicious rather than expecting anything good, and before I heard of his death I hadn’t seen him in anything, and before I saw The Dark Knight I had only seen him in I’m Not There (Todd Haynes, 2007) where he didn’t impress me that much.

Well, as usual, not everything is sunshine and flowers in Gotham City, when a maniacal clown is on the loose and wreaking havoc. So it’s up to Batman and his merry band of friends to save the day, and so they do, at least for this round. It is hard for any Batman film to surprise its audience, particularly because of how we have been familiar with these characters for so long. I guess this is inevitable for any film based on a popular hero franchise, such as Spiderman and Superman. However, unlike a lot of such films that have been released recently, Christopher Nolan does do a fair and honest stab at revitalizing the franchise. The main problem is that, with the legions of rabid fans waiting at the doors of the cinema, demanding a “correct” interpretation of the source material, it becomes problematic to creatively make a film that pleases both the hardcore fans of the series and the more casual audiences not too familiar with the original comics. It can to a certain degree be said as a fact that Nolan succeeded this, the film did exceedingly well in the cinemas and soaring high, currently fourth, on the IMDB Top 250 Films list. Although I don’t really agree with such lists, it does point towards the films success. So why bother writing this, the film is already praised to the skies and the fans all across the board love it. However, I feel I should express my thoughts on some of the problems in the film, as well as a concern for the popularity of the film, few films of this sorts have seen anything like.

One of the main problems is that while Nolan is striving for more realism, I wonder exactly how that realism includes a masked man with super strength and reflexes wearing a suit and calls himself Batman works in that realism? I know it is not to wise to question the realism of Batman, but somehow I feel the set reality of a film should work throughout all the elements, and thus the old Burton’s Batman films were in sort more realistic, as they worked in conjunction with Batman’s own realism. There is an attempt to work around this by making the Joker more realistic. There are different incarnations of how the Joker came to be, but the most common one is that he fell in some toxic waste which bleached his face, turned his hair green and froze his mouth into a smile. In the film, however, they chose to make him into an ambiguous maniac with a questionable sense of fashion. But lo and behold, it actually does work to some degree. Somehow the Joker now seems much more menacing. And yes, I will buy into the hype and agree that Heath Ledger’s acting is one of the highlights of the film, and makes the Joker disturbing and fascinating to watch on the screen. However, a lot of great chances to make the Joker an even more interesting character are wasted, making him more watered down and essentially undermining a lot of the effort put into the character by Ledger. The performance individually still stands out though.

There is also a structural problem in the film, in that it lacks a good cohesive structure, wavering too much around, the film has so much to tell and despite the long running time it seems like the film could have said a lot more. Essentially, some parts should have been cut, and more depth should have been added to other parts. The character Two-Face, who is introduced later in the film, is probably the root problem of this, disturbing the interesting balance between the Joker and the Batman characters. He is essentially supposed to support both and create some depth, however, the character takes something away from the main conflict, and suffers from poor execution. The later part of the film is the most unappealing of the film, a lot due to this. The film tries to go deep into psychology and philosophy, and sets up for something great, but eventually decides to provide easy answers to complicated questions and avoids provoking disturbing questions about human nature. The Joker character sets up such questions throughout the film, and does genuinely seem provocative and interesting, but towards the end this is undermined and becomes less interesting. Also, one would think that Hollywood had managed to get away from the inevitable romance that complicates the hero’s journey, however they have not, and this further muddles a lot of the efforts that went into trying to say something deeper.

The Dark Knight is a good entertainment film, but other than that, the idea that it poses serious questions on society and has much depth is an illusion. The film has excellent potential for all that, but eventually falls flat and undermines its own strengths for mainstream purposes. Also, others saying this is the darkest Batman film made, sure, the Joker character is disturbing, but Tim Burton’s Batman Returns (1992) was much darker and depressing. In the end, the film had much going for it, but poor choices and executions did a lot of hard to an otherwise fine film. I was a big fan of Batman as a kid, and I’m not entirely sure how this is so popular to such a mature audience, but there you go. The Joker character is fascinating at times, but falls flat throughout. Apparently there is going to be more Batman films by Nolan & Co, but I personally think this is as good as it’s going to get for this team, and will reserve my enthusiasm until they decide to make Batman: The Musical.

There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)

2008-12-24T02:30:00.001-08:00

In contemporary cinema, 2007 was one of the best years of American films in quite a while. One of the new proclaimed “classics” that I hadn’t yet seen was There Will Be Blood. But other than that, I had seen some quite remarkable films from 2007, like I’m Not There (Todd Haynes, 2007), No Country for Old Men (Joel Coen; Ethan Coen, 2007), and some maybe not fantastic movies but still really good, such as Sweeney Todd (Tim Burton, 2007) and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (Andrew Dominik, 2007). So I was very much looking forward to watching There Will Be Blood, considering what a good year it had been for Hollywood cinema.

I’m not that familiar with Paul Thomas Anderson, I’ve seen Magnolia, which was quite good, but other than that I haven’t seen anything else by him. However, Magnolia is very different from There Will Be Blood, and in every aspect, in my opinion, There Will Be Blood is superior to Magnolia. In fact, I believe in 20 or so years this will be remembered as one of the defining classics of the early 21st century, together with No Country for Old Men of course. I was in a period where I despised anything from Hollywood, seeing it as “garbage” and “sell-out”. And while that does indeed apply for a lot of the cinema there, or in fact anywhere, There Will Be Blood proves that great films still are created in Hollywood, challenging any of the great Classics from the Golden Era and the 70’s Hollywood. There Will Be Blood is a character study and drama. Daniel Day-Lewis creates a fascinating character on screen, and entrepreneur who relishes in defeating and besting his opponents. There is a certain calmness to the character though, but the sub-text all comes through from the face and voice of Lewis. His performance in this film is so important, because the film is basically centred on his character, and in this respect is somewhat similar to Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese, 1980). These character dramas so easily fall and stumble, and much power is left to the actor, and Day-Lewis indeed does this justice, and deserved the Oscar he won. In fact, 2007 was a great year for Oscars, actually going to films and people who deserved them (2006 was disappointing, sure, it was nice of Scorsese winning an overdue Oscar, but best film and script as well? Please). I’m not sure whether I like No Country for Old Men or There Will Be Blood, but for certain, both would have deserved the Oscar.

The film has some superb cinematography; the beautiful wide shots of the wilderness capture the harsh terrain that the oil prospectors have to work with, and also stand as a great background element for the action on the screen. Some images will stick to your head forever, in particular the scene where the oil well burns. This is accompanied by the wonderful and original score, composed by Radiohead band member Johnny Greenwood. Anderson brings it all together with his directing, which throughout the film is spot on, creating all focus around Day-Lewis’ character. As the character develops, his environment and the people are all affected and develop too. While some say this is the story of a prospector building up his fortune, I find this interpretation slightly uninteresting. The most important part of the film and its core is the development and mental state of the character. It is in many ways quite a complicated film in this respect, and much interpretation can be brought to the character. This is one of the things that makes me believe this film will stay alive for many years to come, because there will always be something interesting to discuss and wonder about the character and the themes evoked by the film. It is quite universal, and will always feel relevant. I will want to watch this again soon, because I find it very fascinating, and I am sure the film will with each new viewing have something new to bring to me.

For me there is little doubt, There Will Be Blood is in every respect a modern masterpiece, and it is a pleasure to be around when it came out. Like so many other films from the old days, this one will be remembered, while the box-office films will be forgotten in the dust. There Will Be Blood will stand as a testament that Hollywood still can make world class quality films that are fascinating and have depth. A very positive trend last year, probably the strongest year of American cinema in the new century.

To Have and Have Not (Howard Hawks, 1944)

2008-12-23T09:31:00.000-08:00

My Bogart ranting will go on. As I mentioned earlier, the combination of Howard Hawks and Humphrey Bogart is a great mix indeed. I loved The Big Sleep, and was equally looking forward to seeing this, which was the first to feature the legendary relationship of Bogart and Bacall. I’m now not sure which I like better, this or The Big Sleep, because they are both great, but have very different qualities that makes them classics.

To Have and Have Not in many ways remind me of Casablanca. It’s a love story in a foreign country. But while I still think Casablanca is a better film, the romance itself is better here. The chemistry between Bogart and Bacall sparks, and they have a wonderful, teasing and a little hostile relationship. Bacall was at the time of filming 19 years old, which is almost unbelievable. She is truly a natural, and seemed bound for the screen. Particularly the gaze she gives Bogart, with her head tilted and staring at him, is literally imprinted in my head. Across the film there is also a good cast of characters that give the two stars something to bounce off, and it works. Still, while The Treasure of the Sierra Madre was very different from most Hollywood, this was more formulaic. This is saved however by Hawks’ compelling and unique directing, which IS different from most other film directors at the time. He has a fairly detached style, using little overdramatic music, refraining from using too much editing and close-ups. Coupled with wonderful lighting this creates some scenes that individually are some of the best of the director’s work, and it stands quite close to his other great work The Big Sleep.

Some of the parts of the film that works less well are the suspense parts. This is in part due to the fact that the romance itself takes a front seat, with a lot of the main story just working as a backdrop for the scenes between Bogart and Bacall. That is in a way fine, but I wished the film didn’t contain this and just focused on creating a drama between Bogart and Bacall, which could have been fantastic. The story elements aren’t really that interesting compared to this, and as such the film feels a bit unnecessarily fractured. We don’t really care if someone else survives, as long as the romance does. But this is compelling enough to keep the rest of the film going, and the fracture never ruins the film. In fact, as a whole the film is still very good, but doesn’t hold up to its similar Casablanca. Actually I should re-watch Casablanca soon. Anyway, the film as a whole was very pleasing, and in many ways I’m just nit-picking. But there is a fairly good reason why this didn’t receive the same legendary status as many of the other Bogart films, because it lacks that little extra quality, but it still stands as a classic from the Hollywood golden age.

I was maybe a tad disappointed with this, but then again, the more you dig through films the lower the quality is going to get, although the pay-off is that once in a while you’ll stumble across something unique and fantastic. To Have and Have Not is not this, however, it does stand on its own, firstly because it is a genuinely interesting love story, second because of Hawks’ wonderful directing, and thirdly as it was the first film that introduced the Bogart – Bacall dynamic.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (John Huston, 1948)

2008-12-23T03:06:00.000-08:00

John Huston and Humphrey Bogart seem to be a good team, just as well as Howard Hawks and Humphrey Bogart was. I liked The Maltese Falcon a lot, and was one of my first experiences with the golden age of Hollywood. However, all the good things I was expecting from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre couldn’t prepare me for the experience I was in for. Because this film is probably the best of the old Hollywood, and stands as Bogart’s best performance together with In a Lonely Place, and is probably Huston’s best directing and writing job.

The story is simple, three men out of luck far away from home pool their money together and decide to dig for gold and make their fortune. But soon the paranoia and treachery kicks in. This is expanded by Huston’s tight directing, building up the tension throughout the great dialogue scenes. It is also helped by the great performance by Bogart. Bogey won the Oscar for The African Queen, but I cannot understand how he wasn’t even nominated for this role, as it is one of his seminal best. The theme of greed is studied mostly throughout the film, but it also explores how people can turn at and to each other as the situation defines the relationship. The wilderness seem to create both tranquillity and madness, all depending on ones character, although the film empathises that no one is truly evil, but anyone can fall. The films main strength is the building of tension, social tension and thrilling tension, such as the shootout scenes. This is not a western though, although it shares some of its traits. The film works more as a social drama though, and in this part it is riveting. The film was also shot on locations, and although some scenes are obviously shot in a studio, this gives the film some charm and builds the atmosphere of the wild quite well.

Of the early Hollywood films, this one is quite bleak, and hasn’t got all of the established norms of a typical Hollywood film. There is no love interest, the characters aren’t necessarily relatable and we aren’t given access to their thoughts as much as we usually are privileged. This again helps to build the tension, as one can never be quite sure who to trust. The ending is also fairly dark, and very uncharacteristic for most of these types of film. Bogart’s role is also unusual for him. Although he had become the star anti-hero, his character here is more ambiguous than before, and is not the smooth talking detective many had loved him for being. But what makes the film so great is the simplicity of it all, and it is extremely watch able, while still retaining depth and subtlety. Bogart also has throughout the years since his golden days become somewhat typecast in the heads of modern audiences, but here he proves really what sort of an icon he was. He’s unafraid of the challenges the film gives his character, unafraid of doing something quite different from what made him famous, and needs credit for this. He is quickly becoming my favourite actor. But while I do love Bogart for his body of work, the success of this film should be unanimously credited to writer and director John Huston. I liked some of his films I’ve seen, but never grew to love him before now, he truly transcends time and filmmaking with this wonderfully crafted film.

One of my new favourite films, what else can be said, it is wonderful in every way. The acting, the writing, the cinematography and directing meld together into an intriguing, simple, yet subtle film which shows how great filmmaking will always shine through, and never grow old. This film certainly never will.

Quiet for a while

2008-12-23T03:05:00.000-08:00

I haven't been able to write here for a while due to a lot of work at the university. I also haven't seen many films to write about. Hopefully, I'll be able to come with something during the christmas Holiday, and come 2009 will be back on track.