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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.