Jeremy and the movies

FEBRUARY CELEBRATING THE BEST OF 2011 plus THE OSCARS

2012-02-06T22:12:00.000-08:00

It's that time again. As per usual, February is the time to celebrate the best in film according to the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, but to be fair, they've kinda missed the mark on a number of occasions. At the same time, this is also when we here over at Jeremy and the Movies celebrates what Jeremy (That's me) thinks the best in film are.

On most occasions, I'd say I differ with the Academy, but that mostly has to do with their sheer lack of imagination and narrow minded views of what the best in film is. I'm usually shocked and appalled when I hear the nominees, however I am delighted to see a few surprises. This year in particular I was glad to see the inclusion of some films (Yay "Midnight in Paris") but baffled by others (You couldn't drag me to see "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close").

But really it's all in good fun, we all have our own views of what we think the best movies are, and this is just a chance for me to share mine with you. I also like to think I highlight some films that don't usually get the kind of press mainstream movies do. And heck if my writing about them gets you intrigued to watch them, then that's all the better.

I usually think some of the best films I've ever seen were the ones I took a chance on. Just in the past few years, I could count foreign films like "Summer Hours" and indie movies like "Shotgun Stories" to be the best recent movies I've ever seen. This year is no different. There have been some unique and surprising Hollywood movies that I was immensely entertained by, but also some smaller films that were brought to my attention by other critics who I admire and trust.

Before Oscar night, I will reveal my top ten list, one I am still trying to compile. I might also focus on a favorite performance, or favorite moments from the past year. I also like to give a special Jury Prize award to a unique film that deserves a special mention.

So I hope you join me this month for some fun as we give a fond final farewell to 2011. And if I don't talk about your particular favorite film/performance/moment, don't take it personally, but I hope you let me know what it is.

Superman

2012-01-09T11:21:00.001-08:00

"Superman" was the first super hero and the first super hero movie, and in my opinion it's still the best of its kind. "Superman" is a movie designed for kids, he's less dark than Batman, less ironic than Ironman, and less angsty than Spiderman. Superman is the kind of hero who knows what the right thing to do is and he does it, he's all black and white, there is no grey area.

I think it might be a mistake to squeeze much hidden substance behind Superman, he was a character designed to be the perfect speciman, that doesn't mean you can't have fun with it. The 1978 film which cast Christopher Reeve as the titular character hits just the right tone, it takes Superman's existence seriously, it resists temptation of treating him like a joke, thus creating the modern super hero movie.

"Superman" as a film is constructed as what is commonly described as "The Origin Story", where we see him escaping his dying planet of Krypton in a spaceship, growing up as a simple farm boy in Smallville U.S.A., and then discovering his true nature at his Arctic Fortress of Solitude. He then creates a secret identity for himself, that of Clark Kent mild mannered reporter and takes up residence in Metropolis working at the Daily Planet Newspaper.

The film is full of wonderful sequences involving Superman doing very super things, from saving a cat stuck in a tree to keeping Air Force One from crash landing. The most famous scene in the film is probably the one which properly introduces Superman in full garb in the film. This is where local damsel in distress Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) is being hung off the top of a sky scraper dangling from a helicopter. Of course Superman wooshes in to save the day, but part of the excitement of the scene is the anticipation of seeing him in action, plus the sudden astonishment of seeing a man who could fly. This whole sequence is craftily handled with some cliffhanging suspense but also some modern humor thrown in. When Lois falls, Superman grabs her in which he quips "easy miss, I've got you." To which she replies "You've got me? Who's got you? It's got that feeling you're reading a block right from a comic book.

Part of the excitement of watching "Superman" is that feeling of seeing your favorite Super hero flying right off the page and onto the screen. The opening credit sequence plays with that a bit as curtains open to reveal a comic book, suddenly the scene gets bigger and the giant red "S" appears on the screen right as the memorable John Williams theme music kicks in. It has a childlike mentality, imagine being a kid and seeing these images for the first time in the movie theatre.

There is much to appreciate with "Superman" they even have a romantic interlude between him and Lois as he takes her on a night fly in the air. How often to you see such a romantic scene in a super hero movie?

The film was directed by Richard Donner who fought with the producers into making a sincere "Superman" picture. Originally, the film was meant to be campy making fun of the myth, but Donner obviously wasn't as cynical, and it was his vision which you see on screen. His master touch was probably casting Reeve as Superman; he plays the character without a sense of irony. When Superman says he's out to fight for truth, justice, and the American way, you don't blink an eye or snicker, it's done with a straight face. As Clark Kent he's as clueless and befuddled as he has to be in order for people not to suspect he's the man of steel, Reeve actually said his inspiration for Clark came from Cary Grant's performance in the comedy "Bringing up Baby", which you can no doubt see.

"Superman" is still a great entertainment even though it seems super heroes have grown more complex and dark. The latest Christopher Nolan Batman films are great in their own way, yet I see them as being more adult. "Superman" is more family oriented, there isn't much violence, he's never seen throwing a punch, he doesn't have to, he mostly just flies around saving people.

I get the same feeling when I watch "Superman" as with an Indiana Jones film or a James Bond movie featuring Sean Connery. It's that feeling of being a kid again and these larger than life heroes feel more alive on the screen than ever. It's almost as if those characters exist for real in your own childlike universe. I hope I never get too old for "Superman" and I hope the world doesn't either.

My Desert Island Movies

2012-01-08T19:06:00.000-08:00

I've stumbled upon a neat little idea for movie fanatics such as I from Matt Zoller Seitz a renowned film essayist. He took the time to make up his desert island list of movies he would take with him. He did have some ground rules, it would include ten movies you couldn't live without followed by a season from a television show and a short film, making a total of 12. In my moments of reflection I've taken upon myself to construct such a list for myself since making lists are so much fun for movie fans such as myself. So in lieu of a Top Ten films of 2011 (Which I will post once I'm caught up with more films from last year) I give you 12 films I certainly can't live without.

Television Season If it had to be one season from one television show I know I certainly couldn't live without "The Simpsons" for very long. I simply can't remember what television was like without "The Simpsons" so how could I imagine what a desert island would be like without them. Though there are many seasons to choose from, my preference would probably be season six. This was the season that ended with the cliffhanger of "Who Shot Mr. Burns", and it also had perhaps my favorite sentimental episode "And Maggie Makes Three" which features a sweet story of how Maggie said her first words.

Short Film Along with "The Simpsons" another animated institution I couldn't dare live without would be Bugs Bunny. He's simply a comic genius this side of Buster Keaton and Groucho Marx. Of the many Bugs Bunny short films I could choose from it would be "Rabbit Seasoning" featuring Bugs and his two greatest foils Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd.

Now for the feature films, they are...

Tokyo Story In my mind there has never been a more perfect film than this one. If there is one film I would say shows what life is all about it would be this film. I've talked much about this film and its director Yasujiro Ozu at length throughout the years this blog has existed.

It's a Wonderful Life A tougher film than its reputation, it's dark, grim, but also uplifting and hopeful, a film for me that has taught me a series of life lessons I'm still learning today.

The Three Colours Trilogy I'm cheating a little bit by adding this three-piece series as a whole movie, I can't live without them as individuals only as a whole. They are metaphysical masterpieces of movie making, philosophical in their motives and I'm fascinated by them. I can ponder these films forever on my desert island.

Horse Feathers Still my favorite comedy of all time. How can I spend the rest of my life on a desert island without The Marx Brothers? I ask you how? I can't and I won't which is why it will go with me.

The General While I'm at it, how can I exist without Buster Keaton, the most innovative, and compelling silent comedian known to man. So many to choose from, but "The General" was the first one of his films I ever saw, the first silent film, I declare you can't take a shot away from this film, it's perfect.

City Lights I've taken Keaton, I cannot banish Chaplin I'm sorry. To hell with those who choose one over the other, they are both geniuses sir, and both will be with me until my dying day.

The Shop Around the Corner The greatest romantic comedy known to man, it's witty with two people who deserve to fall in love with eachother, it's by Ernst Lubitsch and he is for sure one director who I can't be without.

Top Hat I need music and romance to get through my lonely days on the island and Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers can take me out of any funk into their world of wonderful melodies, dance, and art deco. I choose this one over "Swing Time" because it has Edward Everett Horton one of the greatest character actors playing Astaire's best friend.

Casablanca This is for my cynical days where there is no hope to remind me that perhaps my life doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world but that's only because there are bigger things. Humphrey Bogart also proves that cynics can also be poets.

Jules and Jim Because it's like a dream, a memory, a life I may have lived long ago. It's a film that captures love, youth, and cinema perhaps better than any other film, because it's alive and in those dark days on the island I may have to be reminded of what feeling alive and in love is.

There are many others, I regret not picking a film with Cary Grant or Barbara Stanwyck, a Hitchcock, or a Kurosawa. No Billy Wilder or The Coen Brothers, to them and a hundred others I wish I could bring you all, the truth is I can't live without any of you, and I hope I never have to choose.

Holiday

2011-12-29T22:22:00.001-08:00

"Holiday" is one of those films that should be talked about more. Why isn't it talked about more? It's a serious comedy made in the 1930s golden age, it was directed by George Cukor, one of the most prominent filmmakers of that era. The stars at its center are Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn, they made four movies together, this one was squeezed in between their more revered comedies "Bringing up Baby" and "The Philadelphia Story". Great as those comedies are, I can't seem to shake the feeling "Holiday" gives me everytime I watch it.

"Holiday" starts off like most comedies of that era do, with an engagement. Johnny Case (Grant) is a young idealistic man who is love with a rich socialite Julia (Doris Nolan). Johnny fell head over heals for Julia right away, so quickly in fact he had no idea she was rich. Julia introduces him to the rest of her family which includes her sister Linda (Hepburn) and her brother Ned (Lew Ayers). Right away Johnny is being groomed to meet Julia's father (Henry Kolker), a hard nosed businessman who thinks making a lot of money is what makes a person successful. This is contrary to what Johnny believes, he's still young, he wants to find out more about the world. He has this silly idea about taking a holiday once he has enough money saved up to figure out what he wants to do, and what he wants to be.

The only person who seems to understand where he's coming from is Linda who is the self-proclaimed black sheep of the family. Linda is the only one who seems to be able to stand up against their father and give him a piece of her mind. She spends most of her time in the family playroom which is a place of escape for her. To her Johnny represents a breath of fresh air in the family, and although she loves her sister very much, she can't help but fall in love with him. It's obvious at the very beginning Johnny is in love with the wrong woman, and by the end of the film, he'll end up with the right one, but "Holiday" isn't as frivolous as all that, this is in fact a comedy with a certain philosophy on how one should live their life.

Johnny Case isn't just the romantic lead of the film, he's also the hero, in a way he's pretty much a representation of what young people usually come to feel, what is their purpose in the world? Is life all about making a lot of money? These are at least questions that plague me. I remember I saw "Holiday" for the first time when I was very young and still fairly new to classic films. I didn't think too much of it at the time, yet as I grow older I see it as a very wise film and unconventional.

It's a rather melancholy film with scarred characters, the most of which is Ned the brother. Ned is portrayed as a drunk, who was a promising musician, but was forced to focus on business by his father. Ned had to live up to certain expectations, he was the only son and therefore had to carry on his family name. He basically became someone he hated, so he is usually seen drowning in alcohol. The character as played by Ayers gives the film a certain reality largely unseen in films of that time.

Linda is also scarred, she doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of her family, she dotes on Ned and loves her sister, but she's mostly a loner, and isolates herself. It's hard to say what kind of a person she was before Johnny came into her life, with him she seems to have found a soulmate, someone she could feel free to discuss things.

There is indeed much discussion in "Holiday", different ideals are debated, there are emotional battles between characters, the tone shifts from high comedy to sombre drama, it never goes for an easy answer. Much of the dialogue probably has to do with the fact it was adapted from a play. It was written with great literal style by Donald Odgen Stewart who also wrote "The Philadelphia Story" and Sydney Buchman. The dialogue is one of the great things about this film, the people are always speaking about something, they are intelligent sophisticated human beings with a certain point of view. It's a film full of wit, but it never sacrifices human emotion for it.

Johnny is the man you root for, yet there is empathy towards the father who can mostly be seen as a miser, yet he is a stubborn old man set in his ways, and even Julia who has a sweet exterior but may be shallow underneath. The characters do remain very human and are given a bit of grace at some point or another, and of course it must be capped off with a happy ending like they do in those days, although my heart goes out to poor Ned who doesn't seem to even muster up enough courage to stand up to his father making the ending somewhat bittersweet.

Here it was back in 1938, with the world still in the throws of "The Great Depression" and a Hollywood film comes along with ideas. It doesn't happen too often these days, and when it does it's time to cheer. But "Holiday" speaks for our society today just as it did back then. It doesn't matter if you saw the film when it was released or you saw in on the eve of 2012, it's nice to see a film that has something to say on where you should put your priorities.

The Bandwagon

2011-12-12T14:41:00.000-08:00

What I love most about "The Bandwagon" is just how light it is, not just on its feet, but also in tone. This is no frivolous musical, but it is a musical comedy that doesn't take itself too seriously, nor does it want to be. It is one of the great MGM musicals from the same era of MGM musicals which produced, "Singin in the Rain", and "An American in Paris". It's about the highs and lows of putting on a show, the tragedy of when one doesn't work out, and the joyousness when one does. But mostly "The Bandwagon" is about entertainment, giving the people what they want, and it doesn't skimp on riches, it's bright, witty, and dreamlike, it's there for us to enjoy time and time again.

"The Bandwagon" is about Tony Hunter (Fred Astaire), a washed up movie star who heads to New York to star in a Broadway Musical written by two friends of his, Lester and Lily Martin (Oscar Levant and Nanette Fabray). They've got a part tailor made for Tony, it's light and funny, just what he's known for. But before you could say Broadway smash, the Martins entrust their show to an ego driven director named Jeffery Cordoba. Jeffery currently has three shows running on Broadway simultaneously, while he himself is performing "Oedipus Rex". Very quickly Jeffery changes the Martin's show show it parallels the story of "Faust". It no longer is light and funny, but dark and tragic. However everyone seems to go against their better judgment because Jeffery just happens to be a genius.

There is also an acting coup, when Jeffery also hooks up famed ballerina Gabrielle Gerard (Cyd Charisse) to star opposite Tony. At first Tony is terrified of this, since he is a hoofer, while Gabrielle is much more refined. It becomes obvious early on that the show is not working, Jeff's demands become more and more outrageous, soon it is preview night, and no one is prepared, but of course this is a crowd pleasing musical, all they need is to go back to the drawing board and all will turn out well.

When you look at all the plot points, you could say that "The Bandwagon" is sort of the companion piece to "Singin in the Rain". That film took aim at the movie business, while this one is about Broadway. The dreadful show within a show in "The Bandwagon" mirrors the similar situation in "Singin in the Rain" which had a movie that needed fixing. This probably isn't just coincidence, since both films were produced by Arthur Freed, the mastermind behind the best MGM musicals. Freed basically had the same idea for both films, he wanted to use existing musical numbers that MGM had the rights over and make a musical surrounding them. Both films had the same screenwriters who Betty Comden and Adolph Green, they had the difficult job of taking all these songs and somehow making a story around it. Luckily they were witty writers and had a great flare for comedy. The characters played by Levant and Fabray were loosly based on them, however they weren't married in real life.

The other creative force behind "The Bandwagon" was Vincent Minnelli, probably the best known director of musicals. However Minnelli never just stuck to one genre, he could do comedy, and drama, but there was something special when he made musicals. He made magical worlds within his musicals, and "The Bandwagon" lets him play around a bit even making fun of his own pretensions in a musical. The film is warmly lit for most of the time, and Minnelli makes every number memorable.

Let's talk about these musical numbers, there's too many to count, some don't seem to last long enough, you beg for more. The big one for sure is "Dancing in the Dark" featuring Astaire and Charisse. It's a purely romantic sequence with the two characters seeing if they could actually dance together. It begins quite casual almost as if the two dancers are making it up as they go, then it flows into a gorgeous number with a beautiful symphony backing them up.

There is also the triplets number featuring Astaire, Fabray, and Buchanan as toddlers. They do the entire number with fake feet strapped to their knees. According to Fabray in the making of documentary, they each had to learn how to dance on their knees, there was no trick photography included. The final riot comes with the final ballet call "Girl Hunt", which is a parody of Mickie Spillane pulp novels. The mystery doesn't make a lick of sense, but who cares with all the spirited dancing going around.

Each star makes their own mark on the film, but when you think of "The Bandwagon", it's hard not to think of Astaire. This was the beginning of the next great era in Astaire's career. He was semi-retired by the time he made "The Bandwagon", Gene Kelly seemed to have come in as the next generation. You could make comparisons between Tony Hunter and Astaire's own career, however I don't think he was ever that far forgotten. If anything, "The Bandwagon" shows off some of Astaire's best filmed moments, the aforementioned "Dancing in the Dark", as well as early in the film "A Shine on your Shoes". I love watching Astaire dance, it's one of the greatest pleasures the movies can afford. Astaire was known as a perfectionist along with Kelly, from what I've heard and read about him, he was quiet and shy and very insecure about his dancing. Yet when you see him on screen, it all goes away, and you are left with a man who looks to be enjoying himself.

Astaire would go on to call "The Bandwagon" his favorite film, and it probably is his best, unlike the films he did with Ginger, he's more of a solo act here, more well-rounded and perhaps even more comfortable within his own skin. He's free of any expectations because he's been able to grow as an artist and he's able to just have fun and go with it.

I look at "The Bandwagon" today as one of the great entertainments, something that lasts because the people who made it were the best in their field. That was the norm in Hollywood back then, when they could get creative forces behind one project and made magic. Their talent was taking something that looked so difficult and make it seem so effortless.

Vivre Sa Vie (My Life to Live)

2011-11-29T20:39:00.001-08:00

"Vivre Sa Vie" is one of the best films to come out of the 1960s, it was the fourth film by that new wave dynamo Jean-Luc Godard, he wasn't afraid of challenging the way we viewed film, weather it was how he staged his scenes or directed his actors, there was something new and exciting about it. That being said, "Vivre Sa Vie" may be his most subdued film of this period.

The story centers on Nana (Anna Karina), a young girl who works at a record store with aspirations of becoming an actress. Nana becomes unsuccessful with her dream and soon resorts to prostitution, there he life is tragically cut short when she is killed by her pimp. I don't feel like I'm giving anything away at telling you the fate of Nana, since it is plainly clear at the beginning of the film, that it doesn't end well for her.

"Vivre Sa Vie" is more about capturing these moments of time in Nana's life, Godard titles these moments in tableau, there are twelve in total. Godard explains that these tableau's work as pebbles or blocks in time, they are meant to show these little snapshots of Nana at this moment in her life. Because of that, many plot points are often not shown but referred to, Godard even said he wasn't sure as to how long of a span the film is supposed to focus on, it may be months even years, but to him it didn't matter, what mattered was following Nana, almost to a point where the film feels like a documentary, but of course Godard is dealing with fictional material, yet what he does is play with our expectations with what a fictional film could be.

Much of convention is dropped in the world of Godard, he plays with the elements of film like a symphony, using every tool to its full advantage and never afraid to experiment. Some critics consider "Vivre Sa Vie" as simply a film about different conversations, and indeed that's much of what goes on. The opening tableau is Nana in a cafe talking to her ex, but Godard makes the extreme choice of filming directly behind them, showing only their heads. When I first saw this film, that scene always seemed annoying, yet it grew on me the more I viewed it, Godard was making the conversation more realistic, by not seeing the faces, we get the feeling of eavesdropping on a conversation. Similar scenes are all shot differently, sometimes with simple panning from one person to another, and other times from a more conventional two-shot cut. The effect is never distracting, and Godard seems more interested in letting the camera be part of the emotion of the scene.

These techniques aside, what draws me into this film more often is how liberated it is, both in technique and in theme. It is in fact a movie about freedom, and personal liberty, it begins with a quote from Montaigne "You must only lend yourself to others but give yourself to yourself." Nana is a woman at a constant struggle of finding freedom for herself. She is denied her freedom when she becomes a prostitute, but there is a resistance in her as she yearns for love and happiness. Tragically she becomes a martyr and in the film's most famous scene, she is shown inside a movie theatre watching Carl Dreyer's classic silent film "The Passion of Joan of Arc", Godard makes a direct parallel with Nana and Joan in the film, it's also her one burst of emotion as she is seen crying in the theatre.

The film seems to be fighting this philosophical question as well regarding freedom and love, which is summed up wonderfully when Nana runs into an actual philosopher at a cafe. Here he makes a parable regarding "The Three Musketeers" which could directly relate to Nana's own struggles. She questions the philosopher, and challenges him, and it's interesting how she is seen quite intelligent and literate, how you may ask did this girl get driven into prostitution?

It's also relevant to point out, "Vivre Sa Vie" could be thought of as Godard's own fascination with his star Anna Karina. At the time this film was made, the two were married, they made seven films together, their later ones particularly "Pierrot le Fou" showed off their disintegrating relationship, but at the time of this film, you could see Godard was at least in love with her face, Karina is given some of the most flattering close-ups in history. Karina complained that she thought the film made her ugly, but I don't see it. Karina gives Nana a beautiful sadness, and a shine that comes out in her actions; Godard gives her great freedom to play around, including a hypnotic scene where she dances around to a rocking tune trying to get the attention to a young man whom she loves. There is as much joy in her performance as there is in meloncholy and contemplation.

There's so much about "Vivre Sa Vie" that remains with you once you watch it, like most of Godard's films of the 1960s, it's youthful and vibrant, it holds a certain unique cinematic point of view. Godard seemed to be concerned with youthful ideas back then, most of his films were about young people who were alienated, confused, and questioning their existence. He also had more encyclopedic knowledge about film than anyone and he used it as his advantage.

Today Godard continues to take chances for better or for worse; his last film "Film Socialism", was completely incomprehensible, yet you felt there was a mind working trying to stretch the film language as far as it could go. "Vivre Sa Vie" still surprises and delights, it's a film that was and is ahead of its time.

The Doll

2011-11-28T12:44:00.001-08:00

One of my favorite opening shots in any movie comes from the charming 1919 silent fairy tale comedy "The Doll". In it, we see the film's director Ernst Lubitsch opening up a toy box and creating the scene from cardboard scenery and dolls for the characters. The film begins and the dolls turn into real life characters while the cardboard scenery remains. It's such a nice little wink and shows off Lubitsch's playful sense of humour to the audience.

"The Doll" takes place in a made up kingdom where a young man named Lancelot (Hermann Thimig) is being pressured by his Uncle the Baron to take a wife. The Baron wants to see his family name live on but Lancelot is a bit of a prudish momma's boy who seems to be afraid of women. He doesn't want to get married, he runs away from his Uncle and takes solace in a monastery which houses a bunch of monks who happen to be broke. Lancelot's Uncle sends word to him that if he decides to marry, he'll give him a large sum of money which the monks need desperately. Lancelot is still hesitant but luckily there is a toymaker in town who specializes in making life-sized women dolls for men.

The dolls are all wound up and can follow orders with the push of a button, so Lancelot figures this is the perfect way to get him from marrying a real woman and still get the money he needs to help the monks.

One such doll is modeled after the toymaker's daughter Ossi (Ossi Ozwalda). When the incompetent assistant accidentally breaks the doll, Ossi takes its place and goes off to marry Lancelot. Lancelot still isn't any the wiser, even as Ossi shows signs of not being a real doll. The toymaker meanwhile realizes that his daughter has gone off to marry Lancelot without his knowing, and his hair begins to raise and turn instantly white with worry.

"The Doll" was made while Ernst Lubitsch was still making movies in Germany, before his golden age of making sophisticated romantic comedies in Hollywood. I always found Lubitsch to be an anomaly; besides him the most famous German directors were Fritz Lang, and F.W. Murnau, these were men who had a reputation for being controlling and somewhat humourless when it came to their films. They were pioneers in what is now known as German expressionism, which usually dealt in dark genres such as horrors or thrillers. Lubitsch always dealt with the lighter side of life, because he had a sense of humour about it.

I've seen many old photographs of Lubitsch and in every one he's always smiling and is usually holding a cigar in his mouth. He seemed to be a man who didn't take life too seriously and therefore didn't make anything sacred.

"The Doll" could be described as one of the very first sex, comedies. Sex has always remained in the movies countless times no matter how much the censors try to take it off the screens. In another director's hands, sex could be seen as sensuous or tantalizing, but Lubitsch simply found it funny. He was probably the first director ever to make fun of sex, and what happens when the lights go out in the bedroom.

With "The Doll", he makes fun of the implications of marrying a toy. "Just as long as it doesn't hurt", says Lancelot when he agrees to marry the doll. The toymaker even gives Lancelot some maintenance tips for the doll, making sure to "oil it every two weeks", and make sure "to give it a good dusting". It's that kind of innuendo which makes "The Doll" hilariously modern, but it's done so innocently, it never sounds crass or dirty.

The glue that holds the film together has got to be Ossi Oswalda, who plays the wonderfully bratty daughter of the toymaker as well as the doll itself. Ossi appeared in a number of Lubitsch's German films, and she seems to have a wonderful comic sensibility. There is just the right sense of charm and mischief in Ossi's performance that Lubistch must've took a shine to her particularly for this film.

The world, "The Doll" inhabits though is like a child's make believe land, and it's with that aesthetic, the film is able to sustain a sense of innocence, despite the rather grown up subject matter. Only a director like Lubitsch could create such a world where even sex could be thought of as so innocent, under his hands it never became taboo, just fun.

When someone talks about the films of Ernst Lubitsch, they are usually given a nickname, it's called "The Lubitsch Touch". No one can exactly explain what his touch was, everyone has their own theories towards what it was. I suppose the point is, once Lubitsch died, his magical touch died with him. No matter how many people tried, they couldn't duplicate his movies. They were a perfect balance of taboo subject matter, and popular entertainment, and I suppose another word for that would be class. But Lubitsch never thought a joke was too cheap to use, you could tell he found anything funny. Did I mention the toymaker's name was Hilarious?

Late Autumn

2011-11-14T00:02:00.001-08:00

There is a serenity that comes over me when I watch a film like "Late Autumn", it's a film directed by Yasujiro Ozu so in that sense it already holds a special place in my heart. Ozu was a master filmmaker who made wonderful masterpieces almost all the time. His films were rarely seen outside of Japan for the longest time, but now over the years he's been rediscovered and can now be seen as one of cinema's masters.

What you should know about "Late Autumn" is it's a reworking of the ongoing theme which was prominent in many of Ozu's films, the disillusionment of the family. In this film the relationship between a daughter and her widowed mother is interrupted by the insistence that the daughter should be married. Both woman seem content with the fact they they live together, but society has made it necessary that the daughter should marry.

The mother in this film is played by one of the great beauties of cinema, Setsuko Hara. In earlier incarnations of the same plot, Ozu had Hara play the daughter, but now she is middle aged. Hara seems older, slower, but her beauty and her quiet sadness seems to be even more prominent. Hara wasn't in movies much, she soon retired after Ozu passed away, and in her late career she mostly worked almost exclusively with him. Seeing her in this film is like seeing a history between an actress and her director, it isn't only a character she's playing, but it's an embodiment of an idea instilled in her by a filmmaker.

But "Late Autumn" also has its playful side, it's a modern tragedy but with some wise human comedy in the mix. The trouble makers of the film happen to be three middle aged men who were friends of Hara's dead husband. They plan to play matchmakers for the daughter, it's almost as if the idea came to them on a whim. The tragedy here is how the mother and daughter become pawns in the games of these foolish men. No one asked them to interfere with their perfectly content life, but they have it in their mind it's for the best of both parties that the daughter be married off.

But we don't see anyone judged in "Late Autumn", there are no villains, the tragedy is mostly done organically by typical human error, we understand everyone does things with the best intentions, but change must be accepted, and we mourn for the way of life that will be lost.

"Late Autumn" is a patient film, it asks you to pay attention, for with all Ozu films, he's fascinated with the behaviours and the relationships of his characters. It's brilliant how Ozu can bring out character relationships in a cinematic way. Sometimes he emphasizes a close connection between two people by having them mirror each others movements, or sometimes it's used to show off a comedic situation.

But Ozu is also a master at showing the sadness of life, and also the joys. He shows life as a passage of time full of hope and heartaches. Perhaps no one has been able to show the beauty of loneliness better than Ozu. This is done in the final moments with Setsuko Hara where she is left alone in her room, and Ozu gives us her little moment to reflect that her daughter will no longer be there to greet her home, she is left to continue her life alone. Hara is perfect in this scene, every little movement shows volumes of what she is feeling, that's the secret of Ozu cinema, he was fascinated with the little habits people did, the slight mundane things that filled up their lives, it's what his cinema is all about, it's what make us care for these people, they seem all the more real to us. There are moments in "Late Autumn" where a touch of the wrist or a tilt of the head had more behind it than any emotional monologue could ever tell us, that's the signature of a master.

JFK

2011-10-24T10:25:00.001-07:00

In the film "JFK", Kevin Costner plays Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who so far is the only man ever to bring a case of the JFK Assassination to trial, however perhaps a more accurate account would be Costner plays the mouthpiece for the people who believe there was a conspiracy.

When "JFK" was released in 1991, it was a controversial potboiler. Many critics denounced the film for being outlandish and for skewering the truth behind the JFK assassination. Time has now simmered the once notorious film, and while revisiting it I found it to be extremely entertaining and engrossing.

In the film, Costner's Jim Garrison begins his search for the truth behind the assassination of JFK. After the apprehension of lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald (Played here uncannily by Gary Oldman), Garrison becomes convinced Oswald couldn't have acted alone. His investigation leads to Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones), a legitimate businessman in New Orleans who has been linked to Oswald. Garrison has gathered enough evidence to at least bring Shaw to trial, although one might say that it's mostly circumstantial or here say. Most of his witnesses are not reliable, and it becomes clear, Garrison's case doesn't have a leg to stand on, but it wasn't really a case to convict Clay Shaw, but a case to show there was indeed a conspiracy and for that it was a success.

"JFK" is a film about conspiracies, but it's also about the injustice of feeling lied to by the government. The film was directed by Oliver Stone, a man who is at his best when he seems to be dealing with his own lost generation. With "JFK", Stone seems to be trying to get a few things off his chest not just about the cover up, but about how America in general became shaken by the assassination. There are many times when Garrison says he's in over his head and he can't believe how far the conspiracy goes. The thought of governments lying to the country was nothing new to Oliver Stone, he seems to revel in corruption, it sparks something inside of him that makes him inspired. He has rallied against Vietnam, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush to name a few.

With "JFK", Stone is unloading on his audience a certain injustice, the conspiracies act as sort of a collage throughout the film, they all meld together. Sometimes it's difficult to remember all the events or all the people connected with the assassination, but it all doesn't seem to matter in the end. This is just Stone's way of creating some sort of dialogue, he's trying to show that sometimes atrocious was covered up in America's history and his angry about it.

But "JFK" works as just a wonderfully entertaining piece of filmmaking, it's a potboiler, sort of like a more sensationalistic approach to "All the President's Men". It gets to the point where Garrison gets in too deep where he fears for his own safety and is paranoid about who's watching him. The investigation itself just seems fascinating, and Stone seems so passionate about his subject, the film can probably be accused with feeling over stuffed, and with a running time of nearly three and half hours, it's not hard to think that way.

There are moments where Stone's sincerity gets in the way of his story telling, Garrison's impassioned speech to the jury at the end of the film is overlong and wrought with sentimental cliches it doesn't ring true. There is also the half-hearted subplot of Garrison's home life, where we get too many obligatory scenes with him arguing with his wife about how he hasn't spent enough time with his family.

But despite those set back, the big picture works beautifully, Stone keeps things moving, and he gets some great performances from his all star cast. Tommy Lee Jones in particular is effective as Shaw, the main villain of the piece, as is Joe Pesci who play Dave Ferrie a man who is connected with both Shaw and Oswald. Then there is Donald Sutherland as the mysterious man only known as X. Sutherland has a long winded scene with Costner where he seems to spew out every government conspiracy in the record books. Sutherland has that sort of voice you listen to, even if you can't fully comprehend what exactly he's saying, in a way there's an undertow of humour in his performance I appreciated.

For his part, Costner is ideally cast as Garrison, where his role is mostly to listen and react to the information. Costner is a stand in for the audience, he takes it all in, and must make a moral choice to stand up for the truth. In the end, "JFK" is about the righteous search for the truth, I respected its sincere convictions even though they seemed rather naive. It has as much to do about John F. Kennedy as it does about the feelings of Oliver Stone; he wanted to make clear how he felt about being lied to. In my opinion, Stone does seem to have simplistic political views, he is a man with an agenda. He seems to succeed when he's able to get you on his side, "JFK" does so by shear passion and style.

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a great tragedy for America, I'm not sure there has been a film yet to be made that has actually dealt with it in a true and honest nature. "JFK" is still a work of fiction, it's a collage of "what ifs", it's cathartic for people who have been searching for the truth, and haven't been given any straight answers. It's one man's obsession taken to the extreme in hopes of at least communicating his frustrations with trying to solve a puzzle that can't seem to be solved.

Cat People

2011-10-21T20:39:00.001-07:00

"Cat People" works like a fever dream, it's a film that draws you in by the power of suggestion, by making you think you saw or heard something on the screen, but perhaps you didn't. It is technically a horror film, yet unlike what the title might suggest it's not a freak show, it is in fact mostly psychological, it remains a metaphor for a failed marriage, a fear of intimacy, and a fear of oneself.

When it was released, no one really thought much of "Cat People", it was a film which was given a small budget and a b-movie title. It was created by the people at RKO as a quick cash answer to Universal's horror movie lexicon which contained titles such as "Frankenstein" and "The Wolf Man". But what the head honchos underestimated was the talent behind the film.

The history of "Cat People" is the history of Val Lewton, a Producer who started out as a protege of David O Selznik. Lewton was given a chance to produce a series of horror films for RKO, only he wanted them to be something special. He was a student of classic literature and stories, he even used to write pulp fiction novels before becoming a producer. With "Cat People" he was given a crummy title and a small budget, but that meant basic free creative control.

Through the guidance of Lewton and director Jaques Tournier, "Cat People" became the story of Irena (Simone Simon) a young woman from Serbia living in New York. She meets a man Oliver Reed (Kent Smith) and the two fall in love and get married. But something is haunting Irena, a story from her homeland has her convinced she comes from an ancestry of people who worshipped the devil and being intimate with her husband will cause her to turn into a fabled cat person and killing him.

Because of Irena's superstitions, their wedding night is spent apart, time goes by and they grow more and more isolated in eachother. Oliver takes solice in his co-worker Alice (Jane Randolph) who loves him. This sparks jealousy in Irena and she begins to act even more dark and brooding. Later Oliver advises Irena to visit a psychiatrist (Tom Conway) to help her cope with her feelings. The doctor however only tries to seduce Irena causing her to become more repressed and aggressive.

This is really Irena's story, she is the loner of the film, the outcast, she doesn't seem to fit in, it's about her fears of becoming isolated from the man she loves and losing him to another women. It's also about her sexual repression, re-watching it, the film reminded me much of Roman Polanski's own horror masterpiece "Repulsion" which was also about a woman dealing with her own repression. The tragedy of "Cat People" is seeing all of Irena's horrors come true, she does lose he husband, and she does unleash the animal within her, but the beauty of this film is how it is left ambiguous.

"Cat People" could've become silly very quickly if they chose to show a woman turn into a cat, but it's much too smart for that. The horror is done by not showing, but only implying. This is done through the isolation of sound, the use of silence, and images which seem to be hidden in shadow. There aren't many scare moments in "Cat People" but when they do happen it's to great effect. Take the moment where Alice believes she is being stalked. We the audience see her being followed by the footsteps of Irena, but soon those footsteps disappear, but we still feel Alice is being followed, the climax of this sequence is one of the most famous of its kind.

Then there is the moment where Alice again feels like she is being stalked, this time in a swimming pool. There are faint echoes of sound surrounding her, and images against the shadowy wall, but again we aren't sure what if anything is there.

These little pieces of creative filmmaking is what makes "Cat People" endure as a classic of subtle horror, but it's Irena's story that still interests me the most. Her horrors are real and they manifest into something super natural, it touches on our own fears of loneliness, isolation, even death. Irena seems to be in a waking dream, on one level it doesn't seem to make much sense, we don't quite see everything, yet we feel like we have. It's a film of the subconscious, that primal level of the mind that is able to connect with these feelings on some level.

"Cat People" isn't so much a monster movie in the same way "Frankenstein" or "Dracula" are. It's more ambiguous where you're not sure who, what, or where the monster is. The story of Irena teaches us that even though we can resist it for as long as we can, the monster will appear, and the horror is knowing it could be inside us.

Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule Seasonal Quiz

2011-10-21T16:55:00.000-07:00

) Favorite Vincent Price/American International Pictures release.
Of what I've seen "The Fly"

2) What horror classic (or non-classic) that has not yet been remade would you like to see upgraded for modern audiences?
"The Return of Dr. X"

3) Jonathan Frid or Thayer David?
Don't know of them.

4) Name the one horror movie you need to see that has so far eluded you.
"The Haunting"

5) Favorite film director most closely associated with the horror genre.
James Whale

6) Ingrid Pitt or Barbara Steele?
Barbara Steele

7) Favorite 50’s sci-fi/horror creature.
The Martians from "War of the Worlds"

8) Favorite/best sequel to an established horror classic.
"Bride of Frankenstein"

9) Name a sequel in a horror series which clearly signaled that the once-vital franchise had run out of gas.
"Alien Vs. Predator"

10) John Carradine or Lon Chaney Jr.?
John Carradine

11) What was the last horror movie you saw in a theater? On DVD or Blu-ray?
In Theatres: "Let Me In" On DVD: "The Horror of Dracula"

12) Best foreign-language fiend/monster.
Klaus Kinski's Nosferatu

13) Favorite Mario Bava movie.
Haven't seen one

14) Favorite horror actor and actress.
Actor: Boris Karloff Actress: Vivian Leigh

15) Name a great horror director’s least effective movie.
Sam Raimi "Drag Me to Hell"

16) Grayson Hall or Joan Bennett?
Joan Bennett

17) When did you realize that you were a fan of the horror genre? And if you’re not, when did you realize you weren’t?
I think I just recently realized I was a fan of horror, thanks mostly in part to early Roman Polanski movies. his "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby" are two films I've seen only for the first time over the past few years and I found them totally engrossing. Since then I've come to appreciate more horror films even though they aren't my favorite genre.

18) Favorite Bert I. Gordon (B.I.G.) movie.
HAven't seen one.

19) Name an obscure horror favorite that you wish more people knew about.
"Mad Love"

20) The Human Centipede-- yes or no?
Never.

21) And while we’re in the neighborhood, is there a horror film you can think of that you felt “went too far”?
Not one I've seen, but I have heard of films who's very concepts turn me off.

22) Name a film that is technically outside the horror genre that you might still feel comfortable describing as a horror film.
"Apocalypse Now", "Taxi Driver"

23) Lara Parker or Kathryn Leigh Scott?
Don't know them

24) If you’re a horror fan, at some point in your past your dad, grandmother, teacher or some other disgusted figure of authority probably wagged her/his finger at you and said, “Why do you insist on reading/watching all this morbid monster/horror junk?” How did you reply? And if that reply fell short somehow, how would you have liked to have replied?
My reply was a grunt to that person and I continued watching it. I would've liked to have replied by going into great detail that what I was watching was art, and it was effectively made, and I would've gotten on my pretensious highhorse to defend it.

25) Name the critic or Web site you most enjoy reading on the subject of the horror genre. Kim Morgan, mostly for pointing me in the direction of "Repulsion" among others.

26) Most frightening image you’ve ever taken away from a horror movie.
As a boy it was probably seeing Vera Miles finding the remains of Mrs. Bates in "Psycho", or Quint squirting up blood as he's being eaten in "Jaws". Lately it's the hands grabbing out from the walls in "Repulsion", and the naked old woman kissing Jack Nicholson in "The Shining".

27) Your favorite memory associated with watching a horror movie.
It was my first viewings of "King Kong" and "Frankenstein". They brought the fun out in horror for me the first time.

28) What would you say is the most important/significant horror movie of the past 20 years (1992-2012)? Why?
"The Descent" which is probably the one horror film I've seen that actually felt like an experience, and didn't rely on gimmicks or hoky slaughter. It was a frightening story that got under my skin.

29) Favorite Dr. Phibes curse (from either film).
Can't say I've seen one.

30) You are programming an all-night Halloween horror-thon for your favorite old movie palace. What five movies make up your schedule?
For my first festival it would be more of an outing from the classic period involving

"Frankenstein/Bride of Frankenstein"
"The Invisible Man"
"The Mummy"
"Nosferatu" (1922)
"Mad Love"

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

2011-10-09T10:27:00.000-07:00

I remember "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" from childhood. I remember feeling like I was watching a foreign film, it seemed so mysterious and weird, and I was astonished to see one of the main characters speaking mostly french. I thought of how little dialogue there was in the film, yet I always knew what was going on. I remember the lights in the film, not just the ones caused by the UFOs, but the whole motif of the it all; the flashlights, the car headlights, and the helicopters flying towards the people who thought they were seeing the UFOs. I remembered the music, that little five note piece performed by the humans in order to contact and communicate with the aliens. That piece always felt like the start of a children's lullaby to me.

Today "Close Encounters" is still a wonderful film, I have seen it over and over again, I'm amazed at how simple the story structure is, yet how brilliantly a piece of film it really is. It pulls you in at the very beginning as we hear an ominous sound of music at the beginning during the opening credits. We hear it growing louder and louder until it crescendos into the first shot of a dessert windstorm, and we see the first lights of the film coming from a jeep pulling up towards the frame. We are introduced to a group of scientists or government officials headed by a Frenchman named Lacombe. They are investigating the mysterious re- appearance of a group of fighter planes thought lost from the 1940s.

Elsewhere we see Barry (Cary Guffey) a little boy who awakes to find his toys going berserk in his room. Barry isn't frightened by these happenings, he's more inquisitive. He runs off into the night as if following something, while his frantic mother (Melinda Dillion) goes after him.

Then there's Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) a family who goes out the same night to investigate unexplained power outages. It's with Roy we get the first glimpse of a UFO as it hovers over him with a big bright light which cause him to get a sunburn. Later Barry and his mother see UFOs too, which Roy tries to follow as best as he can until they escape into the night sky.

After this encounter we see Roy becoming obsessed with what he saw, his wife Ronnie (Teri Garr) thinks he has gone nuts. He begins seeing strange mountainous shapes all over. He meets up with Barry and his mother later on, and we learn that they are seeing the same shapes. This all leads to a quest for Roy, he doesn't know what it all means, but he knows it's important, and he has to figure it out at all costs. This causes him to alienate his family, virtually abandoning them in order to discover this truth.

So what is "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" really about? In a way it's a little science fiction story about this first communication with benevolent aliens from another planet. On another level it's about one man's obsession which causes him to completely leave his family. It's also about this search for some greater truth, almost a religious experience one might feel towards something, it remains unexplained but we know it's important.

But "Close Encounters" is also a film about music and light, and using those elements in telling a compelling story. There isn't much plot in the film, it's all leading to a very simple conclusion, but it's shrouded in mystery, and the way we are drawn into the story is what's so unique about it. The spaceships in the film aren't really shown in their full glory till the climax, what we get leading up to their appearance are moments containing brilliant light. Sometimes the light can fill up the screen, sometimes there are shreds of it coming through cracks in the door or through a kitchen window.

The music plays an important part as well, it breaks the language barrier between the aliens and the humans. Nothing is ever spoken between the two different beings, but an understanding is met. The ending of the film comes with the beautiful melding of music and light as the alien mother ship comes down, and the language becomes symphonic, we don't know what is being said, but we don't have to, it's all there on screen.

This film was directed by Steven Spielberg, it was his follow-up to his hugely successful "Jaws", but with "Close Encounters" he takes his story telling skills leaps and bounds forward. Spielberg is often mistaken as only a talented craftsmen, but you can sense a young boy genius becoming an auteur with this film. It's with "Close Encounters of the Third" where we first become aware of what is Spielberg cinema. It's a film he made when he was still young and ambitious, he had his own theories about film, and was able to make them both personal and popular.

"Close Encounters of the Third Kind" came out in the summer of 1977, it was a blockbuster, but it could still be thought of as an artistic achievement. By comparison with today's nonsensical blockbusters, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is quiet, ominous, it doesn't show its cards till the end, but it keeps you intrigued, emotionally invested, and touched. Most blockbusters have given up on giving us an experience as joyful, and innovative as "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", they rely on loud explosions and special effects rather than sublime story telling. These films move like muddled sounds all mixed together that hurt the senses, where as "Close Encounters" moves like an orchestra of music and vision which fit perfectly for the movie screen.

Mouchette

2011-10-05T21:33:00.000-07:00

"Mouchette" is one of the saddest movies I've ever experienced. It's a bleak film about a young girl's futile life where in it she is left caring for her dying mother, and her newborn brother. Her father is a drunk and a criminal who bullies and beats her. She must go to school in tattered clothes, and over sized clogs for shoes. Later, she is raped, and townsfolk accuse her of being a slut, she cuts her life short by throwing herself in the river.

What does Mouchette's life add up to? This can be what is so horrible about our existence, that something like this can happen. In the beginning of the film we see pigeons get snared in traps, and we see them struggle, one bird looks to have died from a broken neck after struggling to escape the snare. Later before Mouchette's suicide, we see rabbits surrounded by hunters as they shoot at them. There is nowhere for them to run, the rabbits are shot. For me, these are horrible scenarios, seeing innocent creatures pitted against the cruel world. But despite the despair, Mouchette depicts, does it have a sense of grace?

This is the question I keep trying to answer in this film as well as life itself. "Mouchette" was directed by Robert Bresson, who's filmography I've seen little of, yet of the films I've seen, I would say he's a master. Bresson was known to cast inexperienced or unprofessional actors in his films. He remains minimal with the performances by rehearsing scenes over and over until they depict zero emotion. Their faces remain in a neutral stance, and it works. For the young actress depicting Mouchette, her face shows nothing but sadness, anger, and contempt. There is one scene where she is allowed to smile as she is given money to go on a bumper car ride and she is able to flirt with a young man. Her happy dream is taken from her by her father who strikes her before she gets a chance to talk to the boy.

Bresson is the kind of director who's not afraid to show suffering, although he's often thought of as spiritual. Bresson challenges us with "Mouchette", he doesn't find any easy answers, even I'm left to question what the point of it all is. Mouchette's suicide has been thought of as an act of grace, we don't actually see her fall into the river, but we hear the sound of a splash as she roles towards it. The final image is the ripples of water floating back and forth, and the white dress Mouchette was wearing which was supposed to be used as a shroud for her dead mother. It might seem to most that Mouchette had left this cruel plain for a more enlightened afterlife...perhaps.

To be honest I didn't quite read into any spiritual conclusion when I revisited this film, what I saw was an innocent thrown to the wolves, perhaps hoping that the next life couldn't be as bad as this one. But I'm drawn to this question, and Bresson is perhaps struggling with the answer himself. He has come to the conclusion that life can be cruel, and for someone like Mouchette who looks and acts like someone who has never known any kind of happiness, it's unfair. Why should a child like Mouchette live? What hope is there for her? There must be another plain for this child to be happy, if there isn't than what's the point? Bresson to me must've been a humanist, he had empathy for his characters, he paints a bleak world, but he's able to transcend its hopelessness. To me he gives Mouchette hope only in death, it's her release from the snare, it's the only thing we could hope for her.

"Mouchette" is sad, but I don't find it depressing, to me it's like a prayer, in fact the first scene we see Mouchette's mother in church addressing the camera. She says what sounds like a prayer, wondering what will become of her children without her. The rest of the film, we get to see what happens to Mouchette, it isn't pretty, but we are able to see those moments of grace and maybe hope. There is a beautiful image of Mouchette crying holding her baby brother in her arms feeding him. We see the tears from her face drop on her hands as she is holding the child, for me, it did seem like a religious experience, as if something divine was happening within the frame.

"Mouchette" is a film that saddens me, even enrages me, but it's a challenging film, it's philosophical, it begs the question, is this all there is? Can we hope for more?, Is there something beyond all this suffering we put upon ourselves? Robert Bresson doesn't spell it out for us, I'm not sure he had an answer himself. In the end "Mouchette" becomes a fine balance between despair and faith, a place I'm sure most of us have found ourselves in more times than not, it's a film where we hope there is more than the life given to us, and for people like Mouchette, I sincerely hope there is.

Rear Window

2011-10-01T13:19:00.001-07:00

The first thing you see in Alfred Hithcock's "Rear Window" are curtains rising in Jimmy Stewart's apartment as the credits role up. This is a nice little wink as to what the movie is about. "Rear Window" is a movie about the movies, the window curtains are like the ones you see on a movie screen. Jimmy Stewart is an audience member, he's stuck in a wheel chair due to a broken leg, and he spends his time looking outside his window at the lives of other people. He can't help himself, he becomes somewhat involved with these little stories happening outside. It's the same feeling we get when we go to the movies.

"Rear Window" was the first Hitchcock movie I ever saw, I was in my teens and back then Jimmy Stewart was my hero; he was the actor I loved to see because there was something about his gangly, likable persona I could always identify with. I saw "Rear Window" for the first time on a hot summer day not unlike it was in the film. It was the perfect summer movie for such an occasion, it was fun, frivolous, and involving. I didn't really think of "Rear Window" as much more than great entertainment after that first time, but as years past, I found myself revisiting it over and over.

On one level "Rear Window" does work as frivolous entertainment, Stewart plays L.B. Jefferies, a photographer who after risking his life for a photo is confined to a wheelchair. He spends his days looking out at the neighbours. His two constant visitors are his nurse Stella (Thelma Ritter) and his gorgeous socialite girlfriend Lisa (Grace Kelly). There is much drama unfolding in Jefferies backyard including a newlywed couple, a lonely woman looking for love, a sexy sociable ballet dancer, and music composer. Inside the apartment is a funny little romantic comedy as Jefferies must decide wheather or not to marry Lisa who is madly in love with him, but he wants to keep his independence.

Everything comes to a tipping point when Jefferies suspects his neighbour Thorwald has killed his wife. Together Jefferies, Lisa, and Stella become amateur sleuths as they try to figure out what happened to Thorwald's wife. All in all, these nice little elements makes "Rear Window" one of the most entertaining Hollywood movies ever made. It may be a murder mystery but it remains a light one, in fact after revisiting the film again, I was amazed at how Hitchcock takes such such dark subject matter and turn it into such a lively entertaining picture.

But "Rear Window" is more than this, it also could be thought of as the way we view movies, and a way we could view Hitchcock films in general. Jimmy Stewart for us is the audience within a movie, he sees something outside his window, whether it's a murder or two people kissing and he reacts to it, as we do when we are watching a film. In short, it's the basic primal instinct we all get when we are watching something from a distance. We are all observers in one sense or another, sometimes we feel guilty about it, sometimes we think nothing of it, but it seems to be in our DNA to know what's going on around us. Isn't this why we go to the movies in the first place? Movies are meant for us to empathize with a person or a situation, they can even make us feel like we are living different lives.

"Rear Window" does have an out of body experience for me, where I sometimes get the feeling I'm inside Jimmy Stewart's apartment, experiencing what he's experiencing, and in a way that's the ultimate escape, that's what movies can do even more than plays or books, there's something about seeing moving objects reflected in front of us that makes it all the more real.

When I watch "Rear Window" I actually don't want it to end, I know there's some point where they are getting close to the figuring out the murder, but I know once they do, the film will be over, and I will be sad. This is why people still watch Hitchcock movies, and why even people who don't usually watch classic films still watch Hitchcock movies because he knew exactly what people wanted. Basically in movies we want to be involved in some way or another, you can take away all the computer generated special effects from today and if you are not involved then there's nothing there, there's nothing to remember.

Maybe that's why movies sometimes feel like a memory or a dream, we look at them as if they are from another life we lived before. We were lifted out of our stupor or mundane ordinary life and experienced something unexpected or exciting. I know when I go to the movies, I sometimes feel more alive in a movie theatre than I do in real life, if that makes any sense.

"Rear Window" is among Hitchcock's top three or five greatest films, he was a master at what he did because he understood what cinema could do, how it could be felt, and how it could be experienced. His films are the kind of films that remind me why I fell in love with the movies, and why they continue to haunt me. In some ways they are as an entertainment, but they touch something far more primal and personal in me that has become such a big part of my life.

His Girl Friday

2011-09-30T14:15:00.000-07:00

"His Girl Friday" is a dance done in words, right when Rosalind Russel walks into the office of Cary Grant, she's inviting him to a tango, and he's more than willing to oblige. These two people were once married, but there's still a spark to them because they know they can bring out the worst in one another but also the best. In short, these two people were made for each other, in fact they deserve each other, and if they did not end up together in the end, then it would indeed be a tragedy.

The legend of "His Girl Friday" started with the story of when director Howard Hawks invited a bunch of friends over to his house. He or someone at the party took out Ben Hect's play "The Front Page" where the play is inspired from, only with two men in the roles of reporter and editor. Hawks then suggested to have a woman play the reporter role, which suddenly changed the whole dynamic and in fact making it funnier and sexier. For the film, Hawks would get Rosalind Russel to play Hildy the ace reporter, and his favorite actor Cary Grant as her editor Walter Burns, and with that this screwball masterpiece was born.

The set up is simple, Hildy goes into Walter's office telling him she's quitting the newspaper business for good and getting married to a nice momma's boy Bruce Baldwin (Ralph Bellamy) and live the rest of her life in Albaney with him and his mother. We know this isn't the life for Hildy and Walter knows it too, his job is to get her convinced her life is as a "Newspaper man". It just so happens Walter needs Hildy's skills to cover a hanging of a man named Earl Williams who's accused of murdering a cop. Earl may be innocent, but there are many political powers wanting to hang him for their benefit.

Hildy agrees after Walter agrees to give the newlyweds a large insurance policy which is Bruce's vocation. But we, including Hildy know it won't be that simple, Walter will stop at nothing short of murder to scoop the story and keep Hildy on his payroll.

Watching "His Girl Friday" now, is like watching a favorite routine. In these kinds of films, there are certain riffs, certain rythims the actors work with that stay with you. Even after all these years, there are certain lines, or zingers that still get me off guard and surprise me.

The film is never stale, it's fast and furious, life would have to speed up in order to pass these guys by. Everyone in the film live in the moment, to them it's a game, a routine, it's fun, it's exciting. Hawks himself loved focusing on people and their profession, you could see a guenuine affection towards how people could love their work. Hildy in particular is the quintissential Hawks woman, someone who could role with the guys, and just be as tough, even more tough. The most feminine person in the film is poor hapless Bruce and his mother. Of course Hildy shouldn't be with him, Walter is the only one who could upstage her, he's got her number, and she knows it. She loves the dance, she doesn't want the music to stop and niether do we.

Walter is her svengali, make no mistake, he's a manipulator, he's a conman, a crook, and a swindler, and if he wasn't portrayed by Cary Grant, we may not like him. It's to the benefit of Hawks, Grant, and the script, that we want Walter to succeed, he's a comic dynamo, I miss him in that part in the middle where he's not on screen, and when he is finally with Hildy in the last 20 or so minutes, it's like banter that comes down from heaven.

I suppose this film is what you would call a favorite, it's basically as perfect as perfect could be. It's designed to lift you up out of mundane life and watch two people who know eachother inside out have some fun. They are liars, swindlers, and cheaters, but it's okay, this is what love should be, if only it were this perfect everywhere.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

2011-09-30T00:51:00.000-07:00

"Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" is a charming film, about a man who during the Great Depression comes into a large sum of money, and decides to give it away to people who really need it. In the climax of the movie, this man is prosecuted for his actions and his sanity is tested. Yes, I started this paragraph by saying this is a charming film. It keeps its charm because it was directed by Frank Capra who could balance popular entertainment and social commentary more seamlessly than everybody. But when one thinks of the mindset of this film it gives somewhat of an unsettling vibe.

It's important to note, "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" was made right smack dab in the middle of The Great Depression in 1936. It was an enormous hit garnering Capra his second of three Oscars for Best Director. This was the moment Capra could do no wrong, he had a knack for mixing screwball comedy and backwoods American sentimentality, although I would say his ideas in the end come off as pretty radical.

"Mr. Deeds Goes to Town", is the story of Longfellow Deeds (Gary Cooper), a naive simpleton from a small town who spends his time playing the tuba and writing poetry. When Longfellow's rich Uncle dies, he comes into a great fortune and is suddenly whisked away to New York City to live the high life. But Longfellow doesn't seem to gel with the big city life. He's pestered by moochers and frauds, people who just want a quick buck from him. When he doesn't want to have anything to do with their reaction is that there must be something wrong with him.

Longfellow's antics are also covered by an ace newspaper reporter named Babe Bennett (Jean Arthur). Babe disguises herself as a damsel in distress whom Longfellow rescues in order to gain his sympathy and get close to him.She begins to write articles which show Longfellow in a very unflattering light. Predictably though Longfellow falls in love with her, and vise versa just to make things more complicated. But the real weight of this story comes when Longfellow decides to give away all his money to needy people, which causes an uproar throughout the moochers and frauds he had to deal with as they try to discredit him.

It's curious to watch "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" and wonder just what the mindset was in mid 30s America. Capra was obviously making some comment about how the world seems to have gone to the dogs at the height of the Great Depression. As we face an economic crisis of our own, seeing people out of work, yet also seeing some people in America fight to stave off upper class tax hikes, it might not be hard to believe someone trying to give money away could be thought of as an act of insanity, certainly Capra didn't think people were too far from it.

Of course "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" remains a romantic comedy, and its scenes are meant to exaggerate, but it wears its heart on its sleeve. Capra had a reputation for making earnest moral fables such as these. Longfellow Deeds is the kind of naive simpleton easy to get behind. He's the kind of guy who gets exploited by people like Sarah Palin all the time because he stands for simple American ideals and what the country should be built upon. Palin believes a fellow like Deeds should run the country, and maybe Capra believed that too. Of course politics and the economy are more complicated than the simple ideals, and the movies make a guy like Longfellow a wish fulfillment. What I'm touched by in the film is the utter sincerity, and the heartfelt honesty throughout it. What Capra has done, like he would do with Jefferson Smith in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", and George Bailey in the more ambiguous "It's a Wonderful Life" is give us someone to root for, someone who knows seeing his fellow man suffer is wrong, and would it be nice to be a millionaire and give that man suffering a helping hand.

"Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" thus transcends any political label you could put upon it, because it's more interested in showing, in very simple terms, the difference between right and wrong. Capra's heroes could not be corrupted, they needed to keep their simple ideals in order to show the audience where the moral compass was pointing. It was only later with "It's a Wonderful Life", where Capra would show the dark side of his heroes and the repercussions of not being able to be corrupted.

Still "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" raises to big issues, but deals with them like a sweet fable; it's a moral film that children could see and know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Gary Cooper was the ideal strong silent type of his time and he's so good and likable, it's hard not the root for him. Jean Arthur is a treasure, a tough talker with a soft center, she would basically play the same role again for Capra in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", but it's never boring to watch her. A great group of character actors fill the rich scenes of gentle humour and sentiment.

"Mr. Deeds" was remade into a soulless film by Adam Sandler in 1999, it's so easy to see the difference between that film and the original which seemed to have been made with a beating heart.

Battleship Potemkin

2011-09-27T17:49:00.000-07:00

Open up any film text book and near the beginning, there will no doubt be a reference, or a chapter concerning "Battleship Potemkin". This film was one of the game changers; like "Birth of a Nation" before it, and "Citizen Kane" after it, it influenced the ways movies were made. Even if you have never seen a piece of "Potemkin's" celluloid, you must be familiar with the famous "Odessa Staircase" sequence, often called the most famous scene in movies. This is the sequence where thousands of Russian peasants are run off the mighty steps at Odessa by Cossacks with guns. It's famous for its brutal images, but perhaps even more famous for its use of editing and montage, which found its way into the basic film language. But there's something I always found off putting about "Potemkin", I can understand its influence and importance, but I'm not sure if I've been profoundly moved by it.

"Battleship Potemkin" tells the story of the famed Russian battleship mutiny of 1905. It was there that the sailors of the ship took command from the officers after they were tired of being malnourished and mistreated.In the film, the mutiny causes an uproar with the peasants of Odessa who also rebel and stir a revolution within Russia. This revolution causes the attack on the Odessa staircase, but it ends with the Battleship gaining sympathy with the other ships as they join together in brotherhood.

The interesting thing about "Battleship Potemkin" is how it seems to document these historic events into a fictional, and propaganda context. The film doesn't follow a series of characters, it doesn't seem to be interested in getting invested with who they are, but rather what it is they are fighting for. By doing this, the film is saying, it's not the individual who's important, but rather the people as a whole. There's nothing wrong with saying that, "Potemkin" wouldn't be the first film to do that, but as someone watching the film I felt a disconnect with it.

"Battleship Potemkin" is a film with an agenda, a political agenda, and maybe it's because I'm not a political person, I didn't feel much sympathy with what they are saying. The opposing faction could just as well make a film which is an argument against what "Potemkin" is saying and so on and so on. That's the problem I find with propaganda films. The best propaganda films I would say come from Frank Capra who could be political but he adds human characters who could be likable and sentimental so it's easy to get on their side.

What "Potemkin" does very well is go along like a fine oiled machine, not unlike its own battleship. The director of the film was Sergei Eisenstein, who was the Godfather of Russian cinema. Eisenstein seems more obsessed with wowing us with this new found film technique of his. He brings about a new storytelling element with his use of montage which are quick cuts to get the audience more involved. The ultimate use of this montage is in the Odessa staircase sequence. It's here Eisenstein is able to get us involved with the human suffering by being able to concentrate multiple stories on the staircase at one time. The editing is swift and effective, Eisenstein is a master at building tension within the frame, the technique is almost invisible, it's only later if you break down the sequence of events do you understand why you become so invested with this scene; no doubt Hitchcock was strongly influenced by this technique.

But still I would argue the effect of this film is largely mechanical, mostly because, the Odessa sequence no withstanding, we are meant to stay away at a distance. Eisenstein seems like a cold director who doesn't let us in in any way. That could be the difference between him and Hitchcock. Despite his reputation as a cold director, Hitchcock did like his characters and he seemed to like his audience as well in order to let them in on the fun.

Perhaps part of the reason I feel this way towards "Battleship Potemkin" is because I'm fatigued by it. I've seen it about as many times as I suppose one should. I can't get anything else from it. I've also seen films by Renoir, Ozu, and Truffaut, who put more of a human touch on their films, and I tend to favour them.

I don't deny the power of "Battleship Potemkin" or its importance on film history, anyone who loves film should see it, there is a beauty to its mechanical way of telling a story. The Odessa scene alone should be studied by anyone who wishes put together a sequence. This was a time where film was still very young and taking its shape, and "Battleship Potemkin" took the kind of leaps this artform had to go in order to grow. I like revisiting films like these if only as a back to basics reminder; what other leaps and bounds are left to explore?

Scorsese: An Overview

2011-08-15T11:26:00.001-07:00

I've just finished my library of Martin Scorsese films which started with his first film "Who's That Knocking at my Door", and ends with his latest HBO documentary "Public Speaking". Here's an overview of his career.

The Certified Masterpieces:

"Mean Streets", "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "Goodfellas"

The ones that should be considered classics

"Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore": A modern woman's picture in the spirit of the fifties films with Jane Wyman, telling the story of Alice (Ellen Burstyn)a recently widowed woman with no prospects attempting to start a new life along with her smart mouth son. It's funny, heartwarming, and quite unlike anything Scorsese has done.

"New York, New York": A musical which blends the style of two of Scorsese's idols, Vincent Minnelli's splashy artifice and John Cassavetes' blunt realism. In my opinion it meshes beautifully and is one of Scorsese's most unsung (No pun intended) masterpieces)

"The Last Waltz": Another kind of musical, this one a documentary of The Band's last concert. A film that celebrates the life of a rock star, but the performances in the film are what make it so memorable.

"Casino": Unfairly maligned because of its close relation to "Goodfellas". I think of it as more of a companion piece. The pacing is just as frantic and musical as "Goodfellas", also the use of voice over narration is just as innovative. I also found the ending far more tragic and subdued, but it remains a wondrous film experience.

Other Underrated Gems

"No Direction Home: Bob Dylan" :Scorsese's documentary in two parts about Dylan is probably the best film he's made in the new millennium. It goes from Dylan's humble beginnings to him being the voice of his generation which is something he never really wanted. We come to empathize with Dylan who just wanted to make the music he wanted to make.

"Who's That Knocking at my door": Scorsese's first film is not perfect, but what first films are? It does show an original voice and a lot of great visuals, you can see himself struggling with the same themes which would become more prominent in "Mean Streets".

"Shutter Island": In my opinion the best film Scorsese has made with Leonardo DiCaprio, a psychological thriller which is really about one man's guilt and how he comes to terms with it. It may not all hold together, but to me it's one of Scorsese's most moving finales.

"After Hours": A film I was introduced to just recently, a wonderful comedy in the same vein as The Coen Brothers' "A Serious Man". Griffin Dunne plays a man who is stuck in down town New York where he can't seem get out. Throughout the film, terrible things keep happening to him.

"Gangs of New York": Not the masterpiece Scorsese had probably wanted, but a visceral look at a history not often talked about, the roots of violence, and gang warfare, in a sense, the roots of America.

"The Aviator": Along with "Gangs of New York", it's often thought of Scorsese's prestige picture, where it looked like he was trying to win an Oscar. Look at this film again, again not perfect, but Scorsese has a way to get inside the mind of his characters unlike anyone else. Howard Hughes is no exception. It's a dark bio, plus an extravagant look at old Hollywood.

"Public Speaking": A warm look at Fran Libowitz, it's pretty much her show, Scorsese basically points the camera at her and lets her go. She's one of the great modern intellectuals and displays that mantra throughout the film, she's also full of acid wit which is nice.

Overrated

"The Departed": Although not a failure, it seems to be more of a practice in style. Unlike "Goodfellas" and "Casino" which feel alive and vibrant, this film doesn't kick into high gear, but it's well crafted with great performances. Scorsese could no longer be ignored by the Academy, and like so many of the greats they decide to honor him with one of his good but not great films.

Misfires

"Boxcar Bertha": His first Hollywood movie has some nice images particularly and a violent tragic ending, but the script lets it down. Produced by Roger Corman, it seems like a warm up for Scorsese, "Mean Streets" came right after this one which left it in the dust.

"The Color of Money": Scorsese's weakest film, a sequel to "The Hustler" which didn't need a sequel. There's no climax, but what we are left with is Paul Newman who saves this movie by knowing this character inside and out.

What I still Need to see

"The Last Temptation of Christ": Unfortunately I was unable to find a copy of this film in time. Netflix was showing it, but the aspect ratio was wrong so I gave up.

"Cape Fear": I've seen most of the film on television but not in sequence.

What I need to watch again

"King of Comedy": Saw it many years ago, I remember being very young and not getting how dark it was, or what it was trying to say.

"Kundun": Saw it when it was first released, it was rated PG so it was the only Scorsese film I could see.

"The Age of Innocence": Again saw it when I was young thanks to the PG rating, but have yet to revisit it.

Goodfellas

2011-08-07T22:44:00.001-07:00

The first time I had heard of "Goodfellas" it was at a Christian Camp when I was about thirteen or fourteen. At the camp we were given a list of movies that were deemed sinful against our church, "Goodfellas" was at the top of the list. Of course "Goodfellas" is sinful, it's about gangsters, what kind of gangster movie would it be if it wasn't sinful?

However because it was on that list of sinful films, it took me awhile to finally see "Goodfellas". By that time, film had become a new kind of religion, and I didn't feel like I was going to go to hell just for watching a movie.

"Goodfellas" doesn't feel like a typical gangster film, it's fast, it's kinetic, it's full of rhythm, it's almost like a musical without the show tunes. This is pop art, a visceral experience. It can be shocking, brutal, and violent, but it can also be funny, light, and joyful. This is Martin Scorsese at his most entertaining, his most surprising, and his most fun.

It's funny, but I don't really consider "Goodfellas" to be as serious as other Scorsese masterpieces like "Taxi Driver" or "Raging Bull", despite the fact that this is a film which examines the life of a gangster. Unlike other modern gangster films like Coppola's "The Godfather" or De Palma's remake of "Scarface" which took a more operatic approach to the genre, "Goodfellas" takes us back to the streets. We meet Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), a man who comes into the mob at an early age. He's seduced by the lifestyle, the clothes, the money, the power, everything that the movies have exploited for decades.

Henry begins his mob life as a young man, and we watch him grow up becoming more and more important. His usual crew consists of Tommy (Joe Pesci), a hot headed psychopath, and Jimmy (Robert De Niro), the leader of the bunch who usually plans out big scores for the fellas to do.

We see Henry's rise in the gangster life, to his inevitable fall where he ends up in the witness protection program. Movies like this usually end with the main character being killed off, but Henry was actually a real person who did end up in the witness protection program. His story was published as a book called "Wiseguy" by Nicholas Pileggi who co-wrote the film's screenplay with Scorsese.

What makes "Goodfellas" standout from the crowd of gangster films it followed is not letting itself fall under the trappings of cliche. The gangsters here are shown as real people, they talk like they probably do talk. As with "The Godfather", the gangsters portrayed here are Italian Americans, and we get a certain authenticity with their way of life and culture. There is probably more talk about what the men are eating than about killing. We see scenes where Henry and the guys are sitting around the table, playing cards or at a restaurant. Scorsese always knows when to pull the rug out from under us, by offsetting these normal scenes, with violence.

To this day, it's hard to find a film more shocking in its violence than in "Goodfellas", it comes so sudden, mostly from Pesci's character Tommy, who is like a lit fuse ready to go off. But the violence is never dwelled upon, it's treated as a daily routine within the lives of these guys. It does serve as a wake up call to the audience, that power comes with a price, and it's something that proves to be Henry's downfall. By the end, he's trapped in a corner, he's no longer safe, and the only way out is to betray these men, and end up the rest of his life hidden.

I don't think "Goodfellas" has anything new to say about gangsters, it's serving the same story that crime doesn't pay, but it's in the execution of this story that makes it so brilliant. Scorsese is a master of the film language, he seems to be having a ball exploiting every technique known to man. He never slows the film down, if you watch it, you can see it has its own pace, it flows together effortlessly, it's all thanks to the timing, and editing by Scorsese's longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker, who has done every one of his movies since "Raging Bull".

There were also leaps and bounds of innovative camera work introduced in the film, most notably the famous Copacabana scene, where we see Henry enter the club with his wife Karen (Lorraine Bracco), with a steady cam following them in. It's done all in one drawn out shot, as they come in through the kitchen, and enter to take a front row seat near the stage.

Scorsese has also been known for substituting original film scores in favour of existing music, and here he does it masterfully. How could you forget the the sweeping montage of murdered bodies over the song of "Layla", it's one of the great movie moments in history. Scorsese has the talent of finding the right song for every scene, either used to set the right mood, or to juxtapose what is actually going on, it all works beautifully.

"Goodfellas" is a great film because it's fully of energy and vitality. It's a way for us to live vicariously through these dangerous men for awhile, we admire them because they live a life that looks cool and dangerous, but we know with this kind of life, there are extreme consequences, which is safe for us, but not for Henry Hill.

I don't think "Goodfellas" is as deep as other Scorsese films, but I don't think he has ever been this fun with the film language before, watching it is always a treat, it's one of the great American genre films of the last twenty years, it's a master at the height of his powers showing the kids how it's done.

A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese

2011-08-05T10:50:00.001-07:00

I've been going through some of the films of Martin Scorsese as of late, which is a little project I've been wanting to do all summer since I read a book about Scorsese not long ago. Some of the films I've seen over and over again, some I've only seen once, others I haven't seen at all.

I think I'm beginning to have a further appreciation with Scorsese's films, not just with his heralded classics like "Taxi Driver", or "Raging Bull" but also his less popular films like "New York, New York", or "After Hours". Scorsese's films have become more important to me as I grow older, before I couldn't quite understand his world. Scorsese was raised in Little Italy, he was attracted to characters with loose morals, that was a world I was unfamiliar with. Yet as I watch them now, I can understand these films a bit more, I find myself getting into the heads of the protagonist, and it's as if Scorsese is daring us to follow him into these dark realms.

But the one thing that does set Scorsese apart from his contemporaries is his need to tell a personal story every time. Even when he makes a presumably money making film such as last years "Shutter Island", it becomes a personal statement. The character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in that film is a deeply disturbed individual who is ridden with guilt. The film isn't so much about the mystery he has to solve, but about how he can reconcile the demons inside of him. The decision the character makes at the end of the film is the reason I think Scorsese made the film in the first place.

Also let's not forget, Scorsese is also a teacher, he has instructed film classes at NYU almost as long as he has been making movies. He's made some very in depth documentaries about film, and film history. One such documentary is entitled "A Persnal Journey Through American Film", which was a three part series he made in 1995. The series can currently be shown in its entirety on You Tube. I just finished watching the whole thing. In it Scorsese makes his passion for film into a personal look into the making of movies. He discusses different kinds of directors dating from D.W. Griffith all the way to his mentor John Cassavetes.

I have often been asked why I love to go and watch old movies, there are many reasons. People argue that old movies are there purely for nostalgic reasons, and they can't compete with the movies made today. In "A Personal Journey", Scorsese shows the importance of classic films, the dark themes hidden inside of them, the poetry of there shots, and what each director was trying to get to.

You get the feeling after watching the documentary that old Hollywood films had a lot more depth and personal stamp than the films we see today. For me it's pretty much sums up why I think these films are so important and why they have lasted.

For those of you interested I've embedded the first part of the documentary below, you can catch the the other two parts on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWEXIWlX4NY

Raging Bull

2011-08-03T17:00:00.001-07:00

I've never met the people in "Raging Bull", meaning I've never been a part of the world it depicts. "Raging Bull" is a vicious world, but a beautiful one, it's beautiful because it believes that a violent man like Jake LaMotta deserves redemption. At first he seems beyond redemption. He's a self-destructive man, he alienates his wife and his brother through his suspicions and paranoia. But at the end of the movie, Jake LaMotta is tamed going from a middle weight champion to a bloated nightclub owner, he has made his mistakes, he has paid his penance, we have seen his battles both lost and won, and what we are left with is a man who doesn't ask for our judgement, but our acceptance.

Watching "Raging Bull" again just recently reminds me just why it remains my favorite film by Martin Scorsese. Scorsese has a gift of giving us people it's difficult to sympathize with, let alone forgive. With "Taxi Driver" he gives us a psychopath, but he ultimately becomes a tragic figure through his own loneliness, with "Raging Bull", we are given a man who can only act out through violence, and that becomes a liability on how he treats the people around him.

We first see Jake LaMotta" (Robert De Niro) like he is at the end of the film, an overweight, over the hill nightclub owner who is reciting his routine to himself. Why are we given this image of him first? It does work as a bookend, but perhaps we are also being set up for this life we are about to see, perhaps it's a reminder to us to what this man was to become.

We see Jake early on, he's testy, he's temperamental, he's loud. In the ring, Jake fights hard and rough, the way Scorsese films the fight scenes, there doesn't seem to be much technique, only two men who punch and punch back, although I'm not an authority on boxing in any way. At home, Jake torments his manager/brother Joey (Joe Pesci) to no end. In one scene Jake has Joey hit him in the face harder and harder until his bruises are cut open. Jake seems to live off his violent nature he can't get enough of it.

He meets his wife Vicki (Cathy Moriarty) who he has a hold on, she suffers through verbal abuses by Jake and later is subject to slaps and punches. Jake becomes possessive of Vicki, Scorsese shows Jake's point of view when Vicki is touched by other men, it's maddening, Scorsese for my money is probably the best filmmaker to get inside the head of a diseased mind. It is indeed diseased because there is never any proof Vicki was ever unfaithful. But all the suspicions come to a boil when Jake accuses Joey of sleeping with her. In a long heated scene full of scary domestic violence, Jake confronts Joey about the false accusation beating him to an inch of his life.

There are other things in the film that damn Jake, one such instance comes when he is asked to take a dive in a fight by local gangster. In return they have offered Jake a chance at a title shot. Jake decides to take the fall, but his reputation and his own integrity is in ruin. After the fight, we see Jake being comforted and breaking down in his dressing room.

Having not been raised catholic, I'm not quite sure about the religious implications of "Raging Bull". Martin Scorsese can be thought of as a catholic director as the themes of guilt, and forgiveness come up very often in his films. I do think in Scorsese's mind, the ring becomes somewhat of a metaphor for Jake, it's where he can wash away his sins, he's fighting for something very primal, is it forgiveness? I'm not sure, perhaps his life in the ring is seen as a sort of purgatory. There is one fight where Jake fights his rival Sugar Ray Leonard and the ring is seen through fiery smoke which was rigged in front of the camera to give the effect. Jake is also seen in a heated steam room which in my mind looks to be as close to a room in hell could be. In this scene he asks for some water but is denied it as his trainer closes the door on him.

In his final fight with Sugar Ray, Scorsese shows Jake up against the ropes holding on trying not to fall (Sugar Ray never knocked him down). He's submitted blow after blow, gushing blood that splatters on the spectators. It's a sequence that I think is meant to remind us of Christ on the cross and his sufferings. Jake is a bloody mess at the end, perhaps the suffering has stopped.

I suppose the whole film could be seen as a purgatory, even near the end Jake isn't let off easy, he's arrested for a vice crime involving an under age girl and is sent to jail. We see him breakdown again screaming and punching the walls of his cell, yelling he's not an animal. It's a primal performance all the way through with De Niro, it's sometimes maddening, but in the end it's a bruised battered performance.

I'm not quite convinced "Raging Bull" is a perfect film, but it is a very passionate one. Scorsese has rarely made perfect films, but they are filled with raw emotion, I think this is his rawest and most beautiful film and after years of first being introduced to it, it's still in my opinion his best and most complex. It could also be seen as the culmination of the collaboration between him and De Niro, a relationship where the star and director have been so in sync with theme and character.

"Raging Bull" fascinates me to no end, it's a film that asks us to take a leap of faith with a character we may not identify with, but like with all of God's creatures at least deserves our understanding.

Taxi Driver

2011-07-28T22:03:00.001-07:00

"Taxi Driver" hits a nerve with me everytime I see it. It has become so well known, so embedded with the American psyche, you can quote the famous "Are you talkin to me" speech again and again, but whenever I see it, all of the film's infamy goes away and I'm dragged down to the world of Travis Bickle.

"Taxi Driver" is about Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro), a lonely cab driver living in New York City. Travis is lonely in two senses, one he lives alone, and two he's alone in the mind, meaning, he's not connected with the people and places around him. The world is a stranger to him, and he can't associate with it. To paraphrase, Travis is a psychopath, and we are entering into his mind the time right before he blows a fuse.

We see Travis at the beginning talking about the streets of New York City and how he hopes some day a real rain will come down and wipe all the garbage off the streets for good. He speaks about the pimps, the hookers, and the gangs he sees every night as he roams the streets in his cab. His hope comes in the form of two women whom he meets. The first is Betsey (Cybill Shephard), who he has a crush on, he sees Betsey as a pure woman who hasn't been touched by the garbage. The second is Iris (Jodie Foster) a twelve year old prostitute he meets and decides to try and save from her sordid lifestyle.

Our first instinct of Travis not being right in the head comes at the very beginning, he goes to pornography theatres, and even takes Betsey there on a date. She is disgusted right away and is turned off. Travis doesn't understand why, he had it in his head that this is what normal people do on a date. He tells her he could take her somewhere else, but he doesn't exactly know where.

When Betsey leaves, and we can see Travis becoming more and more dangerous. He tries to confide in a fellow cab driver The Wiz (Peter Boyle), who doesn't really know what to say to him, but reassures him all cab drivers go through this and tells him to either get laid or get drunk, which will set him right.

When we see Travis with Iris, it becomes a fantasy with him or sorts to help this girl out and save her from her pimp (Harvey Keitel). Iris herself is somewhat taken aback by this gesture, she never even once seems to ask for Travis' help or want it. We get the sense that he's doing this more for him than for her.

So why do we still revisit "Taxi Driver", why does it fascinate us to no end? Is it because we can see a little of ourselves in Travis Bickle? I can understand the majority of people who have seen "Taxi Driver" don't go on homicidal tirades like he does at the beginning of the film, yet screenwriter Paul Schraeder, along with De Niro, and director Martin Scorsese have gotten to something here, which is difficult to shake. I think "Taxi Driver" is a film more about the thoughts we get that come from loneliness, it's about this depression we can experience. It's the feeling felt deeply within Schraeder as he wrote the script, and the same thing Scorsese felt when he was obsessed with directing it.

"Taxi Driver" may be the closest film to come to that feeling of sheer isolation and loneliness one can feel, and with that comes this desperation to do something, which is why the finale of this film could be seen as cathartic, it's Travis acting out these dark impulses on an unforgiving world, it's a release for him, and in a way for the audience. In our own dark perverse way, we can at least empathize with Travis' struggle.

I actually find "Taxi Driver" a tragedy the more I see it. We are seeing the disintegration of a human being, I was moved by this struggle, of him trying to sustain this monster inside of him. Travis is a tragic figure, because he never figures out how to exist in this world, he is beyond help when the film opens up.

At the same time, there is something repulsive about this film, I can't quite shake. The whole world it depicts sends shivers down my spine, but at the same time, I can't deny the effectiveness of this world, it's the depths of hell on Earth as seen by Shraeder and Scorsese.

It's fair to say Robert De Niro was never more commanding as an actor as he was back when this film was made. I'm amazed at the courage both he and Scorsese went through in all of their projects they made together and apart. De Niro is the third piece to this puzzle to help us understand Travis the most. Each movement is perfect, each expression is spot on. De Niro makes the sickness in Travis so real and surprisingly so moving.

"Taxi Driver" is an anomaly in American film, it was even an anomaly in the 1970s which had its share of dark, edgy films which tested boundaries. But nothing could come close to "Taxi Driver", it was a benchmark of what 70s cinema was all about. It was dark, personal, shocking, violent, and it was a success. There was no other era which this movie could've been made, and be a success.

What's left to say about "Taxi Driver"? It still exists, it still shocks and horrifies me. It speaks of that dark place of desperation, loneliness, and despair. Those aren't always the nicest things to see depicted in a movie, but they are difficult to deny. "Taxi Driver" brought something up to the surface and people were ready to see it, even if it still makes us uneasy.

Best Films of the Year So far...

2011-07-22T21:07:00.001-07:00

It's about mid-season in my movie watching and although I haven't seen all the movies I've wanted to ("Tree of Life", "Certified Copy" are top on that list), but I've been getting out to the movie theatre as much as I can watching whatever new film is out there, so I'm happy to say there are a few worth watching. So without further adieu, here are my top five.

1. Midnight in Paris: I thank Woody Allen for the most delightful, charming movie to come out all year. I caught this on a warm summer evening after a night out with friends with dinner and wine. It's probably was the nicest night I had all summer and the best movie experience I've had all year. "Midnight in Paris" isn't as deep as Allen's other great movie about a great city "Manhattan", but it has just the right amount of magic to remind us why we go to the movies in the first place.

2. Bridesmaids: A very funny movie, if a little overlong, Kristen Wig is the heir to Lucille Ball, she gives the funniest performance of the year so far. It's raunchy but heartwarming, like the best films from producer Judd Apatow.

3. Rango: Hands down the best animated film so far, and it wasn't in 3-D. It's about a reptile who becomes a hero in a western town full of different animals. The film is a psychedelic visual delight and very, very funny.

4. Horrible Bosses: Okay, so this is probably not the smartest film of the year, in fact I would almost put it under as a guilty pleasure, but for "Horrible Bosses" is a film I like to think of as a really intelligent "Idiot" comedy. As idiot comedy is the kind of comedy where everyone in the film is below average intelligence, but the movie never forgets that. This is for people who still chuckle at The Three Stooges movies. The three leads work well together, and I still laugh when I think of some of the scenes. That's all I'm going to say about that.

5. Green Lantern: A film which was butchered by most critics, but I'm willing to defend. Yes it's a flawed movie, but it was the one super hero movie I saw this year with the most ambition. I don't know what happened, either they ran out of money, or the script was redone too much, but I feel like there was a bigger story that was meant to be told, and I was intrigued at the possibility of that. Unlike "Thor" or "X-Men" which existed mostly to fulfill fanboy's needs, "Green Lantern" stood apart from them and tried to be majestic and epic, if missing the mark.

One film on this list which I am reserving my opinion for is Jean-Luc Godard's "Film Socialisme", a film I have reservations about but I'm also convinced it is the most daring film made this year. I urge you to see it so you can make up your own mind about it, only keep an open mind about it.

As for the worst film so far, there is only one, Michael Bay's "Transformer's Dark of the Moon" which is a film I decided to go see because I believe Bay is a filmmaker with his own unique style and maybe he deserves a shot. I found a few sequences fascinating, but all in all, it was a film of excess, it wallowed in its own stupidity, and it ended on a joyless note. I was agonized throughout most of this movie's existence.

Day for Night

2011-07-18T23:16:00.001-07:00

I'm not sure "Day for Night" is a film about how films are made, I think it's more a film about how films should be made. They should be made by a crew of people who love doing their job, they should be made by actors who are excited to be working and have fun being on set, they should be made by a dead-panned director, an unassuming perfectionist, who treats his crew as a family.

I would love to be on the set for "Meet Pamela" the film within the film of "Day for Night", it all seems to lovely and fun, when you watch it, you know you are watching people who love movies. This is indeed a movie lover's kind of film, it was directed by Francois Truffaut, a man who I'm convinced loved movies more than any other director.

"Day for Night" is the story of a film being made, it's about what goes on behind the scenes with the actors, the crew, it's about their little dramas, and the drama itself of making a film on schedule and on budget. It's about getting the shot where the cat has to drink out of the bowl of milk, but you can't get him to do it. It's about the aging actress who is sad and resorts to drinking before her scene, and she can't quite remember her lines or which door to open. It's about another actress who is pregnant but isn't showing yet, however when she comes back to finish her scenes in six weeks, she will begin to show. It's about an actor who dies tragically, and right before the very last scene. It's a love story about the people who make movies, they are a funny sort of a surrogate family, and when it is finished, they all hope to make another one soon.

The reason I think I connect so much with "Day for Night" is I've lived these types of experiences, although mine mostly lays in theatre. I've been in productions or have helmed productions where everyone seems like a surrogate family, everyone is there for the work, they are there because they love the artform. When the show ends, there is always a small bit of sadness because we have lived with this production for awhile, but we know something else will be on the horizon.

Before I saw "Day for Night", I had one experience behind the camera trying to direct my first short film. I found that process to be not very fun, with people who didn't seem to want to work on it, I became frustrated, and defeated when it was all over. I regretted the way the film ended up, I didn't even want to look at it again.

Time went by, I had the urge to make another film, I had seen "Day for Night", seeing how everyone treated eachother which was the opposite of what I had experienced. When I had the chance to make another short film, it became much more low key, I was given more freedom to play around, to improvise, to experiment. It became a pleasant experience, and afterwards, I wanted to make another movie right away.

I think leading up to that time, I had learned to accept the art of movie making, I was ready to take on the headaches, but I felt I had something to prove, and a story to tell. If anything "Day for Night" is a reminder to me why I love movies, why I get so excited about it.

Francois Truffaut, was a director who has inspired many young filmmakers. His philosophy of film was that it could work as a journal, a way to bring out something very personal from your own life. Each one of Truffaut's films have a personal touch, and he was in my mind when I made my short film, I wanted to say something personal in the way I would hope he would. I've just realized, this isn't so much a review about the film "Day for Night" as it is a confession.

I'll forgo the many subplots of "Day for Night" which include a multitude of characters who operate in and around the film. Some of them are real actors who were cast as actors, and some of them are real technicians who were cast as technicians. Truffaut cast himself as the director, he plays him as someone who I suspect is close to himself in real life. He's a perfectionist, but he is never a dictator, he gains the trust of his collaborators through his integrity and love of the work. He's gentle with his actors, but in a way manipulative because you know he is always thinking about the film.

I don't know what else to say about "Day for Night" other than it's about the movies, and movies as Hitchcock said is "life with the dull bits cut out". "Day for Night" is a film for those people who don't think just going to the movies is enough, one has to be part of it as well, they want to get that sensation of seeing film go through a camera capturing drama unfolding, then to see the dailies, and finally to see the finish product knowing full well that they played even a little part in its creation. "Day for Night" is for people who believe movies are magic, and there's a reason they are.

The Earrings of Madame de...

2011-07-14T23:11:00.000-07:00

"The Earrings of Madame de..." is a love story made for the movies. It's made for the movies because it shows visually the way love can make us feel, it can show a new love blooming between two people during a waltz which to them last for weeks. It can show the transformation of a ripped up love letter which seamlessly turns into falling snow from a train. It can show the transformation of a woman who once only thought of materialistic things into someone who would trade it all for the passion in her life.

"The Earrings of Madame de...." is a magical, romantic film, not just in the love story but in its ideas, it flows fluidly like the camera movements we are not meant to notice but makes it all move like a dream.

The story centers on a woman only known to us as Madame de... (Danielle Darrieux) She is a rich aristocratic woman who is married into a loveless marriage to a French military man (Charles Boyer). At the beginning of the film we see her searching for some earrings, for which she wants to sell back to the jeweler in order to pay off some debts. The earrings were a gift from her husband so they mean nothing to her.

Later that night, she pretends she has lost the earrings, but later her husband finds out from the jeweler she sold them. He buys back the earrings only to give them to an old lover of his who's leaving town. She has to give up the earrings for money and they then land into the hands of an Italian Baron named Donati (Vittorio De Sica). Donati sees Madame De... one day and falls for her hard. The two start an affair together and he later gives her the very same earrings she thought were gone from her life forever. The earrings are the same, but now they are given to her by a man who she loves, but soon because of her little white lie to her husband at the beginning of the film, her fate is sealed.

"The Earrings of Madame de..." was directed by Max Ophuls, filmmaker I don't know much about, I've only seen a handful of his films, but each one has impressed me with its elegance and style. Ophuls was a German director, but he made films all over Europe as well as in Hollywood. "Madame de..." is a french film which was co-financed by the french and the italians. Ophuls was known as someone who mastered the moving camera, sometimes he uses it to show a person's point of view such as the beginning where we follow Madame de in her bedroom searching for her earrings. The most impressive moment for the moving camera probably comes in the ballroom scene where we see the evolution of the love blooming between Madame de and Donati. The ballroom is where they rendezvous, and the seen cuts to days and days after as their love grows. It's sort of like the antithesis of the breakfast scene in "Citizen Kane", where we saw two people in love at the beginning than are shown that deteriorating as it progresses. The use of the waltz is quite effective, not once does it look like they are doing their own dancing, I suspect they were on a lift which moved around as the camera followed, it gives the effect of two people floating through the room, past other onlookers, we are as swept up as they are.

The music is another character in the film. The main love theme which was by Oscar Strauss and Georges Van Parys is one of the most beautiful constant love themes ever played, we sense the romance and passion in the music, much like the film it's part of this dream.

The real core of "The Earrings of Madame de..." might be frivolous to some. We are dealing with upper class people, from an earlier period, films like these aren't often made today. If they are they usually appear stuffy and self-important. This film frees itself for convention period drama, in part it's about a woman who lived a life of materialism and she could've gone on quite happily that way, but she chose to fall in love with a man who was not her husband and their were consequences for that. However because of her new found love, she is able to find a deeper meaning, and a new found passion for love she didn't have. She could've been quite an unsympathetic woman had she not found this love. Yet we do feel for her husband, a man who sits coldly by at the beginning who has to endure her beautiful wife being flaunted over by admirers, only now to be pushed aside for a man she is really in love with. The husband isn't without his passion which brings this film to a tragic conclusion, yet it remains beautiful because love seems to bring all these people into an understanding, they become human beings for us, and how could we blame these people for being in love.

I'm curious to know if love does in fact exist in the way we're able to portray it in the movies. Can it be that passionate, where you're willing to give up all you treasure for the one you love. Can you become sick with love? Can it make you go crazy? Yes this is all melodrama, perhaps a film like this couldn't be made today, it may be too melodramatic for people to take seriously, still it's beautiful, it's elegant, it's like a sweet dream, it's one of the great romantic pictures. When I first saw this film I thought it was cold and frivolous, time as gone by, I now see how lovely it is, it speaks to the romantic in me and to the one who believes love exists and it can be a very beautiful thing, at least in the movies.

The Third Man

2011-07-14T14:41:00.001-07:00

The first copy of "The Third Man" I owned was an old video found in the garage of my Grandfather. He was getting rid of a bunch of stuff and he knew I liked old movies, so he thought I might like it. As a kid it was liking finding treasure, "The Third Man" was a legend to me, I had heard of it, I've known of its stature in the annals of film noir, but I had never seen it. I made a friend of mine at the time extremely jealous by having my very own copy.

I mention this little anecdote, because it taught me the joy of finding old and discarded things that that can be priceless to someone who know its value. "The Third Man" is indeed one of those films which hold value to me, it is one of those films that remain entertaining no matter how many times you see it (Some day I must make a list of those kind of films). It deals with dark subject matter, but it's easy to forget that and get lost in its atmosphere, it's wit, it's music, and the indomitable force that is Orson Welles.

For those not schooled in "The Third Man", here's a brief synopsis, I don't want to restrict myself to spoilers so be forewarned as you read this. The story starts off with the arrival of Holly Martins (Joseph Cotton), a pulp fiction writer to Vienna. Holly is meant to meet his good friend Harry Lime, who has offered him a job and a place to say, but he finds out Harry has been in an accident and was killed.

At Harry's funeral, Holly sees a host of mysterious characters, and he is picked up by a Military Policeman Major Calloway (Trevor Howard). Calloway explains Harry was involved in the black market and was one of the most wanted men in Vienna. Holly doesn't believe Calloway and decides to conduct his own investigation. He finds many things regarding Harry's accident don't add up and comes to the conclusion that he was murdered.

The only person who witnesses the accident is a porter who worked in Harry's building. In the police report it was told that two people were around Harry when he died, but the porter remembers seeing the third man who pertains to the title. Holly tries to track down this third man with the help of Anna (Valli) who was Harry's girlfriend and who Holly now finds himself falling in love with. But the porter is soon killed, and Holly now finds himself fearful of his life.

What I've explained is basically the first hour of the film, I haven't even gotten to the famous entrance of Orson Welles, who, yes, plays Harry Lime, the dashing criminal and without a doubt one of the most charming and ruthless ones in film history. Welles' contribution to the film is felt throughout, no doubt director Carol Reed had seen "Citizen Kane" which is clearly an influence from the lighting to the tilted camera techniques right down to having Joseph Cotton and Welles as long time best friends.

"The Third Man" is all about this mystery that is unravelling, it's based on a book by Graham Greene, who also wrote the screenplay (There are rumours Welles himself wrote some of his own dialogue along with his famous Cuckoo clock speech), but like all great films, there's so much more to it.

"The Third Man" has its own feel which separates itself from other film noirs of its era. Let's begin with the music by Anton Karas, who uses a classical guitar to depict the different moods of the film. Karas uses it very sparingly sometimes to evoke playfulness, sometimes dread, and sometimes sadness. The soundtrack to the film itself became a popular seller in its day.

Reed also gives great effect to the black and white cinematography, particularly the scenes where we see Harry running in alleyways, only seeing his exaggerated shadows on the wall. You see those shots and they remind you why black and white film is such a useful tool.

The performances themselves are unforgettable; Joseph Cotton makes for a sympathetic hero, at times sad, and self loathing, but often witty and self deprecating. As Anna, Valli is a vision of loveliness, she finds herself utterly devoted to Harry no matter what he has done, we can see why both he and Holly fall in love with her.

But the film really belongs to Orson Welles, although the amount of time he spends in the film could be described as a glorified cameo, but Welles' scenes are what make this film iconic. We can see part of Harry Lime in Welles, much like we could see Charles Foster Kane in him as well. He's part charmer, part scoundrel, in a way you route for him, he's the kind of villain you wish could get off scott free despite his atrocities just because you may want to see another film with him again.

"The Third Man" is the kind of film that doesn't need to tell you it's a classic, I saw it as a young boy and I knew back then it was a very special movie. I don't get tired of it, it can still put me under its spell with mystery, and intrigue, like all great detective stories, and transport me to that world only the greatest films could concoct. To say you are a fan of film and not see "The Third Man" doesn't make sense to me.

M

2011-07-12T17:32:00.001-07:00

1931, was a break out year for movie monsters, Bela Lugosi played Dracula, and Boris Karloff played Frankenstein for the first time. But in the Germany saw the premier of a much more real, primitive monster in the child murderer portrayed by Peter Lorre in "M".

"M" isn't a horror film really, but it could be mistaken as a horror film due to Lorre's unforgettable performance. Pretty soon he would play for Hitchcock in "The Man Who Knew Too Much", and then he would be off to Hollywood as one of the great character actors of all time. Lorre is the star of "M" although he isn't given much screen time, but even when he's not on the film, his presence is known.

The film is about a child murderer who is stalking the streets of a German town, killing young girls. The town is in a panic, citizens are stricken with fear and paranoia, everyone has become a suspect. Police are seen cracking down harder than usual due to the public demand. Criminals are being harassed more than usual as their speak easys and brothels are raided more often.

With "M" the criminals and the police are given a common enemy, even regular criminals have had enough of this child murderer. The band of criminals decide to concoct a plan to catch the murderer themselves, so we are given two stories of their trail of the murderer and the police's more procedural investigation.

"M" was directed by Fritz Lang, who, legend has it was offered to head the German film industry under the Nazi party, but decided to flee instead, to Hollywood where he would spearhead some of the greatest film noirs in history. Lang seemed to understand the sort of paranoia happening in Germany at the time, and used it to great effect in "M" and two years later with his last German film "The Testament of Dr. Mabuse".

What makes "M" such a curious film is how the criminals come out as the heroes of the film and the commentary Lang makes on society's law. Lang sometimes comes off as an anti-Hitchcock in his films, both directors use police prominently in their films, but where Hitchcock was able to keep his films playful and light at times, Lang strived for a more cynical approach. He was a pessimist and it shows in the climactic scene where Lorre is brought towards a court of thieves and murderers all of whom want to do away with him. Yet his lawyer pleads with them that the man is sick and must be taken to an institution. His fate however was sealed once he was brought among the court, but he's saved at the last minute by the police who find him.

I don't think Lang seems to be on the side of the law in this case, although he does seem to be able to argue both points, and the key might be in Lorre's performance where he's able to make this monster seem sympathetic, yet the question remains does he deserve saving.

I don't think this is meant to diminish the role of the police who are seen as competent in their job particularly detective Lohmann played by Otto Wernicke, who may have been the inspiration for detectives like Columbo to Dirty Harry.

The argument is made that if a child murderer like Lorre's is given up to the police, there's a chance where he might be deemed cured by society and able to walk out a free man. It's a slippery slope towards vigilantism which Lang knows the dangers of as well.

With "M" I don't think there are any easy answers, Lang ends the film on the mothers of the girls who were killed who give out a warning to watch your children carefully. It is really the victims of these crimes who deserve justice, it's something that's still debated in our criminal courts, but what we do get with "M" is one of the earliest film noirs, it's dark, it's moody, you revel at the closed in streets Lang makes for the hunted man, until he is trapped in the corner. It is mostly a crime movie with the social commentary in the end. It has a lasting effect and should be viewed by every film fan, and a terrific start to one of the great character actors of film.

Movie Review: Film Socialisme

2011-06-29T21:54:00.001-07:00

I don't think there is any other film where my opinion has flip flopped more while I was watching it than "Film Socialisme". In many ways, this has been the film I have been waiting for, in other ways, it's a film I've dreaded. I can't quite make my mind up about it, but for the sake of argument, I am going to say you should see "Film Socialisme", people who love film as I do should see it, people who love new and different film should see it, people who love the weird, short circuit mind of Jean-Luc Godard should see it.

What is "Film Socialisme"? I can't really say, it seems to have three parts to it. The first part takes place on a cruise liner where we are introduced to many different characters, of the ones I remember the most, a man in a fedora, a young boy and girl who seem to be brother and sister, and famed new wave music icon Patti Smith who seems to be playing herself.

The second part of the film consists mostly at a gas station, or near a small town surrounding the gas station, this has a woman who sometimes seems to be a reporter, maybe a filmmaker, her camera woman, a young boy first seen in a Soviet Union t-shirt, a woman who may be an actress playing herself, and her daughter who hangs around the gas station.

The last part in a series of images put together by Godard which involve newsreel footage, old films, and still photographs, and in the end, you may have an idea what it all means, but maybe you don't.

All in all, "Film Socialisme" doesn't work as a movie, yet there's a part of me that think it is brilliant, stay with me. Jean-Luc Godard is a giant of the French New Wave, he made movies in the sixties that were far beyond what other people were making at the time, today we are still trying to catch up with what he introduced into the film language. The way he used jump cuts in "Breathless", or how he cut out the soundtrack in "Contempt", or how he blended the film essay format with narrative/mockumentary in "2 or 3 things I know about her". In total he made 15 films between the years 1960-68, that is the Godard the majority of the people know and love.

With "Film Socialisme" I feel the film got away from Godard, it doesn't make a clear link, but I also think this was a brave film for him to do, because here he is tinkering with the film language yet again.

More than with any other filmmaker, Godard makes me ask the question what is film, what can film accomplish as an artform. We must remember, film is barely over a hundred years old, I feel like there are still new boundaries to be broken, new room for experimentation, and new ways to explore what film can do, so in that way I think "Film Socialisme" is a success.

Godard seems to be trying to create an entire movie based on film, and he uses his tools in new and unique ways. Take some scenes on the Ocean Liner, where Godard uses live sound. We hear the wind blowing in the microphone, usually the director would choose ADR. Why does Godard choose to do this? I'm not sure but it does give off a certain effect.

Godard also chose the film sometimes with HD cameras, and sometimes with video. Occasionally he plays with the image by overexposing it, underexposing it, or distorting it all together, sometimes to the point where we don't hear what the people are saying.

This also brings me to the issue with the subtitles. This is mostly an all French film, I could hear some German being spoken and a little Russian, very little English, and other languages I know little of. Subtitles are provided, but only three words appear at a time. I know enough French to understand that some of the subtitles correspond with some of the words being said, but it's certain they are saying more. Again I'm not sure what Godard was meaning, I took it as sort of his version of "Babel" where people aren't meant to understand eachother. Done this way, I found the film to be somewhat liberating, instead of the subtitles being just words the people are saying, Godard is incorporating it as part of the film, making what we are seeing one hundred percent authentic cinema.

Now as to the finale which in my mind was the most effective part of the film where Godard is bombarding us with image after image. We are shown images from Eisenstein's "Potemkin", which are cut with modern day children on the steps of Odessa in Russia. We see images of war, the holocaust, words appear on the screen which seem to reflect the conflict with Israel and Palestine. All this comes to a heated climax, where again we are meant to interpret in for ourselves.

In the end I felt adrift with "Film Socialisme", but I also felt liberated by it, I wasn't given the conventions of a usual film, I was faced with new possibilities of the potential it could be. "Film Socialisme" isn't a masterpiece, but I think, and I really mean this, it could lay the groundwork for a new and unique movie that has yet to be made.

Godard created a film that looks to the future, Hollywood seems to think the future is with 3-D, which to me seems like a step back. Movies seem to be jumping back from what we have learned, it's the price paid for being the most popular artform. It needs to grow, to flourish, to experiment to discover its true potential. "Film Socialisme" had the courage to try something never done before, it failed at being great, but perhaps it can lay the groundwork for new and exciting cinema.

Un Chien Andalou

2011-06-28T21:44:00.000-07:00

It begins with a man cutting a woman's eye open with a razor blade, and ends with the same woman and another man dead buried half way in the sand. In between there are severed hands on the street being poked at with a stick, two priests being dragged across the floor tied to two pianos with dead donkeys on them, and a hand with a hole in it which contains ants.

These are some of the more famous images in "Un Chien Andalou", which is arguably the most famous short film ever made, also the most famous surrealist film ever made.

The film was made in 1929 in Paris, it was directed by Luis Bunuel, one of the great masters of cinema. He collaborated on the film with his friend at the time Salvador Dali, the famous painter who is seen on many t-shirts and posters. Dali and Bunuel created something special with "Un Chien Andalou", it was a culmination of cinematic surrealism at the time. This was the type of film which could provoke and challenge its audience not so much with narrative form, but with images, both shocking, funny, and tragic all at the same time.

What's great about "Un Chien Andalou" is how compact it is, which is why I think it stays refreshing. I enjoy films which test boundaries as to what cinema is, "Un Chien Andalou" did that in spades. Up to that point, movies were still considered brand new, sound did come in two years prior with "The Jazz Singer", but even that stayed to a conventional storyline which was pioneered by filmmakers like D.W. Griffith. Film had a narrative language, but the surrealists wanted to go further, to them film might've been a way to express the inexpressive.

"Un Chien Andalou" works in a dream logic, dreams are places where things don't make sense, yet to the person dreaming it, there might be some sort of Freudian explanation to all of it. I'm not sure if at any point Bunuel is making any sort of a statement with these images, I feel it was his idea to create a film to test his audience.

What I can say for certain is "Un Chien Andalou" is a film to be experienced, there are images in it that remain shocking, unsettling, and yes very funny. I do enjoy the film and am moved by it, it's in the way Bunuel mixes his images together, how each is cut, they always seem to blend into one another. There is also in his choice of music which heightens the way we may feel about a certain image. I always found it rather touching when a man on a bicycle is struck down in the streets of Paris, people gather around. The music is a classical piece which escapes me, but it raises my emotions. Does Bunuel mean us to feel a certain way with these images? Again I don't know.

I've seen little of Bunuel's work, what I have seen though are markings of a unique voice. His "Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" was a film I saw in high school before I knew what the word surrealism was, yet it was the first film along with Fellini's "8 and a half" which made me think I was seeing a dream. "Un Chien Andalou" has the same effect on me even more so, it is as if we are watching an actual dream, it has that nonsensical yet familiar feel to it.

Surrealist cinema is a dying art form, you can see it practiced by people such as David Lynch or Guy Maddin today, I enjoy these films because they are meant to provoke, sometimes they fail to move me, but they always leave me curious. When I look at "Un Chien Andalou" I think of how much innovation there was back when film was beginning, and how much we still have yet to learn about this very young and exciting artform.

The Art of W.C. Fields

2011-06-26T16:04:00.000-07:00

I read a rather disheartening article the other day. It was a review of W.C. Fields' "Never Give a Sucker an Even Break". In it, the critic dismisses the film, and he claims Fields is no longer funny for modern audiences. Recently I just purchased a box set of Fields' work and curiously enough I had just viewed "Never Give a Sucker and Even Break" for the first time before stumbling upon this critique. Needless to say I was shocked as to what he was saying.

Now this is me, I know I may have a bias towards old movies, I always seem to have to defend myself towards my taste of movies to modern audiences. I enjoy these movies not because it's nostalgic to do so. It's so well and good to say they don't make them like they used to, of course they don't, no one does. A more concise claim would be they don't make them as well anymore, comedy included.

W.C. Fields was no exception, I would rank him in the list greats like The Marx Brothers, Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, Woody Allen, and Monty Python. Fields isn't as fondly remembered today as some of the people I mentioned above, and that's too bad.

Fields usually had two separate characters he would play, usually it would that of a con man, a blowhard who would do whatever he could to get rich quick. He would quip amazing bits of quotations most of which he would write himself. The way he spoke in these characters probably would be his most famous trademark.

But Fields would also have another character, that of the long suffering, frustrated man who could never catch a break. These are the men of such films as "It's a Gift", or "The Man on the Flying Trapeze". Those films especially concern the art of frustration. Everyone in the world is against him, his wife, his in-laws, his children, his neighbors. Everything seems to try and keep him down, but he has enormous tenacity to keep going.

Both of these characters, the blowhard con man or the long suffering man are perfect comic personas for Fields' unique voice. Fields is the unlikely hero who usually wins in the end. In "It's a Gift", Fields almost loses his entire family over the buying of a worthless property, but he lets his character win out by having that property surprisingly worth millions anyway.

It's not always so clean cut however. In one of his most overlooked films "The Old Fashioned Way", Fields plays the manager of a failing theatre company who gives up his daughter, the only person who truly stood by him in order for her to marry a man of higher stature. It doesn't end on a bad note, we see Fields at his old tricks trying to petal throat tonic, you can't keep a good man down.

I suppose it's in the comedic philosophy where one can relate to Fields, it's cathartic to see him in films like "The Man on the Flying Trapeze" where he gets four parking tickets in a row, or in "It's a Gift" where he can never seem to get a good night's sleep. They are all very subtle slices of life that could drive the common man up the wall, but we basically see Fields strive through it, he tries to complain but no one listens, mostly because there's always someone who complains by to him louder.

To see Fields succeed is one of the joys of his films, because so much is set up against him. I can most commonly see a link to the films of Buster Keaton, who also plays a character commonly at odds with the unfair universe.

There is of course those special little moments I see most often in old films where the stars can't bare to show their stuff. A particular special moment for me happens in "The Old Fashioned Way", where Fields takes time from the plot of the film to show off his juggling skills. This was the first time watching this film and it was delightful just to see his juggle, there isn't any special camera techniques, it holds in one take on Fields as he mesmerizes us with his talents. I don't laugh so much in these scenes as a smile, it's the same feeling I get when I watch Harpo play the harp or Chico play the piano, or Chaplin doing the famous dancing of the roles. These men came from Vaudeville, entertaining people was in their blood, they loved to show it off, and it was a treat just to watch.

So short answer, yes W.C. Fields is funny, for the record the film of mention in the gentleman's unflattering piece, "Never Give a Sucker an Even Break" is a gem of a movie, it may not have a comprehensive plot, but Fields never worried about that. He understood movies was able to do just about anything he wanted, including jumping out of an airplane to chase after some whiskey only to wind up on a mountain paradise with a lovely young woman who has never seen a man before.

I don't know much about the personal life of Fields only that he spent most of his life battling alcoholism, alcohol always played a large part in his films and his characters. What I know of Fields is what I have seen on screen, he was a special comedic voice, he seemed to go at his own pace, sometimes it was slow and steady, and sometimes it was rapid fire, either way you saw him, he made a special place in movie history, today they just aren't as good.

Summer Hours

2011-06-23T21:44:00.000-07:00

In many ways "Summer Hours" is a humble film. It's about 100 minutes long, the cast is small, and there isn't a hint of sentimentality or melodrama in it. Yet it's the kind of film I wish I was exposed to more often. "Summer Hours" is a french film and it shows why the French have such a rich history of cinema, it follows the tradition of humanity seen in the best films of Renoir and Truffaut. It deals with universal themes such as life and death, and the passing of time. It's a film which doesn't show its cards in the very first viewing, you become involved in it because it's so inviting. I'm sometimes asked why I like foreign films so much, I look at "Summer Hours" as an example, it's such an escape from the norm of Hollywood, it's a patient and calm film, I'm not bombarded by it, I'm immersed in it, I am able to take it all in.

"Summer Hours" begins at the birthday party of a matriarch Helene (Edith Scob). Helene lives in her old summer house which she shared with her famous painter Uncle who died long ago. She has preserved his art along with rare collectible items in the house, yet she is very practical, she's seventy-five, she knows she isn't going to live forever. Her children are all grown living lives of their own and she is prepared that when she is gone her summer house along all the famous art will have to be sold.

Helene does in fact die early in the film, and the rest of the story has the children going through the process of selling the estate. The eldest son Frederic (Charles Berling) is the most reluctant, he wants to keep the house for their children, and he's certain the rest of his siblings feel the same way, but it comes to a complete shock to him that they don't. Jeremie the youngest works in Asia, and has just been promoted, he decides to move to China permanently as he sees it best for his family. The sister is Adrienne (Juliette Binoche), she lives in New York where her career is, she's also getting married and doesn't have a practical reason to keep the estate.

It is decided to sell the estate, and since Frederic is the only one of the children still living in France, he is in charge of making most of the decisions. Throughout the film we go from the closing up of the house, to the appraisal of the artifacts, to seeing them in a museum, and we close with Frederic's children having one last party at the house.

In many ways "Summer Hours" is about moving on, and accepting that the memories we have also die with us. It may seem sentimental and foolish to think those memories live on. The last time we see Helene, she has a wonderful speech about how she knows when she dies, secrets will go with her that nobody will know of. There is speculation in the film of Helene's relationship with her painter Uncle, something Frederic wasn't prepared to accept, yet nothing is really ever made clear.

But this is also about the dissolution of a family unit, and when that happens it always makes me think of the films by Ozu.In Ozu's films, there is always an event' be it either a death or a marriage which signifies something is ending in a family unit, "Summer Hours" makes the same comment with the mother's death. Helene was the only link of the family to keep them all together. The only time we see everyone together is in the beginning on her birthday. It becomes apparent that after the house is sold, the siblings will see less and less of eachother. It's important to point out that director Olivier Assayas doesn't sentimentalize this at all, he leaves it sort of as an unspoken void. There are no heartfelt goodbyes, probably because they believe they will see eachother in some capacity, but also because they are all busy people raising their own families and running their own lives. There always seems to be this disconnect between them that isn't mentioned.

What "Summer Hours" does so beautifully is keeping an objective point of view. There are no bad people in this film, we don't resent Jeremie and Adrienne for their decision of selling the estate, yet we sympathize with Frederic's predicament. Assayas shows the selling of the estate as a tough decision, and what a perfect world it would be if they didn't have all the demands of real life. Assayas doesn't dwell on these things, life goes on, but what he is conveying is that it is a tragedy when we are forced to give up the past, breaking that link for the next generation. It's no coincidence Assayas begins the film with Frederic's children playing in the fields of the estate, and ending it with the daughter who knows she is losing a part of her history. It's bittersweet, but the power of human nature is we can acknowledge it and move on, which makes "Summer Hours" such a moving film.

When I fist saw "Summer Hours" I couldn't quite get it out of my head, it stayed with me. I picked it as my favorite movie of 2009, because it was the film that had a lasting impression on me, there's so much I could appreciate. The camera movement was so fluid, which was also a trademark of Renoir. Watch how it goes in and out of rooms at different points, being able to follow multiple characters. The beauty part is how it isn't distracting and you hardly notice it. The performances are all natural, but I wanted to mention two scenes that stood out for me. One is Helene's final scene which I mentioned somewhat above. Her children have just left, she is alone only with her loyal maid. The scene is dimly lit. She tells of how her children have their own lives and she isn't a part of them anymore, then she speaks of not wanting to leave the past behind. To me it's one of the most understated emotional scenes in modern movies.

The second scene is with Juliette Binoche as Adrienne. Binoche to me is one of the greatest actresses working today. It's the scene where she has just seen her mother's casket. She comes into a waiting room where her boyfriend is waiting there. It is one of those moments where her face says it all what she is feeling, all done with no dialogue, and the camera just stays on her face.

I think what I would want more of in films are faces, Bergman called it the most powerful thing to film. I don't get enough of those moments, where we are only asked to observe, there are no quick cutaways, you don't have to interpret anything, it's all there on the screen, it's film in its simplest form, and nothing to me can be more powerful.

Schindler's List

2011-06-08T13:58:00.001-07:00

We try to rationalize everything, but there are some things we can't. How can you rationalize the Holocaust? The great horror of the 20th century, it happened, we can put it in context, we can study it, we can denounce it, we can put whatever spin we can, yet we can't hide from the truth it happened, and we must own up to the fact that it has left a stain on the rest of humanity.

The best way to show the holocaust is simply just to show it. The images, and the testimony of the survivors are powerful enough. To dramatize it, in a different matter altogether. "Schindler's List" is a film that has dramatized events surrounding the holocaust, but as Stanley Kubrick once said about the film, it isn't a film about the holocaust, it's a film about survival. The holocaust was nothing but death in its cruelest form, "Schindler's List" acknowledges this with images of the liquidation of the Krakow ghetto, burnt corpses, and the Auschwitz death camps, but it's really the story about how one man was able to help over a thousand Jews evade the holocaust and survive.

Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson) is a German industrialist, at the beginning of the film he wears a Nazi pin and does business with other Nazis. With the aid of his Jewish accountant Iztak Stern (Ben Kingsley) he creates an enamelware plant. Stern suggests to Schindler near the beginning of the film to hire Jews as they are cheaper than Poles, which would mean good business and more money for him. Schindler becomes a success, but soon the Jews are transported to a camp run by Amon Goeth (Ralph Feinnes). Goeth has orders to liquidate the Krakow ghetto which contains Jews, we see Schindler viewing this from a hilltop.

Schindler is still a businessman, he becomes friends with Goeth, and he does business with him in order for his Jews to continue working at his plant. But by this point, Schindler must resort to bribing in order to get his workers. His plant has become a haven for the Jews, but soon, orders come in to send them all to Auschwitz.

In the Holocaust, you lived and died by being on a list; we are shown from the very beginning of the film people's names on lists, when there name is called they must line up, one list is good, the other list isn't. "Schindler's List" understands this, and the interesting thing about the story is how much of a commodity people become. During the Holocaust, Jews weren't thought of as people to the German army, they were liquidated at random, that's how scary it became, you were no longer a name, an individual, you were something to be sold, traded, or exterminated. Schindler was able to save the Jews through the method of buying and selling, and he wasn't under suspicion because he was a businessman.

The other interesting thing about this film is how a man like Schindler would go from a rich entrepreneur, who spent all his money to save over a thousand people. Through the film, he changes organically, There's not a point in the film where he stops turning a blind eye all of a sudden, it's all through subtle moments, and gestures he gets to that decision. Much of it is done through Stern, his loyal friend and business partner who plays like his conscience. Stern never tells him what to do, but he does enough to point him in the right direction.

Goeth is the alternate example, he's a villain, he's vein, he's man, and he kills without mercy. Goeth may have also influenced Schindler's decision, because through him, we can see the true horror that was in power back then.

"Schindler's List" was directed by Steven Spielberg, the most powerful man in Hollywood. Spielberg is a filmmaker who I think is more complex and brilliant than most people give him credit for. He may be the most successful man in movies, but he's first and foremost a filmmaker. "Schindler's List" doesn't reveal itself until near the end, with the one flaw of having Schindler give a heartfelt speech which doesn't fit with the rest of the film. Spielberg works the film, giving it a frenzied pace, (it's hard to believe it's three hours long). There is a long montage of Schindler building his plant, at the same time Stern working vigorously collecting workers, at the same time saving them from almost certain death. It's a masterful use of the film language and sequence not often talked about, I was amazed at how full of suspense, drama, and movie making it was.

But Spielberg doesn't shy away from the extreme acts of violence and core emotion. The thing I remember most in "Schindler's List" is the faces. It's as if we are watching real documentary footage at times, but much attention is paid to the children, who Spielberg must sympathize as true victims of the Holocaust.

Besides the ending and a few uses of color here and there, "Schindler's List" is mostly a black and white film, and it's another reminder of why black and white should be used more often. The images become more authentic, it's a dark place in history we are sent to. The cinematographer was Januz Kaminski who Spielberg has worked exclusively since then. Together they were able to recreate the same harsh realism later in "Saving Private Ryan", then again in "Munich".

The performances by the Neeson, Kingsley, and Feinnes, can be thought of as career bests by all three, the music by John Williams is restrained, beautiful, and sad, the recreation of 1940s Europe is vivid.

I have seen "Schindler's List" many times since its release, it's hard to believe it's been almost twenty years since it first came out, it still feels new and fresh, to me it remains one of the most moving films ever made. It declared Spielberg as an artist rather than a craftsman, as if people needed convincing. The ending to "Schindler's List" is uplifting, it ends with a remembrance of the Holocaust and of a man who you could say won a small battle in a horrific time. It doesn't wipe away our memories, but it's a way we can remember and to remind ourselves that there is a place for good in the face of evil, but we must never forget.

Hannah and her Sisters

2011-06-02T14:39:00.000-07:00

"Hannah and her Sisters" is a film I could see loving more and more in my twilight years. Not that I don't love it today, it is still one of my favorite Woody Allen films, but it's also one of those films that becomes more meaningful as I grow older. I remember first seeing "Hannah and her Sisters" when I was very young and I was seeing Woody Allen films for the very first time. Back then I probably didn't fully understand all the themes Allen was playing with, this was an adult film, and I was not fully there yet. Still I enjoyed it, the acting stood out for me, the dialogue, I knew I was seeing something quite brilliant; Allen mostly deals with intellectuals in his films, speaking a language I could only hope someday to understand.

I've revisited the film multiple times since then and it brings about such a warm quality to it, Allen is often harsh and judgemental to his overly neurotic characters, but here he seems to at least forgive them and accept them, it's probably no coincidence the film begins and ends with Thanksgiving dinner.

The story is one of Allen's most ambitious, Hannah (Mia Farrow) is married to Eliot (Michael Caine) who's in love with her sister Lee (Barbara Hershey). Lee is in a suffocating relationship with a genius painter (Max Von Sydow) and decides to start seeing Eliot. Hannah's other sister is Holly (Dianne Weist), a struggling actress who doesn't seem to have any direction in her life. She is always asking Hannah for money, she's a former coke addict, and she's full of anxieties and insecurities.

There is also Hannah's ex-husband Mickey (Allen), a hypochondriac comedy writer who, after a health scare decides to find out if there's actually a God by trying to find religion.

Anyone of these characters Hannah, Lee, Holly, Eliot, Mickey, even the painter are strong enough to have their own film, but Allen balances these stories and their themes beautifully, I was amazed at the end just how well it all comes together.

Each character has their own specific needs, that aren't being met, they are unhappy, they don't know what they want or what they need, they all seem lost. Even Hannah, the one who does seem to have it all together, she is the most responsible one of the family, she takes care of everyone. On the outside Hannah doesn't seem to need help, as she's a natural caregiver to her sisters, her husband, and even her parents who don't have it perfect. Yet near the end of the film we get a very emotional scene involving Hannah and Eliot where she basically does admit she has needs just like everyone else.

Holly looks to be the opposite of Hannah, she resents her and always thinks she's belittling her and her career. There is a lunch scene in a restaurant where all three sisters are together, all emotions, resentments, and betrayals seem to come to the surface in this scene, so many things are said and left unsaid, yet we know what each sister is thinking, it is the emotional height of the film and it's one of Allen's best.

The acting is just stellar in this film, Allen has always had the gift for giving actors roles they could really sink their teeth into. Oscars were awarded to Weist and Caine for their roles, and they are magnificent, but I want to draw attention to Farrow, perhaps one of the most underrated actresses of her time. Farrow worked with Allen almost exclusively during the 80s and early 90s which might by why she wasn't given much notice. But there is a certain sadness she brings to her best roles, Hannah was probably tailor made for her, but look at the hurt she brings to it and the utter surprise in her eyes when Eliot speaks of her never needing him, it's great film acting.

Perhaps the whole moral of the film comes from Mickey who recounts his very comedic attempt at suicide after he comes to the conclusion life is meaningless. After the incident Mickey goes to a movie house to try to put his life in the right frame of mind. On the screen is the Marx Brothers in "Duck Soup" (Obviously) and it's there where Mickey finds some happiness and enjoyment out of life.

"Hannah and her Sisters" is probably Allen's most forgiving film to his characters, they are often dysfunctional, but he never judges them. Unlike some of Allen's films, these people are given a chance to be forgiven and to start with a clean slate. In real life, things might not have worked out so well for Hannah, Eliot, Lee, Holly, and Mickey, but their lives are in a movie, they are meant to show us how we could live ours if we could be just as forgiving to ourselves. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone is unhappy from time to time. I think with "Hannah and her Sisters", Allen is showing us without these unhappy moments and mistakes, life wouldn't be worth living, and as the final bit of dialogue in the film shows, it is also full of surprises.

Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule Seasonal Quiz

2011-06-01T14:39:00.000-07:00

1) Depending on your mood, your favorite or least-loved movie cliché.
In any sports movie where there is an inspirational speach by the coach and/or teammates.

2) Regardless of whether or not you eventually caught up with it, which film classic have you lied about seeing in the past? "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" only because someone leant it to me and I told him I saw it cause he kept asking me about it every day. I finally did watch it though.

3) Roland Young or Edward Everett Horton?
Edward Everett Horton

4) Second favorite Frank Tashlin movie
Have yet to see his films unless you count his cartoons.

5) Clockwork Orange-- yes or no?
Yes although I don't find it to be Kubrick's greatest, but it remains interesting to me.

6) Best/favorite use of gender dysphoria in a horror film (Ariel Schudson)
"Psycho"

7) Melanie Laurent or Blake Lively?
Melanie Laurent

8) Best movie of 2011 (so far…)
Of what I've seen "Rango"

9) Favorite screen performer with a noticeable facial deformity (Peg Aloi)
Montgomery Clift in his later years.

10) Lars von Trier: shithead or misunderstood comic savant? (Dean Treadway)
I have never seen his films.

11) Timothy Carey or Henry Silva?
Timothy Carey

12) Low-profile writer who deserves more attention from critics and /or audiences
Sarah Polley

13) Movie most recently viewed theatrically, and on DVD, Blu-ray or streaming
Theatrically: "Thor"
DVD: "Public Speaking"

14) Favorite film noir villain
Harry Lime in "The Third Man"

15) Best thing about streaming movies?
You don't have to pay for them

16) Fay Spain or France Nuyen? (Peter Nellhaus)
Don't know either of their work, but Fay Spain was in "The Godfather Part 2" which I just recently watched so I choose her.

17) Favorite Kirk Douglas that isn’t called Spartacus (Peter Nellhaus)
"Ace in the Hole"

18) Favorite movie about cars
"Two Lane blacktop"

19) Audrey Totter or Marie Windsor?
I'll go with Marie Windsor for her part in "The Killing"

20) Existing Stephen King movie adaptation that could use an remake/reboot/overhaul
Christine

21) Low-profile director who deserves more attention from critics and/or audiences
Martin McDonagh

22) What actor that you previously enjoyed has become distracting or a self-parody?
Seth Rogen

23) Best place in the world to see a movie
Of the places I've been to Princess theatre in Edmonton. In the world, i'd imagine Paris would be wonderful.

24) Charles McGraw or Sterling Hayden?
Sterling Hayden by a nose, how can you deny "The Asphalt Jungle", "The Killing", "The Long Goodbye" and "The Godfather" among others, plus the fact that he was almost Quint in "Jaws"

25) Second favorite Yasujiro Ozu film
"Late Spring" thank you for the Ozu question, more please.

26) Most memorable horror movie father figure
The Devil in "Rosemary's Baby"

27) Name a non-action-oriented movie that would be fun to see in Sensurround
I don't know what that is.

28) Chris Evans or Ryan Reynolds?
Ryan Reynolds although that question wouldn't keep me up at night.

29) Favorite relatively unknown supporting player, from either or both the classic and the modern era
From the classic era: William Demarest
From the modern era: John Slattery

30) Real-life movie location you most recently visited or saw
Would it be a cheat to name my own movie in that case the "Good Morning" set.

31) Second favorite Budd Boetticher movie
"The Tall-T" although I have to revisit his films since I've only seen a few of them once.

32) Mara Corday or Julie Adams?
These Actresses are becoming more and more obscure

33) Favorite Universal-International western
"The Man from Laramie"

34) What's the biggest "gimmick" that's drawn you out to see a movie? (Sal Gomez)
3-D for "Avatar" I couldn't resist back then, now I can.

35) Favorite actress of the silent era
Lilian Gish

36) Best Eugene Pallette performance (Larry Aydlette)
"The Lady Eve"

37) Best/worst remake of the 21st century so far? (Dan Aloi)
Of the ones I've seen the remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" with Nicole Kidman, I don't even remember what it's called.

38) What could multiplex owners do right now to improve the theatrical viewing experience for moviegoers? What could moviegoers do? owners can hire people who know how to work projectors. Movie goers can take chances at smaller films so there can be bigger venues for them.

Works from Two Cannes Directors: Woody Allen and Terrence Malick

2011-05-28T10:35:00.000-07:00

Once again, I failed to make it to Cannes! It would be a dream to go one year just one year, until then I can only yearn and dream.

One of my favorite movie times of the year comes when Cannes opens and I get to hear about all the great films premiering from there, most of which won't see the light of day in my neck of the woods, unless they are "Kung Fu Panda 2".

Two films that did make their premier at Cannes this year came from two of my favorite directors, Woody Allen and Terrence Malick. Allen's "Midnight in Paris" opened the festival out of competition. As a fanatic of both Allen and Paris, the film seems delightful. Malick, the great reclusive director had great success with "The Tree of Life", only his fifth film in 35 years.

Seeing that I was unable to see their latest films, I decided to visit films from these directors I haven't seen yet.

For Woody Allen I chose "Everyone Says I Love You", a modern musical, that seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle with the rest of his work, not many people talk about it anymore. It's the story of an upper class extended New York family as the film seems to follow them throughout the year. This is also a musical Woody Allen style, which includes many old standards from the jazz era. I found many parts of this film to be utterly charming, it's lightweight, romantic and fun. Allen is known as a cynic sometimes, but I think he's best when he lets his romantic self come to light. Allen has made better movies than this, but very few of them have been this magical.

Next up was Terrence Malick's "The New World". I had yet to see this film centering on the story of Pocahontas as she encounters John Smith (Colin Farrel) and later moves to England and marries a tobacco farmer (Christian Bale). Terrence Malick is one of the most lyrical filmmakers today. I found "Days of Heaven" and "The Thin Red Line" to be existential masterpieces. I found "The New World" a challenge, I grew impatient with it, yet there are passages as beautiful and poetic as he has ever done. "The New World" didn't keep my interest as much as his other films, that isn't to say I'm dismissing it, Malick isn't the kind of director to get the brush off. I found after watching "The Thin Red Line" again, it became more deeper and meaningful to me, who's to say the same can't be said for "The New World". I will definitely revisit it again some day.

Happy 70th Mr. Zim Where ever you are.

2011-05-24T23:31:00.000-07:00

The Godfather Part 2

2011-05-22T21:56:00.001-07:00

They said it couldn't be done. I don't know who "they" is exactly, perhaps there is not "they", whoever they may be, "they" are the ones who said you couldn't improve on perfection. Yet if there was a time, it actually happened, it was in 1974 when "The Godfather Part 2" premiered. Was it better than the first? This has been asked by scholars of film throughout the world, was it indeed better? There must be one, a definitive greatest "Godfather" film. Surely it couldn't be part three, that mess of a movie about redemption and the Vatican with Sophia Coppola showing why she's best behind the camera.

Alas I cannot choose, for I deem them to be both masterpieces of film art, they stand above other mafia movies, for, dare I say, they are each a piece of a large story, perhaps the most ambitious of 70s cinema. It is all a story of America, a story about power, attaining that power, and becoming corrupt by it, so much so that you lose your soul.

One thing "The Godfather Part 2" has as an advantage to part one is Francis Ford Coppola gives space to explore the Corleone family and its power struggle from two different points of view. We see the humble beginnings of the original Godfather Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro) as he escapes from his native village after his family is wiped out from a local Don, and he comes to America. We also see his son Michael (Al Pacino) now head of the family after the events of part one.

Michael is a changed man since the events of "The Godfather", he has been thrust into the family business in order to protect his father. His new ventures with the family include the Casino business where he forms an alliance with a Jewish gangster Hymon Roth (Lee Strasberg). Roth is someone not to be trusted, he tries to assassinate Michael, and turns his own brother Fredo (John Cazale) against him.

Michael's entourage is also different from his father's. His adopted brother Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) is more or less sent in the background. The family home is now in Lake Tahoe Nevada, while people from the olden days seem to stay in New York. One of these is Frank Pantangeli (Michael V. Gazzo), who is having problems with his family and resents Michael's alliance with Hymon Roth. Unlike his father, Michael seems to be more paranoid with whom he can trust, for awhile he seems to be in control, yet it comes a shock when he finds out his it was his own brother Fredo who betrayed him.

This is Michael Corleone becoming unglued, as he tries to keep his power he is alienating his family. Kay his wife (Diane Keaton again the one ounce of goodness in the film) is drifting further and further away. Like in the first film, the last time we see Kay is when a door shuts in her face, only this time by Michael, and even more colder than before, because it is done so matter of fact.

In contrast, Coppola takes us to the youth of Vito as he makes his fortune. Vito was always the more sympathetic Don because you can see what he did, he did for his family. Perhaps he was just smarter than Michael, or perhaps less selfish. We see Vito gain his power by killing a local Don in New York thus gaining respect by the people. However he is never seen as a corrupt individual. Vito is more like a Robin Hood to the people who does favors to the poor and small business owners. He is unlike the Don who he kills or like the one who killed his family.

The scenes of young Vito are gorgeous to look at in their reproduction of old New York, and Coppola's tracking shot of De Niro stalking the Don that he kills is a tour de force of dramatic effect.

There is a difference of power when it comes to the time of Vito and the time of Michael. Coppola shows us perhaps the noble venture of Vito to create a better life for his family, but Michael becomes a shadow of who his father was as he doesn't know when to quit until there is no turning back for him. By the end of the film, we can only imagine where Michael can go from here.

Coppola leaves the film on the right note of dread, there is no operatic music when the family does away with their enemies as it was in the first one, Nino Rota's score is more melancholy and bleak, Gordon Willis' cinematography also seems less stylistic and more hard. Pacino's Michael is more dangerous, more dazed, more unsettled. Michael looks more tired, and there seems to be little feeling in his eyes, when he slams the door on Kay for the last time, it's as if he's sleep walking.

One of the final scenes in the film is a flashback which incorporates Sonny (James Caan) and Tessio (Abe Vigoda) back from the dead. In this scene you can see many things happening, it's when Vito was still in power, it's when the family was all together, you can see all four Corleone brothers talking near the end. You can see Michael, a misfit who decides to enlist in the marines and fight in the war instead of doing what his father wanted. It's heartbreaking to see and I think it gives Michael a little bit of grace before the last shot where we see him alone with only the shadows of his past to haunt him.

So which film is the greatest? I watched "The Godfather" just recently, it was a beautiful film, highly stylized, it's so iconic, a film I fall in love with. However I would argue "The Godfather part 2" is more tragic, more ironic in its idea of the American dream and the corruptibility of power, it puts the period on a fascinating saga. If "The Godfather" was a poem about a certain way of life, then part two was its eulogy.

The Godfather

2011-05-21T09:54:00.001-07:00

What can you say about "The Godfather" that hasn't already been said? It's a film of legend, it changed the cinematic landscape. It's a miracle it was made, it came from a pulp novel, it was directed by Francis Ford Coppola, he won an Oscar for the screenplay of "Patton", yet he was a relative unknown director. Coppola saw Marlon Brando in the role of Don "Vito" Corleone, but he was considered washed up.

Al Pacino was in constant fear of getting fired for his portrayal of Michael, could you imagine anyone else playing that role? Imagine Robert Redford, who was at least the producer's original choice. How could Michael be blond. There was arguments that the film looked too dark to be sold as a blockbuster. Plus this was a film about the mafia, it was violent, it was bleak, and we were meant to sympathize with these people.

A tough sell all the way, most movies have their stories of how they were made, but with "The Godfather" it's just another part of the legend. The film is so good, so beautiful, it should be studied for every student of filmmaking, screenwriting, cinematography, and acting, it takes you to school every time.

The film remained a mystery to me as a child, I was not allowed to watch it, there it was one night on television, I was completely enraptured by it from the beginning. There was that wedding, which takes up the entire first half hour of the film. We are introduced to the world of Don Corleone, inside his office, he is granting favors, be it murder, or threats, doing all very dignified, in contrast outside is a big family celebration with the large extended Italian family.

We meet Michael (Pacino) the war hero of the family, the only one who is legitimate, this film is of his downfall of course. He's young, there is love in his eyes for Kay (Diane Keaton), he loves his family but he swears never to become like them. But later, The Don is shot down, Michael must protect him, and he ends up killing the people responsible.

There are also Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) the adopted son, and lawyer to The Don, he's the voice of reason in the world of crime. There is Sonny (James Caan) the hot headed older son who is meant to take over for the Don. Then there is Fredo (John Cazale) the innocent, he doesn't know any better. It's mostly a family of men, sure there are the women, Coppola has great sympathy for them as they are not allowed into this world, they are left out in the cold, but they are the ones who mourn the most over the deaths of husbands and sons.

"The Godfather" is Shakespearan in its execution, the dialogue seems to come from an older time, yet it's modern. Take the scene where Vito looks over the corpse of Sonny and says "look how they massacred my boy", it's poetry from the streets.

The performances are just as memorable, Brando was perfect in the part of the Don. It was said he read his lines from cue cards off camera, he put cotton in his mouth for the large jowls, every word he says is like a razor sharp whisper. He can be fierce and gentle.

Duvall and Caan are both excellent, each one playing off the other, they compliment the scenes they are in, and don't leave Cazale out, more of him will be written in part two, this was merely his introduction.

Diane Keaton is heartbreakingly sweet as Kay, hers is the final face we see in the film, she's in the background, like all the women, she's the conscience Michael leaves behind, as the door closes on her.

I leave the best for last, this is the saga of Michael Corleone, he can join Charles Foster Kane as one of the most complex characters in American cinema. Al Pacino pours everything he has into this part. The key scene of course is when Michael is in the restaurant and he kills for the first time. So much is going on in that scene, Pacino is understated perfection, just watch him in the bathroom as he pulls out the gun, and that moment he composes himself before he goes out again. For some reason, that moment spoke volumes to me.

"The Godfather" was photographed by Gordon Willis, who was a master of using shadow and light, it is a dark film, but no darker than an average noir. Let's not forget the music by Nino Rota, who worked with Fellini, you can't escape the music here, it's everywhere, it always has the hint of sadness, but it could also evoke beauty and dread.

I feel like I've repeated what many other people have already said about "The Godfather". I still remember when I was younger seeing it for the first time, I knew it was great without being told it was. It showed me its power in the very first frame with Nino Rota's first few bars of music. It's one of cinema's greatest achievements, now go watch it, then watch it again.

The Wild Bunch

2011-05-19T13:30:00.000-07:00

There is a code going on in "The Wild Bunch", it's the code of scoundrels, but non the less it is felt. "The Wild Bunch" is a film about outlaws, murderers,and thieves, yet we come to sympathize with them. We are on their side despite much of the carnage they can leave in their wake.

The film begins with the bunch robbing a bank, they are Pike (William Holden) the leader, Dutch (Ernest Borgnine), Angel (Jaime Sanchez), and Lyle and Tector who are brothers (Warren Oates and Ben Johnson). When the bunch get to the bank, they already have a posse ready for them, they are lead by Thornton (Robert Ryan) who used to ride with Pike, but now he's forced to side with the law in order to stay out of prison.

The robbery becomes a bloodbath, and innocent civilians aren't spared, however Pike and his crew make it out with Thornton's team not far behind. The bank was supposed to be the last score for everyone thought, but they have been tricked finding out the money was replaced with washers. Pike and the others then come across a corrupt Mexican General (Emilio Fernandez) who hires the bunch to steal guns for his army so they can use them to fight the rebels.

I was unsure about "The Wild Bunch" when I first saw it so many years ago. I can't remember when I first saw it, but I can group it together with other important films of that time like "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Easy Rider". These were the films made by a new and young Hollywood, one that separated themselves from old studio systems which worn out their welcome.

"The Wild Bunch" was directed by Sam Peckinpah, a filmmaker I know little about except his reputation of being a hard drinker who was usually at odds with studio executives. I've only seen a handful of Peckinpah's work, from what I have seen his films are full of violence, sex, and a certain nihilistic point of view towards life. But his films are also full of poetry, because despite a bleak outlook, Peckinpah's characters carry with them a code of honor, and that's what I think works with "The Wild Bunch", and that's what makes it one of the great westerns.

Most of the cast of "The Wild Bunch" are men, if there are women anywhere in the film, they are mostly prostitutes who the men have sex with. Pike does have a woman who he was in love with who is shot by her jealous husband in a flashback. Angel also has a woman who he kills because she leaves him for the corrupt General. But if there is a love story, it's between these men, their code, and their honor towards one another. Perhaps the most heartbreaking relationship is between Pike and Thornton, who you could see in flashbacks how one betrayed the other. although they are on opposite sides of the law, their is no animosity to towards the other, but you feel a certain respect between them.

The climax of the film happens after Angel is taken by the General for stealing guns for his village. The Bunch see him dragged across the street by the General's car, so later they get together to get him back. Up to that point the bunch don't have much else except eachother, they have money, but we don't see them doing much with it other than spending it on whores and liquor. They make their last stand for the only thing they believe in, themselves and there is honor in that.

There is a lot going on in the relationships of this film, Peckinpah was one of the great poets of male camaraderie like Hawks and Ford, I miss filmmakers like those. There's usually great sadness in the eyes of these men, they can say very little but the others can understand what they mean. Pike's most common phrase in the film is "let's go", in context, he usually means exactly that, but the final time he says it, before they meet their destiny, there is something behind that. Holden is perfect in the role of Pike, he was an actor who succumbed to alcoholism, he was past his 1950s leading man prime when this came it. There is tiredness in his eyes and melancholy. The same could be said for Robert Ryan who play Thornton, and man who probably was Pike's real soul mate. Holden and Ryan never speak to eachother in the film other than a flashback, but we understand the past between them, it's an unspoken bond.

"The Wild Bunch" came at me unexpectedly with all its carnage and bloodshed, I was young, I probably wasn't ready for it, I wanted to stay in the safe nostalgia of a Ford or Hawks film, I wasn't ready to grow up just yet. Today I changed my tune, "The Wild Bunch" paved the way for the westerns of today more than any other film, I feel a great sadness come over me everytime I see Pike and the others in that final showdown, but I always feel pride towards them. They were men who kept their word, and in their world, it was the only thing worth a damn.

Sunset BLVD.

2011-05-18T22:44:00.001-07:00

It's been a few years since I last basked in the dark, demented world of Billy Wilder's "Sunset BLVD.", one of the all time classic films. It's a world that has fascinated me since I was young; I'm entranced by it, yet horrified by it. It may have been the first really dark film I remember seeing.

"Sunset BLVD." was the film I was watching when I heard about the death of Princess Diana. I'm not sure that is significant, but I always associate that moment with this film. You could say the death of Diana sort of mirrors the ending of "Sunset BLVD." In the film we see the tragic murder of a B movie writer by an aging Hollywood starlet. It ends with a media circus event, news cameras, gossip columnists, and police officers surrounding the tragedy, Diana's real life death came with a very similar vibe. Like the narrator of "Sunset BLVD", Joe Gillis says, (who's corpse it is we see in the beginning of the film) "It's funny how much people care about you when you're dead."

But the tragic, ironic, cynical, and sad world of "Sunset BLVD." doesn't start with this realization, it's only where it's headed; it's all about the dark side of Hollywood. As people who go to the movies, we are usually spared this side of Hollywood, we get the glamour, we get the excitement, we get the stars, the artifice, the special effects. We get the franchises, the summer blockbusters, the Oscar contenders, and the box office results. But there was a time, when we could be shown this other side of Hollywood, that all the fantasy, the glitz, and the fame had its toll. That's because once upon a time, there was a man named Billy Wilder, a man who wasn't afraid to show the nastiness of his business. Looking at "Sunset BLVD.", you can tell Wilder loved Hollywood, but he also had a bone to pick with it.

The story is about Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), an old silent actress who's star has since faded. She lives in her all but abandoned mansion with only her man-servant Max (Erich Von Stroheim) attending to her every need. It is on a fateful day Joe Gillis happens to find himself on Norma's doorstep after running from debt collectors. Joe is an unhappy out of work scriptwriter who is in desperate need for a break. Luckily Norma just happens to have a script she needs work on; it's a script of "Salome", which she wants built as her triumphant return to the movies. Joe is more than willing to help out with the script, and Norma in return is more than willing to keep Joe there as her companion, to which Joe doesn't object to, at least not right away.

Much of the action of "Sunset BLVD." takes place in Norma's mansion with only her, Joe, and Max around to supply the story. Occasionally other characters make it into the scene, such as Norma's "waxworks" as Joe calls them. They are other faded actors from the silent screen who join her for bridge. The outside world isn't seen often by Norma with the exception of the scene where she visits her old stomping ground Paramount Studios to see Cecil B. DeMille regarding her comeback picture. That scene may be the definition of bitter sweet as Norma gets to relive her moments as a star all too briefly.

There is budding romance as well, and perhaps the only ray of hope for Joe in the character of Betty Schafer (Nancy Olsen). Betty is a young wide-eyed dreamer, someone who hasn't seen the harsh realities of Hollywood yet. She wants to write a film with Joe, the two fall in love, but for Joe it comes too late, his fate is sealed at the beginning of the film.

Hollywood must've been a strange mistress to Billy Wilder. Here was a director who made his career in Hollywood, a successful career. You could hardly say a director who could make a film like "Sunset BLVD." wasn't a success. The film had its share of detractors, there was the famous story of Louis B. Mayer walking out of the film in a huff saying he Wilder shouldn't have made it since people like him made his career.

But when awards season came, "Sunset BLVD." didn't do too bad earning a best original Screenplay Oscar, I wonder how Wilder might've thought about that. Of course the Academy wasn't that forgiving, it lost most of the other major awards to "All About Eve" that year. That film was a cynical look at the theatre world, I suppose since it wasn't directly about Hollywood, they could honor it.

But despite all the cynicism, and harsh realities of the film, I can't condemn Wilder for not caring. Wilder was a cynic, and may I point out most good writers are. Wilder loved making movies, so much so in his later on, he spent years and years of getting other projects off the ground, projects that would never see the light of day.

The characters of Joe Gillis, Norma, and Max are burned in our memory as a reminder that not all is well in Hollywood. Each one is a tragic figure, each have been scarred by Hollywood's wrath. Their stories of course are very well documented in other writings about the film. There is of course the story of Betty which is never written about. She tells the story of her failed attempt of being an actress, where producers wanted her to get a nose job, where she did but then they still shut her down because she's not that good of an actress. That small story got me thinking of the extremes people sometimes go in order to be noticed, to wipe away imperfections in the blink of an eye. Yet Betty does it, and so she's not an actress, she stays in the business still dreaming. She's the love of the movies Wilder brings in almost as an antidote to the bitter pills he keeps serving.

To put things back into perspective on a personal level, "Sunset BLVD." may have helped me grow up a little about Hollywood. I remember I wanted to be an actor, not just an actor, but a star, I wanted people to come and see my movies because I was in them. I wanted to go to Hollywood and live the dream, I don't really want to do that anymore. The Hollywood now has changed so much since Wilder's days, back then he could make a movie like "Sunset BLVD.", now it's highly unlikely such a film could be made within the system. I wonder if Wilder knew just how good he had it back then. The cynic never stopped, "Ace in the Hole" was right around the corner and it was probably even more devastating in depicting human cruelty to oneself. Then a decade later came "The Apartment", a romance set in a cruel world of corporate businessmen who sell humanity cheap.

But with all the anger thrown at you, you can see the love, you still weep for Norma Desmond, so deluded, so alone, so sad, Wilder never lets you forget behind the madness there was a real person inside, slightly exaggerated, nevertheless we mourn for her and her world she lives in.

Sullivan's Travels

2011-05-09T23:36:00.000-07:00

Comedy is a tricky thing to take seriously, in fact it's not meant to take seriously, that's why we're supposed to laugh at it. Yet if you ask any comedian I'm sure they would say it is a very serious thing. Comedians are often criticized when they try drama, people want their clowns to be happy not sad. So here's a tricky scenario: a director known for comedies wants to make a serious picture. In order to prepare himself to make the film, he decides on an experiment; he will leave his Hollywood lifestyle for a time to see what it's like to live as a bum. Not a bad premise, there's plenty of room for satire, and gags ; but there is also some room for sentiment and pathos as the film director really does get a chance to see what life is like for people who really have nothing.

This is the plot of "Sullivan's Travels" one of the greats. it was directed by Preston Sturges who made "The Lady Eve", "Miracle on Morgan's Creek", "Christmas in July", and "The Palm Beach Story" just to name a few. Each of those titles are true blue comedies, some of which are the funniest films ever made, but "Sullivan's Travels" is something special. It's a comedy with the right tone in order to show just why comedy is so important. There isn't a heavy handed approach, just when it seems to be getting soft around the edges, Sturges keeps his sense of humour, which in the end is the real heart of the film.

Joel McCrea plays John L. Sullivan, the film director with the noble idea of going out and seeing what it's like to really suffer. In the early stages of his experiment, he is followed around by a large entourage motor home who follows him around for insurance purposes. He manages to get them off his trail, yet for some reason, no matter where he goes, he always seems to end up back in Hollywood.

On his travels he meets a girl (Veronica Lake), why? "Because there's always a girl in the picture" as Sullivan quips. She's a disillusioned actress ready to quit Hollywood when she meets Sullivan, but she's attached to Sullivan and becomes his partner in his quest.

"Sullivan's Travels" is the kind of film that gets better as it goes along, the tone shifts from light hearted to darker very quickly. There is a long unspoken montage of Sullivan and the girl experiencing life as vagrants. It's perhaps Sturges' most blatant use of pathos in a film, but to me it remains powerful and effective.

The denouement of the film is even more surprising as once Sullivan is finished his experiment, he goes back to pass money to the homeless, only to be knocked unconscious, robbed and locked up in prison, it's here where he learns just what his fluffy comedies mean to those who have nothing.

Preston Sturges dedicated "Sullivan's Travels" to the clowns of the world, the ones who make us laugh, to him comedy was a serious business. It's hard not to watch Sullivan and not think of Sturges, he must've wanted to make serious movies, but when he tries it, they would flop. Sturges was always more at home with comedy, it was his true calling, very few could direct a pratfall, or a zinger so well. He had timing that rivaled Groucho, and a dialogue to match anything by Billy Wilder.

Which gets me back to why "Sullivan's Travels" is such a great film. Because it's a comedy which shows why we need comedy. Why do we need comedy? Because it's a cockeyed world we live in and sometimes the only thing stopping us from going crazy is seeing something ridiculous. Sturges never forgot that, he would go on to make more comedies, always with a satirical undertone, but "Sullivan's Travels" was a pit stop where he got to say "This is why I make the movies I make", sometimes you have to let an artist indulge in those little vices.

Is "Sullivan's Travels" Sturges greatest film? That's hard for me to say, "The Lady Eve" leaves me laughing the most, but "Sullivan's Travels" leaves me smiling the most, either way my world is happier because at some point a man named Preston Sturges made movies.

Did film Criticism ruin Christopher Nolan for me?

2011-05-04T16:00:00.001-07:00

The other night something struck me which I thought was rather odd. I was sitting in my house with my roommate, we were about to watch Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins", a film I had liked before when I had first seen it and had no problems with it up until this present time. Once the film started there was this feeling inside of me not wanting it to start. When the film did in fact begin I found myself enjoying it less and less. That isn't to say I disliked the film, I just wasn't taken with it like I was before. I began noticing things that bothered me about the film, the way it was put together, the way it was cut, jumbled in places, sometimes if felt like some sequences were unfinished. The dialogue was also very dry, the characters didn't seem real to me at all, they mostly sounded like symbols, plus for a super hero movie it seemed rather grim and not very fun.

What happened to me between the time I first was taken with "Batman Begins" and today? Well when it did come out in 2005, I was six years younger, I was a partial comic book fanboy. This was to be the first Batman movie to show how Batman became Batman, and what fanboy wouldn't want to see that? I had also not started this film blog yet, which has become somewhat of a hobby of mine over these past five years it's been operating. I'd like to think of this film blog to be a part of my own evolution as a student of film. Throughout this time I've grown to love different kinds of movies, I've even surprised myself at what kind of movies I'm open to, and I like to think that I've helped a few people discover films they otherwise wouldn't know of.

Always growing, always evolving, a lot had happened since I was first taken with "Batman Begins". I wasn't just a student of film, but also a student of film criticism. The Internet is full of bloggers like me, and for most film critics it has been the only way to express their views as well. I surf weekly, sometimes daily for recent articles from favorite critics, and recently I've been hearing a lot about the films of Christopher Nolan.

Nolan is riding high these days thanks largely to his Batman sequel "The Dark Knight" which has become one of the most successful films of all time. Add to that his own personal movie "Inception" which became one of the very few non-franchise hits of last summer, and no one in Hollywood is hotter. There was even a little controversy this year at the Oscars that Nolan was snubbed for a Best Director Oscar for "Inception", plus it has been argued "The Dark Knight" was robbed of that honor as well.

Despite all his loyal followings and acclaim, I've started to notice cracks in his armour. The first instance for me happened with "Inception", a film I found to be "okay". I gave it a fare review, but I was not blown away by it. Nolan has a set up for a very interesting action movie, and his set pieces are constructed well, but the movie left me cold. I was overwhelmed by the rules Nolan sets for himself, much of the scenes were about how the whole movie works. Nolan has a problem with just showing how the film works, when he does stop the dialogue, he is capable of pulling off pretty impressive action sequences.

I found it even more in "Batman Begins", the characters are never able to come out of its restricted environment. Batman/Bruce Wayne is never interesting to me, neither are the villains, listen to the first bit of dialogue between Christian Bale and Liam Neeson, and you might see what I mean. The characters talk of the themes of the film and what the inner demons Bruce is battling and the journey he must take for himself. The only things that are shown are action scenes, yet Nolan doesn't even put these together as well. The editing is all over the place in "Batman Begins", you don't know where characters are in relation to others. Nolan isn't the only one who does this, many action scenes done today are like that, as if they haven't been storyboarded, or they have been story boarded too much.

When it all comes down to it, I do still enjoy Christopher Nolan on a certain level, but what he puts on screen isn't memorable. I'm not moved by his films, but there are far worse ones made today in mainstream Hollywood than his. Nolan has ambitions, and he's able to put them on screen, and I think there is always something interesting he's trying to convey, at the same time, there are far more interesting and intriguing films and filmmakers than him.

I like to think I'm evolving as a film goer, I like to be challenged, and entertained at the same time. I'm interested how certain films can move me whether with a certain shot, an edit, a performance, or a piece of dialogue, I try to stay hyper aware of these things as I watch movies, perhaps my perception of what I'm seeing is changing, that to me is never a bad thing, it shows growth.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

2011-05-03T09:27:00.001-07:00

It's hard to imagine, but there was a time when people thought animated movies wouldn't work. Of course it took a man named Walt Disney to show it could, and the rest as they say is history.

"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was a high water mark in the history of movies and animation, it proved that yes there can be a full length feature of only animation and that people would go see it. Much like "The Jazz Singer" did by introducing sound, "Snow White" could be regarded as just as important, and it also stands up better as well.

Disney adapted the age old Grimm Fairy Tale, a story which is important to point out had its dark undercurrents and put his own spin on it. Snow White is a Princess who is hated for her beauty by the evil queen. One day the Queen tells a huntsmen to take her out to the woods and kill her bringing her heart back as proof that she is dead. The huntsmen is about to kill Snow White, but is too taken by her beauty, he tells her to run away into the woods so The Queen won't find her.

There she finds the cottage of the seven dwarfs, (Sneeezy, Dopey, Doc, Grumpy, etc....). The Dwarfs find Snow White sleeping in their bed when they come home, at first they are frightened but of course they come to love her and protect her from the Queen.

It's hard for me to pinpoint how many times I've seen "Snow White", I remember as a child watching it, I even remember when it came back into theatres for a limited engagement, there was a time Disney did that. It's a testament to Disney's work to that images have had a lasting impact. The moment when Snow White finds herself lost in the woods, and the dark inanimate objects come alive in a macabre way, or when The Queen transforms herself into an ugly old women to trick Snow White are some of the scariest and most impacting moments in children's film.

Then there are the peaceful moments with the dwarfs such as them coming back from digging diamonds in the minds singing "High Ho, High ho, it's home from work we go", or when Snow White asks them to wash up before dinner, something that seems foreign to them. There's something about these scenes embedded in my memory, I could probably stop watching "Snow White" for twenty years, and still remember these moments.

There is a primitive look to the film, but much care is given to every detail. Also this being the first of its kind, it's safe to say the animators were also learning along the way. Admittedly Snow White isn't the most expressive character, her face reminds me of a more refined Betty Boop. The Dwarfs more or less steal the show, as does Snow White's animal friends, which of course would be a trademark.

Despite its short comings, "Snow White" is still a great movie experience for the images, the music, and the heart that went into it. Walt Disney has become a brand name and it's hard to imagine such humble beginnings but I guess most empires are built in the same way. Walt Disney the man never stopped experimenting and honing the craft of animation. Leaps and bounds were jumped a few years later with "Pinocchio", and "Bambi", but "Snow White" was the stepping stone, to one that proved to the world animation had its own place in cinematic history.

The General

2011-05-02T19:45:00.001-07:00

It is said that there are some directors who when you watch their films, that is all you need to know about making a movie. Hitchcock usually falls under this category, as does Welles, but I would make room for Buster Keaton.

Keaton has made a slow but steady rise to the annals of film history, even though he remained popular in his hey-day, his films weren't as revered as say Charlie Chaplin or even Harold Lloyd. Times have changed, and Keaton has now eclipsed both his silent contemporaries as a master of cinema. It's difficult to talk about just one of Keaton's films, in his list of Great Movies, Roger Ebert payed Keaton a high compliment by not just focusing on one of his films, but instead bunching them all together in one essay simply called "The Films of Buster Keaton", he doesn't do that to any other director.

But there is of course "The General", if there is one film most talked about in Keaton's canon, it is this film, his most well known, and according to most including Keaton himself it's his best.

I've seen "The General" many times like I do all my favorite films, it was in fact the first silent film I had ever seen, it was actually the only silent film my local movie store had. I still chuckle at the film from time to time, even though I know all the gags inside out, when I watch to movie now, I mostly stand in awe at how it is constructed.

The story has Keaton as a civil war engineer named Johnny, he has two loves in his life his train engine and his Annabelle (Marion Mack). When war breaks out, Johnny is the first to enlist, but the army reject him thinking he's more valuable as an engineer. Annabelle mistakes this as Johnny being a coward and she tells him never to see her until he is in uniform. A year goes by, Johnny brings his engine into Annabelle's town, when both her and his train are taken by enemy hijackers; so begins an astounding chase sequence as Johnny goes to regain his two true loves, not only that but he must also warn about an oncoming attack.

It wasn't till recently when I watched "The General" just how much Keaton shows in his frame, and just how much he can show without cutaways. I was surprised just how little Keaton relies on close-ups, he keeps things rather wide, but it works well with his brand of comedy. Everything is visual, it's how Keaton reacts to his surroundings that make his comedy so memorable. Chaplin was known for his performance, gaining sympathy by using close-ups, there isn't anything wrong with that, he also used wide shots to pull of wonderful gag sequences, yet Keaton's gags seem more complex.

One of my favorite moments in the film is when Keaton is loading a canon on his train to fire at the enemies in front of him. Once he lights the canon, he becomes stuck, suddenly he finds myself eyeing the barrel of the canon, the sequence becomes both amusing and a bit scary. Timing becomes everything as the train hits a turn in the tracks just as the canon goes off avoiding Keaton and at the same time coming close to shooting his enemies. I find this scene to be a quintessential Keaton moment, Keaton stays in the realm of reality, the canon fire could've been resolved within a simple cutaway, but we are kept in real time, we see the situation played as it would in real circumstances, it's all about timing, and just dumb luck.

There is another beautiful shot of Keaton and Mack now being chased by a train; all in one take, we see the enemy soldiers jump from their train onto Keaton's cart, the camera pans over to show Keaton heroically unhooking the cart with the soldiers on it, thus evading them.

"The General" is full of many of these moments, but Keaton is also a master of the smaller bits of comedy, he also doesn't hog the spotlight, he has much fun at Mack's expense showing her ineptness at the gravity of the situation. At one point after staving off a chasing train, Keaton is astonished to see Mack sweeping the engine, almost to bring a bit of normalcy in the hectic situation. There are also multiple times where Mack is given control of the engine which she always seems to move backwards towards the enemies. Mack is certainly an MVP in this film and unlike much of the women in Chaplin films who are idealized, she's able to join in the fun.

It's hard to pinpoint one scene or one moment in "The General" that truly sticks out above others, it's all a pure whole, it's one of the very few films you could argue is perfect. You can't take away one shot, it is all necessary, it's also hilarious.

Comedy is often regarded as light fare, yet when an artist like Keaton comes along, he's able to make it seem so sublime, he can lift it to something memorable, and even philosophical. You can see in his films the way Keaton viewed life, when compared to Chaplin, he seems more grounded in a reality. Keaton was a realist, where Chaplin was a romantic, I happen to love both comedians for different reasons. But Keaton just might have the edge, he's easier to root for, he's self-made and doesn't ask for sympathy, he fights at what the world throws at him, he tries to make sense of its unpredictability and chaos and moves on as best as he could. Keaton was always a mover, there is hardly a moment in "The General" where anything stops, it's constantly going forward. Perhaps the best metaphor for Keaton's comedy comes in "The General", again in real time, Keaton is at the very front of a train with a giant beam in his hands, the train comes close to another beam on the track. Without thinking he takes the one in his hands to knock the other one off the tracks, the train moves forward, Keaton avoided catastrophe, it was both heroic and funny, Keaton always acted above and beyond the call of duty.

Pan's Labyrinth

2011-05-01T19:03:00.001-07:00

Fantasy is often taken for granted in today's movies. Nearly all the popular kids films are full of fantasy, yet they have become diluted into adolescent eye candy. Yet when fantasy gets into the hands of someone who knows how invaluable the stories can be, it could be both magical, yet horrifying.

Guillermo Del Torro's "Pan's Labyrinth" is perhaps the best fantasy film ever made, it blends both the horrors and magic of a fantasy world with those of the horrors of a real one.

The film takes place in Spain just after the Spanish Civil War. We are told at the beginning of the film, the war is over yet there are still rebel forces in Spain fighting off the dictatorship. The main character is Ofelia (Ivana Banquero) a little girl who enjoys storybooks, which immerses her in a fantasy world. Ofelia's mother pregnant and has re-married a Spanish captain named Vidal (Sergi Lopez). We find out right away Vidal is a sadistic dictator, he runs a camp which is meant to rub out any remaining rebels in the area. While at the camp Ofelia meets Mercendes (Meribel Verdu) a maid working for Vidal but who is actually a spy for the rebels.

While this story is going on, Ofelia is taken into an alternate one as well, as she soon discovers she may be the reincarnation of a Princess from another world. She receives this information from Pan (Doug Jones), an ancient faun who's duty it is to find the Princess and bring her back to her family. In order for Ofelia to prove she is indeed the long lost Princess, Pan puts her through three challenges, each one is a test of bravery in some way.

It's safe to say "Pan's Labyrinth" is in no way a children's film, Del Torro does not sugarcoat any part of the action going on. Vidal the dictator might bring reminisces of Ralph Feinnes character from "Schindler's List", he is the epitome of evil. The fantasy world isn't any safe haven for Ofelia either, each trial she faces, she is risking her life, most memorably running from a child killing monster who has his eyes in its hands. This creature is also played by Doug Jones and is quite frightening to look at.

What works so well in "Pan's Labyrinth" is how invested we are in both stories, so much is at stake, and never do we sense that any ending to this could be happy. We also don't know what to make of Pan, is he actually trying to help Ofelia, or is he setting up to betray or trick her, nothing is fully answered until the end.

"Pan's Labyrinth" is also a film about fighting fascism, Del Torro is probably the most knowledgeable filmmaker when it comes to fantasy elements in films, to him the stories mean so much more, they are allegories to what is happening in the real world. The mythical monsters in children's stories always come from somewhere, and fascists were always a target as the monster. The violence in the film doesn't pull any punches, Del Torro doesn't hold anything back in the real world. Yet despite all the hopelessness we sense, it's never quite gloomy, there are always the heroes, and you can tell Del Torro admires the courage of his characters like Mercedes and plucky Ofelia who fight for a better tomorrow. Many people die in this film, but Del Torro shows it isn't in vain.

It had been a few years since I saw "Pan's Labyrinth", when I just recently watched it, I was struck by how new it all seemed. It's a very moving film, something I was emotionally invested in until the very end. What struck me about this film unlike other fantasy films is how real all these characters seem to be. Despite all the fantastical things that was going on, Ofelia always seemed to be grounded in what was happening to her at the moment, it didn't matter if she was against her evil step-father, or a child killing monster, she responded as truthfully to what was around her. "Pan's Labyrinth" feels like it could get away from you at any moment, but it only sucks you in the more you see it.

Malcolm X

2011-04-03T20:06:00.000-07:00

Film biographies are a tricky thing, they aren't my favorite genre, mostly because there are so few of them that actually get them right. Spike Lee's "Malcolm X" is a film that gets it right as it is a portrait of not just a great man, but one who was complex, who was constantly evolving.

"Malcolm X" the film is pretty much the only piece of information I have familiarized myself so far with the historic civil rights figure. Before the movie had come out, I had no idea who Malcolm X was, I was twelve years old, I knew of Martin Luther King, but not Malcolm X. That probably had something to do with the fact that Malcolm X himself was a controversial figure. Martin Luther King represented peace, love, and understanding, his views were easier to take in. With King, it was easier to understand what he stood for, but Malcolm X's view was always more controversial.

The film of the Malcolm X's life is a long magnificently epic one. It begins with Malcolm (Denzel Washington) as a street hustler and sometimes gangster. In the early days, he's known as Red, a loser who seems to be going nowhere fast. He gets involved with a big name gangster (Delroy Lindo), and is later involved with a robbery in which he is thrown in prison for. While in prison he meets a fellow inmate named Baines (Albert Hall), a Muslim who shows Malcolm the teachings of Elijah Muhammad. Malcolm becomes a reformed man and when he is released from prison he becomes a loyal follower of Muhammad (Al Freeman Jr.)and begins making speeches about the black Muslim movement.

When Malcolm realizes Elijah Muhammad is a phony prophet, he makes a pilgrimage to Mecca, and changes his philosophy to a more peaceful and harmonious understanding towards all races. At the height of his new found stance on racism in America he is tragically gunned down.

What I like about Malcolm X is you aren't fully taken in by this great man from beginning, I think part of what made Malcolm X so great is he was able to recognize his faults, also he was courageous enough to change his mind about things. What made him so controversial in the beginning was his stance on a segregated nation between blacks and whites, this was the same time Martin Luther King was speaking out against segregation. It was only later Malcolm X came to new ideology of brotherhood, it happens with his spiritual journey in Mecca where he sees people practicing the Muslim faith, and he comes back from that speaking of brotherhood between all races.

The film itself is perhaps Spike Lee's tour de force. It was only two years after he made his signature film "Do the Right Thing", Lee made this film. Many directors were attached to make the story of Malcolm X, including Norman Jewison who was white and made a civil rights film with "In the Heat of the Night". Spike Lee thought the story of Malcolm X could only be given justice by a black director. Here I think he is right, Malcolm X was a black leader, he gave African Americans an identity, something that wasn't lost in Spike Lee. Lee was the perfect man to direct this film as I sometimes think his films are just as misunderstood as Malcolm X's teachings, he must've felt a certain kinship to the material.

Lee doesn't skimp on the production design of the film either, the first hour depicting Malcolm's early criminal life has a pumped up jazzy feel with stylish cinematography and colorful costumes depicting the period, it's as if Lee is giving us an old fashioned gangster picture. The shift changes to a more realistic setting in the streets of Harlem and behind the prison cell, it's almost like it's a different movie.

The heart of this film and what transcends it into greatness is the performance of Denzel Washington who has never been better, I believe it's one of the best performances of the past thirty years. It's because Washington is our guide through the transformation of this life that makes this work. We see him go from hood to martyr effortlessly, he shows charm, clarity, and confidence. Washington is willing to show us the dark side of this man even going so far to make him unlikable, but it is with this, he is able to show the kind of great man Malcolm becomes.

There is great complexity in this film much like the man, like with "Do the Right Thing", nothing is quite as black and white, Lee doesn't get much credit in showing real human beings in his films. What Lee achieves with "Malcolm X" is something that could've been deemed as hero worship into something much more substantial. He doesn't take the easy road, he sees the irony of a man who is gunned down by his own race, a man who once was taught that only white men were evil, and who himself opposed black violence. The assassination scene is one of Lee's most powerful shot scenes, as the aftermath shows everything that Malcolm stood against.

To look at "Malcolm X" is to see inside the life of a great man, and it takes a wise man to show that you don't start out great, it takes a long time to come and find out your identity. Malcolm X was a man who was constantly evolving, who knows what he might've become had he been able to live longer.

Kagamusha

2011-03-30T21:58:00.001-07:00

Akira Kurosawa's late career masterpiece "Kagamusha" is a story I'm just starting to fully understand. Throughout his career, Kurosawa had been interested in the mortality of mankind, you could see it early on in "Ikiru", the story of a man dying of cancer but wanting to leave something lasting behind before he died. "Ikiru" by comparison was a small intimate piece, a modern Japanese story; "Kagamusha" is far more epic in scale, yet I found it deals very much with the same themes of trying to achiece immortality and wanting to leave something lasting behind.

"Kagamusha" stands for the "Shadow Warrior", in this case, it's the story of an impostor, but an impostor who keeps a dream alive for a great emperor. The story is set in the 1500s when Japan was in the middle of a civil war. Shingen Takeda (Tatsuya Nakadai) is the leader of the Takeda clan when he is mortally wounded by a sniper bullet. Takeda survives for awhile, but soon dies, his clan take it upon themselves to use a double in order to fool their enemies. This double is thief, saved from crucifixion in order to play Takeda. At first he hesitates, but his loyalty to the clan and his sorrow over the death of the emperor overtakes him and he decides to do it. Takeda's dying wish was to keep his death a secret for at least three years in the hopes that his clan would be the first to conquer Kyoto. Takeda's loyal brother Nobokadu (Tsutomu Yamazaki) takes the thief under his wing and teaches him how to be an emperor. There are both tense and funny moments as the thief must go through the ringer of fooling everyone who was close to the emperor. As all of this is happening, he finds himself falling more and more into the role as it becomes less a performance and more a way of life. The way Kurosawa handles this identity crisis is intriguing.

The heart of this film lies in the thief, he was a local peasant taken in and being told to be a leader to this clan. The thief believes in the mantra of the clan that it is an immovable mountain and he proves this during one of the film's pivotal battle scenes, and probably the most famous scene in the film. He is only told to sit and not fight, he acts more as a symbol than anything. Around him people die for him, the irony isn't lost, it's here where it seems the spirit of the dead emperor has possessed the thief, in his eyes, he believes he's immortal, yet Kurosawa knows this could only end in tragedy.

The final act of "Kagamusha" is a perfect demonstration of the frailty of the delusions of immortality as the thief witnesses a massacre. There isn't much action in these scenes, only the consequences of hot headedness and the futility of war. The dream of immortality is lost, the men who's hopes it would last are shown in pale faces looking like ghosts, it's a tour de force image.

"Kagamusha" was made in 1980, Akira Kurosawa had not made a film in over a decade, luckily loyal fans Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas came to his rescue and financed his film. It's strange thinking Kurosawa needed help financing a film, seeing that he's primarily responsible for bringing Japanese cinema to western audiences in the early 50s. It is said while waiting for production to start, Kurosawa kept himself busy by storyboarding the entire film in advance so he would've been well prepared when financing finally came through. The intricate artwork shines through, this is indeed one of Kurosawa's most stylized films. His use of color is quite extraordinary, in one scene he contrasts soldiers different bright colored uniforms with that of a running soldier who is covered in mud.

Many of the images seem to come as a dream, we see a night shot of a battle scene from afar, we don't see any action only behind a mountain a cloud of smoky red as if it were a volcano erupting. For me the most striking image comes from three clansmen on their horses ready to do battle, Kurosawa films these three men with no ground below them and only the sky, as if they are descending from the heavens, it's a myth that Kurosawa soon destroys with the devastation of the clan.

"Kagamusha" began Akira Kurosawa's twilight career, he had at least one more great film after this with "Ran" which was a take on "King Lear", he was a man showing his age, it was no wonder these films touched on immortality. As one soldier sings in the film "Once life is given, it is not meant to last forever", this was no doubt in Kurosawa's mind, he was a poet who concerned himself with life and death, and all the things in between, it's seeing his films you must wonder just what it's all about.

Once Upon a Time in the West

2011-03-29T23:12:00.000-07:00

"Once Upon a Time in the West" is like a dream, it exists as a western, yet you never feel like you're in the west. The west was a real place long ago, but watching this film, you're not in a historical place, it's more like a mythical one. The characters don't seem real, some seem like ghosts, they're images, they walk majestically through the iconic valleys, and towns. There are the heroes, and the villains, all play a part, all are larger than life. When the film ends, it's the end of a dream, you swear you just had.

I felt this way watching "Once Upon a Time in the West" just recently, it never worked on me as a realistic western, when I think of those, I think mostly of films like "Unforgiven", this is something else entirely. This isn't the old west taught in history books, this is the one taught by movies, it's a mythical landscape, it brings out legends of what the west stood for, not what it was. It's a romantic ideal, but it's done with operatic poetry.

The story is a rather simple one if you actually analyse it. A landowner and his family is killed by a ruthless killer named Frank (Henry Fonda). Frank works for a warped, crippled entrepreneur who found out the man's land was worth money because the railroad would come through it. But Frank finds out the landowner had a wife, her name is Jill (Claudia Cardinale), a former prostitute newly arrived only to find her husband dead. Jill finds out her husbands plan was to build a station on the land for the railroad to come through, yet Frank plans to take it for himself.

A stranger comes into town only known as Harmonica (Charles Bronson), he is the man with no name, staying mostly silent playing his harmonica. He has come to see Frank, he has a personal vendetta with him that is only explained at the very climax. Another person involved is Cheyenne (Jason Robards) an outlaw who may or may not be all that bad. Cheyenne and Harmonica form a partnership and together they decide to help Jill create the railroad.

"Once Upon a Time in the West" is a long film, but like all the greats, it never feels long, you could swear the story doesn't take this much time. Yet it's in the arrangement and execution of director Sergio Leone, that makes this such an epic experience. Leone was a man known for long drawn out sequences, he goes from long establishing shots, to extreme close-ups and uses them to full effect to create a certain mood, or to enhance the action. Very little is said in a Leone film, he likes to show it instead, it probably worked to his advantage since he always worked with such an international cast and only spoke Italian.

Leone is one of the most strategic filmmakers when it comes to composition, some of the shots are ingenious, yet it never feels like he's showing off. Leone seemed to have found a new found confidence with story telling when it came to this film, he takes his time even topping his last masterpiece "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly". Leone chooses to open the film with practically ten minutes of silence. We watch three bad guys at a train station, it's obvious why they are there, they are waiting for someone to get off the train. That someone turns out to be Harmonica who quickly does away with the three men as soon as he gets off, yet before all that happens, we watch these three men as they wait at the station. The way Leone composes it, it's both funny, and suspenseful. We hear the creaking of a windmill, the dripping of water on one of the gunmen's head, and the buzzing of a fly inside the barrel of a gun. This is all made to create a mood, it keeps us interested because we know what is to come will be memorable.

You can't mention a Leone film without mentioning the music by Ennio Morricone. The score for this film is probably Morricone's masterpiece. The themes he works with is in a operatic scale, it brings out the vastness of the west and the larger than life drama unfolding perhaps better than any other film. The music along with the images of in the film become quite emotional, particularly near the end with the showdown between Frank and Harmonica. The sequence here is quite astonishing, almost a little movie of its own, as we see the story behind these two men unfold right before the guns are drawn. It's shot differently than the final showdown in the "Good, the Bad, and The Ugly", Leone built up the suspense in that film using quick cuts of close-ups, here it's a slow burn as Harmonica's story unfolds, with a quick release, there also seems to be more at stake emotionally than with the earlier film.

With "Once Upon a Time in the West", it seems Leone reached a new maturity, he created a more assured western, one that didn't seem to rely on style. The characters are complex, the situation is at a grand scale, it's as if this was the film he had always wanted to make. Unlike his past films, Leone was given money to shoot some location shots in America, where he pays tribute to John Ford with some amazing compositions of Monument Valley. Leone probably didn't have to shoot there, but he probably did because John Ford did.

Yet "Once Upon a Time in the West" doesn't have to worry about being thought of as an homage, it's one of the greatest westerns of all time, it's about what we think of the west when we see a western, not what the west really was. Leone used the west as a canvas to bring out his own legend, he created a west for the ages, a west we could only dream of.

Stagecoach

2011-03-25T11:16:00.001-07:00

The western never seems to fade away, many times it seems to, but it always comes back. It's difficult to remember that way back when movies were still in its infancy, people would flock to westerns the same way they do with super hero movies of today. Westerns started off in the early silent days, you could trace it back to "The Great Train Robbery". It would live on as classic B-stories or Saturday matinee serials. Very few people took westerns seriously, they were made up for action sequences where the good guys shot the bad guys and that was that.

Then John Ford came along, is there any other director so well known for westerns. Ford started out in silent films making the very kind of westerns I stated above, but he knew there could be something more to the genre. I"m not sure if there was a legitimate western made before "Stagecoach" came along, but one things for sure, it took most of the credit for being the first one that took it seriously.

"Stagecoach" has since taken on a legendary status for many reasons, it introduced John Ford's mythical monument valley, it also introduced a star in John Wayne by giving him one of the most famous close-up intros in history. Besides that, "Stagecoach" was also the film that Orson Welles allegedly watched over thirty times before he started filming "Citizen Kane". Besides all the legendary status, it's also a very entertaining and intriguing western.

"Stagecoach" was dubbed the "Grand Hotel" of westerns, it's a multi-character story of a bunch of strangers who must share a stagecoach together. Among the colorful people along for the ride are a gambler (John Carradine), the wife of a calvary officer (Louise Platt), a meek but kind liquor peddler (Donald Meek), a drunken doctor (Thomas Mitchell), and his call-girl friend Dallas (Claire Trevor). Riding the stage is Any Devine and the sheriff Curly (George Bancroft). Each person has there own reasons for leaving town on the stagecoach, Dallas and the doctor have been run out of town by the locals for being unsuitable for society. The gambler seems to be in love with the wife of the Calvary officer, and Curly's looking for The Ringo Kid (Wayne). Ringo has just escaped from jail to avenge the death of his brother, and Curly wants to bring him back to jail for his protection.

On top of all the personal dramas, there is also danger of Apache attacks, the stagecoach is accompanied by the Calvary for awhile, but then they are on their own to fend for themselves. We first meet John Wayne's Ringo in the middle of road, the camera pans right up to Wayne's face, it's almost a blatant way to say to the audience, "this is a new movie star". Ringo takes most of the center stage, he falls hard for Dallas, yet he doesn't know her background, he's on his way to meet his destiny, of course you could say that for most of the people here.

You can't really take "Stagecoach" as seriously as it may have been back then, it was probably John Ford's intent on showing three dimensional characters could live in the west. In this way he succeeds where many have failed. The other films it tries to emulate are "Grand Hotel" and "Dinner at Eight", both of which I find entertaining, but the characters never seem three dimensional to me, there's more love in "Stagecoach", Ford deals with simple feelings of compassion, and redemption and takes it seriously, it's there he's given credit. Many of these scenes might be considered cliche by today's standards such as the doctor having to sober up fast with coffee in order to deliver a baby, yet it works with this film.

Of course the film looks marvelous, Ford is a master of spectacle especially with Monument Valley as its backdrop, the contrast between the majesty of the mountains and the human action around it is breathtaking, Ford was obviously touched by the location of this film and could see the dramatic possibilities surrounding it.

The intimate scenes are just as effective, with the use of black and white cinematography, as the group of travellers are huddled in a Mexican cantina while there is a Mexican song being such outside, it's a quintessential Ford scene. Many of the performances also transcend their somewhat cliched trappings; Wayne has his natural charisma working for him, you can understand just why he became the most popular star in America. Many critics of Wayne find that he's not much of an actor, however I beg to differ, Wayne just knew how to react, he knew film acting was different from real acting, of course he couldn't perform Shakespeare, but no one could ride a horse better.

Claire Trevor is quite touching as Dallas, you can see a cynical side to her that would come in handy when she would be a grand dame of film noir, of course she has a heart of gold. Thomas Mitchell, one of the great character actors of his day has a wonderful time as Doc Boone, the drunken physician, Mitchell had memorable work the same year in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", "Gone with the Wind", and gave one of the best death scenes in "Only Angels have Wings", but he got the Oscar for "Stagecoach".

John Ford won four Oscars for directing in his career, yet not one for a western, today of course we associate him for his westerns, it's hard not to. With "Stagecoach", Ford created the road map for westerns to come, he created the archetypes, the feeling, the nostalgia, and the action. He was still romantic about the west, the darker elements of "Fort Apache", "The Searchers", and "The Man who Shot Liberty Valance" were still to come, but "Stagecoach" prepared us for a rich tapestry from this great American poet.

Double Indemnity

2011-03-24T13:40:00.000-07:00

It's the kind of murder that starts with an anklet. The anklet leads up to the face of Barbara Stanwyck, she may be in a cheap blond wig, but it's still Barbara Stanwyck. She has this plan to kill her husband for the insurance money, in order for the insurance to double, she has to make it look like an accident, instead of $50.000 she would get $100.000, it's a clause by the insurance company called double indemnity. Why does Barbara Stanwyck, feel like she can get away with this? Because she's Barbara Stanwyck, meaning she's tough, she's sexy, and men want her, men like Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray), he's an insurance salesmen, and from the sound of it, a very smart insurance salesman. Walter's no idiot, unless it comes to an anklet worn by Stanwyck's Phyllis Dietrichson. Of course, the anklet wasn't the first thing Walter saw, when he saw Phyllis, it was actually her ontop a flight of stairs just getting out of the shower with a towel wrapped around her. She came down the stairs fully clothed, but the anklet was all that was on his mind.

We get the sense Walter's no dummy, but that might be just because the words coming out of his mouth were written for him by Billy Wilder and Raymond Chandler. It doesn't take long for Walter to figure it out, Phyllis wants her husband out of the way. At first he rejects the idea, then Phyllis comes to his house, and some how, he finds himself convinced that murder is the only way to be with this wild, unpredictable woman.

The plan is set, Walter and Phyllis kill the husband, Walter pretends to be the husband on a train, he jumps off making it look like an accident, everything is done, he traces his steps, he's so very careful, it' all working out well. That is of course except for Walter's boss Keyes (Edward G. Robinson). Keyes is an insurance investigator, a very good one, he usually can tell if an insurance claim is real or phony, he has a fool proof way of knowing, he's got a little man inside his stomach that bothers him everytime there's something fishy. But this crime may be too tough for Keyes to crack, because not only is he Walter's boss, he also his best friend, but Walter is more and more on edge, which only makes Phyllis more dangerous.

Things aren't looking well for Walter, but still there's that anklet, maybe the only thing he can hold on to, there isn't much to hold on to in the world of film noir, but I suppose Walter didn't realize that was the world he fell into once Phyllis appeared before him with that towel around her. That's certainly what Billy Wilder had in mind when he read the novella by James M. Cain who wrote another book very similar to this "The Postman always Rings Twice". That book was made into a classic film noir too, but "Double Indemnity" is the richer one, the characters just seem so much smarter, they're headed for trouble, but it's such an entertaining ride with this script and those words. Robinson's character is an extra added substance too, you could say film noir doesn't have many heroes, at least ones who have no morality, but Keyes does. Keyes might be Billy Wilder, the small, smart, funny little man who sees through the facade of crime, the lies, the contempt for law, and he does it with a flare for cynicism. There's a part of us who want Walter and Phyllis to get away with there plan, because if they get caught, the movie has to end, yet we want Keyes to solve the case, because he's the one honest guy in the whole mess.

Of course, tragedy is always at the end of the road in film noir, for Walter, for Phyllis, and even for Keyes. If only Walter was just a little more smarter, if he had only noticed the darkly lit rooms he always found himself in, or the fact that every drape on the windows reflected bars of a jail cell on his face, or the fact that the woman with that anklet, and that towel around her at the top of the stairs was Barbara Stanwyck, then Walter could've ran away for good instead of getting into all that trouble, then again, what fun would it have been for us?

R.I.P. Elizabeth Taylor

2011-03-24T13:20:00.000-07:00

Elizabeth Taylor was one of the most beautiful women in film period. When I look again at "A Place in the Sun" you can see why Montgomery Clift wanted to kill for her. Taylor represented to me an unattainable beauty most men could only dream of. It wasn't just her beauty, she was a knock-out actress as well, in her glory days, it was as if no one could touch her. She was nominated for the Academy award five times, winning twice, once as a call-girl in "Butterfield 8", and again in Mike Nichols' adaption of "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf". In that film, she was almost completely unrecognizable.

She got her start as a child actress making her debut as a childhood friend in "Jane Eyre" which starred Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles. The same year, she was in "Lassie Come Home". She made a splash as in "National Velvet", and "Father of the Bride", usually playing ingenues. It was in George Stevens' "A Place in the Sun" opposite her life long friend Montgomery Clift, where she really showed some acting chops. She played a high society girl who falls for Clift's character, a man trapped between high and low society where murder seems like the only option.

Stevens would use Taylor again in the epic Texas soap opera "Giant", this time getting in the middle of Rock Hudson's oil tycoon and his rival played by James Dean.

She received Oscar nominations for a couple of Tennesse Williams adaptions "Suddenly Last Summer", where she played with a hammy Katherine Hepburn and a subdued Montgomery Clift, and "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" where she was the neglected wife of Paul Newman. It must've been hard for Newman to resist her for that film.

Around this time, Taylor became probably the biggest movie actress in the world. Her personal life could sometimes overshadow her talent, she was married twice to Richard Burton, I even got to see their vacation spot down in Mexico which was purchased when Burton was film "Night of the Iguana".

But besides her high profile love life, Taylor was one of the great movie queens, she made an indelible mark on Hollywood films and it's sad once again to think that another classic star has faded.

Chinatown

2011-03-04T13:22:00.001-08:00

The more I see "Chinatown", the more I like it, it used to be my second favorite Roman Polanski film after "Repulsion", but after viewing it again, I have to say for me, I join the masses and regard it as his masterpieces. Polanski has made many great films, but this for my money is his greatest, and perhaps one of the greatest of all films.

"Chinatown", is a modern film noir, it was made in the glorious decade of the 70s when people who ran studios still loved making movies, it starred Jack Nicholson, a man who was arguably the greatest actor of his generation, it was written by his friend Robert Towne, a script that is still talked about today as one of the greatest ever written. It was produced by Robert Evans, a man who owned paramount and was also responsible for "The Godfather". Lastly there was Polanski, a European filmmaker who Evans thought was ideal this type of material and he was correct.

"Chinatown" isn't only a wonderfully entertaining picture, it's a metaphor for evil, it's multi layered in a labyrinth plot that enhances with each viewing, it's got an old fashioned view of film noir, yet it's entirely modern.

The film for those of you who don't know has to do with water and Los Angeles, yet it begins with a case of infidelity. Nicholson plays Jake Gittes, a private eye who mostly makes a living as a man who takes pictures of spouses having extra-marital affairs; It's not glamorous, but it's an honest living. Jake is hired by Evelyn Mulray (Diane Ladd) who's husband is cheating on her, her husband also happens to be the water commissioner for Los Angeles. Jake sees the husband with another woman and the pictures are leaked. Soon Jake meets the real Evelyn Mulray (Faye Dunaway) who never hired him to take these pictures. Jake realizes he's been duped by someone and he wants to find out why. The plot leads to the water commissioner being murdered, and finding out that L.A.'s water is being rerouted without anyone knowing. The mastermind behind this is Noah Cross (John Huston) who also happens to be Evelyn's father. Both Cross and Evelyn aren't telling Jake the full truth, yet as his investigation digs deeper, we like Jake are just as surprised by what this all leads to.

"Chinatown" was directed like most Private Eye movies, we as the audience are following Jake, he is our way into the mystery that is being unraveled, we know what he knows, it's only at the end do we realize how far behind Jake was with the whole investigation, it all comes down to one of the most shocking and horrifying climaxes in film history, one that Polanski had to fight for to put into the script.

Like with all great movies, the more you watch it, the more things I picked up on, I always found Nicholson's performance great, Jake Gittes is one of his greatest screen performances, but this time I was stunned by how wonderful Faye Dunaway was. Dunaway is a bundle of nerves throughout the film, she's unwinding as the plot is unfolding, you know she is hiding something, but you don't know, by the end she's a neurotic mess, but by that time we understand, she goes from femme fatale in her opening scene, to a delicate tragic figure, her performance is as mysterious as the film itself.

Of course credit should be given to Robert Towne for writing what many call a perfect screenplay, he had the ingenious idea of incorporating water into the mystery, whoever owns L.A.'s water, owns L.A. The city lives at the edge of the dessert, and water is the life force of the film. The water motif comes up very often in the film from spewing out of a car that's been shot at, to a small salt water pond in a persons yard that becomes very important in the plot.

Polanski though seems to be in full control, a director who can be as controlling with shots and what the people see as well as Hitchcock, yet he tremendously economical, you don't really realize how long these shots go on because they are composed so well. Polanski gives us a Los Angeles that's both old and new, it's set in the 1940s when noir films were at its peak, but he updates those themes to a modern audience, he reveals the evil that film noir was getting at and illustrates it better than anyone.

It's important to view when Polanski filmed "Chinatown", it his first Hollywood film since the murder of his wife Sharon Tate by the Manson family, he has been long affected by that and perhaps still is. He was a child of the holocaust, he has seen evil come at first hand, I was a little critical of Polanski's last film "Ghost Writer", a film that ended so bleakly, almost as if Polanski had to make it bleak even if it didn't call for it. I now understand that it was probably me being too narrow minded of that film and of Polanski's point of view, of course he had to make it bleak, that was part of the whole film, that's what it leads too no matter how hard it is to take. It's the same in "Chinatown", yet it's even more shocking in this film because we are expecting at least a clean ending, but that's not how it should end, that's not what life is like all the time, and Polanski knew that. You can't really think of "Chinatown" with another ending than what it has now, I hate to think of it with another ending, and I think Polanski could hate to think of another one as well.

"Chinatown" is one of the great film noirs, perhaps the greatest, each time I think of it, it's more complex with its plot, its characters, and its motivations, it's also an entertaining film on its own, full of the great type of cynical humour known throughout film noir. "Chinatown" came at time when Hollywood studios still took chances on films, that time was brief but it was there, it's one of those films people still don't forget the impact it had back then and even now.

The Absolutely, Positively, No Doubt About it Best Films of 2010

2011-02-24T12:29:00.001-08:00

Once again, I'm submitting my list of the best films of the year about two months later than everyone else. Since no one is paying me to do this, and since I'm literally in the middle of nowhere, it takes time for films I want to see to make its way to my neck of the woods. I still have missed a good chunk of films I have been dying to see from last year, among them "Another Year", "The Illusionist", and most of all Olivier Assayas' epic "Carlos". I had just discovered Assayas last year when I chose his film "Summer Hours" as the best film of the year, but I knew my city would not get "Carlos" especially in its long televised version. In any case, here is my top ten list of films I saw last year. Enjoy, debate, tell me what you think.

1. True Grit: Joel and Ethan Coen are on a hot streak. "True Grit" is the flip side of "No Country for Old Men", making way for warmer characters, high action and wonderful American dialect the brothers are known for. This time they borrow from Charles Portis' endearing novel of the same name and bringing to life a story that takes its place among the best of western myths.

2. Hereafter: Clint Eastwood's study on the afterlife shows the director's strength as a passive director. The film may have come off as too phony and fussy, but Eastwood seems to be sitting back observing what these characters will do next with death looming over the entire film. The movie isn't depressing, it's life affirming. Not many people responded to this movie, yet I found it to be one of Eastwood's best films.

3. Exit Through the Giftshop: Utterly hilarious, this film shows its true colors about halfway through, when a seemingly true documentary about street art turns on itself and becomes a story about its own filmmaker. The film then takes liberties as to what documentary is and also what makes an artist, all the while being the funniest film of the year.

4. Fish Tank: A british export about a tough, furious young girl who seems to be ready to explode at any given moment. The only person who seems to take notice of her is her mother's boyfriend, but that relationship becomes unstable itself which leads the film to dangerous consequences in the end. The film was one of the hits at Cannes, and is just getting a release by Criterion this month, check it out.

5. Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: This film has already achieved cult status having sold out midnight showings. The mainstream missed the boat on this one when it was released, thus missing out on the most inventive movie of the summer (Sorry "Inception") Directed by Edgar Wright and starring the modern great stone face Michael Cera, the film incorporates pop culture such as video games and comic books into its highly comic sensibility, it's also about a cad accepting his responsibilities.

6. The Social Network: A vastly entertaining movie about the creation of Facebook as told mostly fictionally by a wonderful script by Aaron Sorkin and tense direction by David Fincher. The film has a rapid fire pace that reminds one of a Howard Hawks Ben Hecht film. It takes what could've been a run of the mill American made story and turns it into a metaphor of how the world has been monopolized by social media.

7. Shutter Island: Martin Scorsese's largly misunderstood film, I found this to be his best outing with star Leonardo DiCaprio despite that actor's failings at creating a truly believable accent. The film is part film noir, part horror film, with an interesting look to it. Scorsese strives in all of his films to make a personal statement, and he does this with this film while using its genre as a backdrop. The master may have slipped a bit in the years, but he seems to be making a comeback.

8. Greenberg: Noah Baumbach, creates a wonderfully comedy/drama with Ben Stiller giving his best performance ever as a man who's life didn't quite turn out the way he wanted, but he struggles to find happiness within it before it all crushes around him. This is a great, brilliant observational comedy concerned about the heartbreaks but also the surprises of middle age.

9. The Kids are All right: Another wonderful comedy/drama about what happens when children who have two lesbian mothers go out in search of their birth father and the implications that happen after that. The film takes some unexpected twists from the heartbreaking to the ridiculous, but leaves the film with its characters changed and perhaps stronger because of it. There is no bad guy in this film, it deals with everyone on an equal plain, its situations because complicated because that's what life throws at us.

10. The American: George Clooney gives one of his best performances saying almost nothing in this existential thriller about a man who creates weapons for assassins. He lives his life mostly alone not being able to trust anyone, however things are complicated when he tries to leave the business for a woman he falls for. Taking it's cue from the Antonioni films of the early 60s, "The American" turned out to be too arthouse for mainstream audiences, yet it's still quiet and beautiful to look at.

Special mention should also go to Roman Polanski's "Ghost Writer", "Winter's Bone", Tilda Swinton's brave bold performance in "I am Love", Paul Greengrass' intelligent action film "Green Zone", and Zach Snyder's "Legend of the Guardians".

All in all, this wasn't the strongest year for film. Recently I've been watching a box set from the BBS company who produced films like "Easy Rider" and "Five Easy Pieces" and watching the power of those films compared to today's is like night and day. I'm still waiting for a film to change the rules on us, until that day comes, I hope the films above will suffice.

The Best Picture Nominations: How they measure up

2011-02-24T11:25:00.000-08:00

Well I've pretty much done all of my 2010 movie watching before the big Oscar night. I haven't had the chance to see all the nominations, but I was able to catch all the Best Picture nominations. While I wouldn't say all of these films deserve the place for top ten films of the year, it was surprising that I enjoyed all of them on some level. But if you want my pick for best picture this year then all you have to do is look down.

1. Black Swan: This is a gigantic messy movie, that's not to say I didn't enjoy it. Most movies are imperfect and director Darren Aronovsky should get credit for trying something so stylistically melodramatic and ambitious. The climax of the film was one of the great moments I had at the movies, as it decided to go for broke. It was entertaining and daring, yet flawed in many ways.

2. The Fighter: Had more people gone to see this film, it might've been the front runner. "The Fighter" has a lot in common with "Rocky", it's a boxing movie, it's crowd pleasing, and it deals with a lot of colorful dysfunctional characters, in short it's the type of movie the Oscars eat up. I enjoyed "The Fighter", even when I knew where it was going early on, the acting is top notch by everyone, no doubt Christian Bale deserves his nomination as does Amy Adams, but Best Picture? The film comes off as being safe, it's too by-the numbers to be truly extraordinary.

3. Inception: When "Inception" first came out, I wrote about seeing it on my blog back then. The film has many supporters but also detractors, I'm in the middle, I find it to be a well made action movie and Christopher Nolan knows how to make big looking pictures, yet calling this a masterpiece is far fetched. The film falls flat in its world of dreams within a dream within a dream. The concept is too concrete, and Nolan takes too much special care to explain the rules of his dreamscape fantasy, I wish he could've made it more abstract, still it gets points for popcorn entertainment, but that final shot of the spinning top is probably the most overrated ambiguous ending ever.

4. The Kids are all right: One of the most pleasant human comedies I saw all year, with wonderful performances by all. "The Kids are all right" is one of the closest films I've ever seen that got to that sophisticated form of Lubitsch. The comedy here comes from real situations, and the people are believable, a romantic triangle is formed but leaves it pretty complicated at the end. Nothing is wrapped up in a little bow. The dialogue and situations go from ridiculous to heartbreaking. Julianne Moore's performance is a glaring omission on the Academy's part.

5. The King's Speech The Unfortunate front runner of the Oscars. "The King's Speech" is probably the least interesting film on this list, that's not saying I didn't enjoy it. Colin Firth is admirable, Geoffery Rush is worthy of his nomination and I wish there was more of Helena Bonham Carter. Yet the film shows off the trappings of what the Academy looks for. The film is calculating, it's by the numbers, it shows it colors from the first frame. Movies like these can be enjoyable, it's usually because of the engaging story, and great actors, all of which this has, yet there are many movies like it, nothing like it is new or exciting. I can choose many films like it, that I'd rather watch again.

6. 127 Hours: Danny Boyle's follow up to his Oscar winning success "Slumdog Millionaire" is fast, furious and engaging (For the first 30 minutes or so), By the time the set up was established, I was waiting for when this guy would cut his arm off and get rescued already. If there ever was a film begging for a short film concept, this was it. Boyle tries to keep our interest by submitting various hallucinations, yet it becomes repetitive after awhile. The one thing that keeps your interest is James Franco who displays the kind of goofy charm he's becoming known for. Franco is a movie star waiting in the wings, and this may be his way to get there.

7. The Social Network: The Ying to "The King Speech"'s yang. If there is an upset on Sunday, it will be because of this gem of a movie. "The Social Network" is one of the most entertaining films of the year, it breaths life in the facebook story by commenting on the fact that the Social media of today was created by a man who seemed to have his own faults in socializing. Directed with assurance by David Fincher and written brilliantly by Aaron Sorkin, "The Social Network" seems more fictional than real, making way for Sorkin's unique story of a social misfit who becomes the mogul to the entire world of facebook. One of the few films of the year I would see again.

8. Toy Story 3: Pixar's latest completing the trilogy of toys who come to life. I truly liked "Toy Story 3", the entire series of films is one of the funniest and most inventive with endearing characters, yet I can't honestly say I was more moved by this than by "Up" or "Wall-E".

9. True Grit: For some, "True Grit" might just be a wonderful throwback to the western genre. For me it was the best film of the year, a film wonderfully entertaining and enthralling with The Coen Brothers adopting the language of Charles Portis' novel. It seems to be the flip side of "No Country for Old Men", showing a world where morality and heroism does exist. The film is a celebration of time and place brought to life by the best American film team money could buy.

10. Winter's Bone: The token indie film of the group. That is by no means diminishing the power of "Winter's Bone", it's simply meant as a comment that the Academy tries to look edgy by nominating a small films such as this. That being said "Winter's Bone" has two of the best performances of the year at its forefront that of Jennifer Lawrence as a teenaged girl living in the Ozarks forced to raise her younger brother and sister, and John Hawkes as her meth addicted Uncle who may also be her saving grace. "Winter's Bone" is tough rigid and unsentimental, it shows there is originality still out there, I wasn't able to quite warm up to it as much as I wanted to, but perhaps time will let me come back to it again.

2010's MVP: Matt Damon

2011-02-19T11:42:00.000-08:00

As we draw to a close on awards season, I would say there are many actors and performances that were overlooked on Oscar season, Tilda Swinton in "I am Love" and Katie Jarvis from "Fishtank" come to mind. Of course it's the Academy, we come to expect their predictable favoritism to mostly non-challenging films.

I'm still trying to keep with my deadline of watching as many of 2010's movies before the big night, but for now, I'm counting down my choice for some of the best of last year. Instead of choosing an obvious best actor or actress from last year, I've chosen a performer who I think has embodied the best of what 2010 had to offer. This year it goes to Matt Damon, a man who is becoming more and more interesting to watch as an actor, and as time goes is becoming a full fledged movie star in his own right.

The Academy missed Damon's best performance so far in his career in 2009 when he was overlooked for his tragic-comic portrayal of an incompetent whistle blower in Steven Sodebergh's "The Informant" which was one of the best films of last year. Instead he was nominated for Clint Eastwood's interesting but ultimately safe soccer/apartheid film "Invictus". Damon put on a South African accent for that role, but "The Informant" was the better film and better role.

As 2010 came along, Damon didn't slow down at all, he has embodied the kind of reliability on screen that movie stars should show. If George Clooney is our generation's Cary Grant, then Matt Damon surely must be our Henry Fonda, there's something quiet and heroic about him, he never seems to show off, but there is much going on in his head. Even though he's best considered a man of action, Damon never lets that get in the way of honing his craft.

2010 gave Damon roles to show off his movie star charisma tenfold. He was first seen early last March in Paul Greengrass's overlooked and underrated Irag action film "Green Zone", playing a military field operator wondering why he and his team haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. The film is an intense action film which fictionalizes the political repercussions of America going to war, it may simplify the issues for a pop corn audience, yet it remains intelligent visually giving a realistic action movie that Damon and Greengrass probably perfected with "The Bourne Supremacy".

Later in October, Damon was seen as the primary star in Clint Eastwood's examination of the afterlife in "Hereafter". Damon plays a man tortured with an extraordinary gift of contacting loved ones from the dead. It becomes a burden for him, he chooses to think of his gift as a curse, rather than a blessing.

There was much criticism for the film when it was first released, some people thought the multiple storylines and the coincidences in the film were unrealistic, however I found it a touching film, and Damon comes off the best with his low key unassuming performance, it's here where he shows off how much an actor doesn't have to "act" so much.

Damon's banner year ended with a supporting role in The Coen Brother's "True Grit", which became his biggest success of the year. Damon plays LeBeuf (pronounced Le Beef)a Texas Ranger, who joins forces with Jeff Bridges' Rooster Cogburn to track down a wanted killer.

"True Grit" was probably the most crowd pleasing film I saw all year, it had characters who were endearing and heroes who had a certain honor. LeBeuf starts off rather cocky and arrogant, yet as the film progresses, we learn more about him and he has his own square to settle. "True Grit" tackles the classic western themes of heroism, and Damon fits in just right, getting the chance to be a little broad and funny, but never losing the sense of the character.

There were other great performances last year, but what Matt Damon showed this year, and why I like going to his movies is his natural charisma, he has all the stylings of a movie star and that's just as important in movies as the character actors who like to immerse themselves in a role. Damon shows a smartness in front of the camera most modern movie stars don't, he also picks interesting and challenging roles. Chances are when you go into a Matt Damon movie, you'll see at least something that's always worth watching.

Special Jury Prize of 2010: Plastic Bag

2011-02-15T16:03:00.001-08:00

It's been nearly a month since I last blogged, due to some technical difficulties, but I'm back. Stay tuned for my best of list of 2010 in days to come, as we make our way to the Oscars. For now, I am revealing my Special Jury Prize for 2010. This is a film that is unique among other films of this year, a film that can't quite fit with the others.

This year I pick Ramin Barhani's short film "Plastic Bag". This is an 18 minute short film which debuted early last year. I first viewed the film on Youtube, it tells the story of the life of a plastic bag as narrated by Werner Herzog. It follows its journey from breathing new life in a super market, from coping with its own immortality as it gets caught in a huge vortez in the ocean.

The film is rather beautiful to look at, it sort of adds to that floating bag idea from "American Beauty" without making it pretentious. The image of the bag finding its soul mate and the two of them floating around in the sky is rather sublime. The film also speaks an an environmental precaution tale yet we don't really know that until the end. I watched the film three times throughout the year, and although it's only 18 minutes its one of the best films of the year, perhaps it is the best one I've seen. Much like last year's film "Sita Sings the Blues", "Plastic Bag" was able to be seen for free from the internet, which speaks for the future of film, although I would say this is a film I would love to see on the big screen. From what I know "Plastic Bag" is still being shown on youtube, for those of you who think you have seen every important movie this year, check this one out.

Movie Review: True Grit

2011-01-17T19:29:00.001-08:00

Sometimes a film comes around that does exactly what you want it to do, "True Grit" is one of these films. I've seen the film twice now, and I love it the more I think about it. The film is a remake of an old John Wayne western, a film I saw when I was a child, I remember it didn't have much of an impact on me, I enjoyed John Wayne and I still do, but even then I knew this wasn't his best film.

This new film is directed by The Coen Brothers, the greatest filmmakers working today, they are at the peak of their powers. Although this can't be described as a true Coen Brothers film, it's taken from Charles Portis' much loved novel and like they did with Cormac McCarthy, they embraced the language and the characters and made them come alive.

The story is a simple one, a young girl Mattie Ross (14 year old Hailee Steinfeld) wants to find Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) the man who murdered her father in cold blood. She gets the help from Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) the meanest Marshall in the county and one she hears has true grit. Rooster wants to go alone, but Mattie insists on coming, much to his dismay. They are accompanied on their journey by La Beuf (Matt Damon)a Texas Ranger who has been hunting Chaney for another crime he's committed.

Speaking merely as a spectator of "True Grit", I was touched by the film, that may sound strange seeing that the film is basically an action western, but the mood of the film, the playfulness of the characters, and ultimately the heroic choices made by all of them made this probably the most enjoyable experience I had at the movies.

I suspect the true grit intended in the title doesn't just mean Rooster's character, but also Mattie and La Beuf, each one has their own faults, but when the cards are on the table, they come out to shine, the Coens celebrate these characters, they have a strong affection to them.

Much of the magic of the film also comes from the production team behind the film, which include cinematographer Roger Deakins who is sure to get an Oscar nomination for his work and damned if he doesn't win. The nighttime ride between Rooster and Mattie that climaxes the film is one of the most beautiful moments in modern film, it's also a wonderful homage to "Night of the Hunter".

The film also couldn't be the same without the wonderful music of Carter Burwell, his music is probably the most gorgeous he's made with The Coens and the most expressive of the time and place since "Miller's Crossing".

I think it was something pure in "True Grit" that struck a chord with me, it reminded me why I go to the movies in the first place, why my feelings for them haven't changed since I was a kid. Movies have the power to move you more than any other artform, I was enchanted by the world of "True Grit", I loved being with the characters and seeing their stoic heroism in the face of adversity, the uncommon decency when it was needed the most. Few films do that anymore, basically I just wanted to see it again so I could feel that way I did. In my mind, "True Grit" is an instant classic and should be on repeated viewing for people who have forgotten about the power of the movies.

True Grit

2011-01-15T20:56:00.000-08:00

More on True Grit Later, but it probably has one of the best soundtracks I've heard in years, enjoy this.

The Thin Red Line

2011-01-14T17:44:00.000-08:00

How to describe my feelings towards a movie like "A Thin Red Line", or my feelings towards a filmmaker like Terrence Malick. Needless to say, "A Thin Red Line" is a special kind of film and a film that could only exist in the mind of its creator.

I've watched the film four times now, and each time I feel like I'm getting a grasp about what it really means to me personally. It's the work of a philosophical mind, it seems to be a war film trying to ask questions not only about the waist of war, (as one character says "it's all about property")it seems to beg the question about humans in relation to nature and finding transcendence from this world unto the next. Unlike most war films, which deal with the grimy realism and horror of being in the trenches, this film reaches more for meaning of it all and if meaning could ever be reached.

"The Thin Red Line" works on a grande scale and employs many characters to convey its story. It's inspired by the novel of the same name written by James Jones 1962 novel about the campaign to overtake the Guadalcanal during world war 2. I have never read the book so I'm not sure how faithful Malick is to it, but that is neither here nor there, film is its own artform, and this is more Malick's voice than Jones.

The first person we meet and get to know is Private Witt (Jim Caviezel) a soldier who we learn has gone AWOL, he has taken a liking to the native people and has run off to join them. He is found by his platoon and saved from his first Sergeant Walsh (Sean Penn). Walsh is a hard cynical person but he seems to have a soft spot for Witt, or perhaps he is just fascinated by him. Witt seems to have inherited a spiritual philosophy on the whole war, he exclaims it by finding a spark or a light in the darkness. Walsh represents the other end of the spectrum, he doesn't believe such things exist in war and could not be achieved. Walsh and Witt to me resemble the argument Malick intends to make with this film.

There are other primary characters as well, there is a colonel (Nick Nolte) who has seen himself passed over time and time again for promotion and is determined to take Guadalcanal at all costs. There is the sensitive captain (Elias Koteas) who's in charge of his men, but doesn't want to sacrifice them in order to take the hill. There are other soldiers in the outfit, many whom we see throughout the film, some of them have scenes that are fleeting, some are played by unknowns, others are played by some well-known stars, yet Malick makes them less as characters, but more of an organic whole.

One of the primary questions Malick asks in the film is if there is in fact a connection between people, he shows it through the experiences of the soldiers many of which speak in voice over that sounds poetic. Many of the soldiers sound the same like they all come from the same place, sometimes it's as if what they are saying relates to everyone in the film, like they are speaking for the whole world.

When I first saw the film, I was confused by it, I wasn't used to its style, it was the first Malick film I saw, and I thought it to be the work of a poet rather than a filmmaker, I didn't get the intense close-ups of the long strains of grass, or the light shining through a leaf, but I understand it better. This isn't a conventional war film, if anything it tells more about our place in the universe, it depicts war as hell, but it also depicts that perhaps we can rise above it. In fact perhaps it could be thought of as the most optimistic anit-war film ever made. Most war films leave you with a message that war can lead to nothing good, but Malick's film is about finding that transcendence, perhaps it's possible, perhaps it's not, it comes down to if you're more a Walsh or a Witt, whether you believe that the Earth is nothing but a rock that we live on, or if there is that little spark we must cling to to reach a state of nirvana.

"The Thin Red Line" was only the third film Malick made, and it was twenty years since his last film "Days of Heaven" which is one of the greatest photographed films of all time. Malick doesn't seem to be concerned with conventional story telling, he seems to find his movie in the editing room where he can fit his images together into a poetic whole. He is a unique voice in the world of cinema, his films need a chance to breath, to be sucked it, he is thoughtful in his approach, he begs to asks questions, perhaps ones that can's be answered in this world, but it makes things worth while when they are at least asked.

Manhattan

2011-01-11T21:49:00.001-08:00

Despite its name, Woody Allen's "Manhattan" isn't just a love letter to the city he holds so dear. "Manhattan" is a love letter to love, why we love being in love, why we hate it, why we keep doing it. It has to do with the mistakes we make about love, the regrets, the wisdom it brings, and the heartache. This is all examined in New York, a city that is depicted in movies more times than any other city. New York seems to mean different things to different people, but to Woody Allen it encompasses whatever you want it to be, that's the magic of the city.

The film begins with a voice over of Allen dictating a story idea, he's trying to describe what New York means to him, as he's talking we are treated with various shots of the city, all in black and white filmed by Gordon Willis who shot many of Allen's films as well as "The Godfather". The shots are accompanied by the music of George Gershwin, it gives you the pure romantic idea of New York City, it has never looked better on film.

We are introduced to Allen's character, he plays Isaac a middle aged intellectual living in New York working as a comedy writer. Isaac is dating Tracey (Mariel Hemingway), a 17 year old drama student, she is young, yet we get the feeling she is wise beyond her years. At the very start Isaac doesn't know what he's doing with Tracey, he's 42, she's 17, he's convinced it can't last.

Meanwhile Isaac's married friend Yale (Michael Murphy) has started having an affair with Mary (Diane Keaton), a pushy, opinionated, intellectual who Isaac dismisses almost right away. Yet time passes, Isaac and Mary meet at a party and get to talking more. There is an instant rapport with them, they spend more time together. Soon Yale's marriage gets in the way and he decides to stop seeing Mary. She leans on Isaac for comfort; Isaac sees Mary as a woman who is now available who he falls for, she is more practical for him, she's closer to his age and someone who he feels a connection with. He convinces himself that Tracey isn't the girl for him, she has her whole life ahead of her, so he decides to let her go to pursue Mary, yet Tracey is devastated, she is sincerely hurt by Isaac's rejection, never the less, Isaac begins to see Mary, but it becomes far more complicated than that since these are real human beings we are working with.

Watching "Manhattan" again after so many times, I looked at it somewhat differently, at first I always thought that Isaac and Mary were never in love, that it was just a fleeting thing, yet Allen makes their relationship at times very romantic. I am now convinced that they were in love no matter if it was fleeting or not. Tracey of course becomes the girl that Isaac longs for at the end, yet these are the universal complications love brings. Isaac probably was in love with Mary, even though some may argue that she was the practical choice since she was so close to the same age, yet there are tender loving moments they share together, that are mirrored by Isaac and Tracey. I would argue the two most romantic moments in the film are when Isaac and Mary share a walk around New York, and the scene with them in the planetarium where there is an attraction both of them don't admit only to hide their real feelings through intellectual double talk.

The other person hopelessly in love is Yale who still has feelings for Mary, as she does for him, but can it be possible for people to love someone else at the same time, this is what I think Allen explores. The characters in Allen's films all look at the world in an intellectual point of view, and he excels at this type of world being able to capture the shared nuances but also the hypocritical behaviour they all share. Allen deals with these people as real human beings who all seem to have trouble getting over their own neurosis in order to be happy. The only one who seems to know what she wants is Tracey, probably because throughout the film she's the one who remains the most pure and innocent, and you can tell Allen loves these kind of people, she isn't corrupted, and the film ends in a cautious optimistic moment where she tells Isaac "you just got to have a little faith in people." It ends with Allen giving a small smile, at first I always thought this was a cautious smile a hint that he doesn't quite swallow what Tracey is saying, now when I see it, it's almost as if he's smiling at her since she is probably the only person in the film who would say something like that to him. In hindsight, I'd say the ending is the time Isaac looks more happy than he had in the entire film.

Looking at "Manhattan" now, I'm more in awe of it than I ever, there were small moments I had never noticed before such as Allen's sighing when he's dictating in his tape recorder things that make life worth living and he remembers Tracey's smile, there's also Mariel Hemingway's soft crying as she is told by Isaac he no longer wants to see her. As Mary, Diane Keaton gives a sort of anti-Annie Hall performance, Mary is more needy, and more neurotic than she was in that other masterpiece of Allen's, her break-up scene with Yale just shows just how good of an actress she is.

Along with the moments I've just noticed, there are of course the moments I have never forgotten such as the scene in the planetarium with Isaac and Mary, Gordon Willis outdoes himself with some of these shots, some of which show them as if they are in space talking among the stars and the planets. The conversation becomes about the universe and the scene with the two actors mostly in shadow becomes very romantic.

"Manhattan" is among Allen's best films, it encompasses much of what he explores over and over again, yet only a few times has it been this perfect, other instances would be with "Annie Hall", and "Hannah and her Sisters". "Manhattan" was made when Allen still had that little faith in people, he would struggle with his optimism but that's what made his films so endearing, lately he's gotten hard and cynical, pointing more and more to the meaningless of life, I hope he finds that faith again that Tracey was talking about.

Metropolis

2011-01-04T10:16:00.000-08:00

There have been few films that have reached the now legendary status of “Metropolis”; a film which has been available in many versions throughout the years is now almost fully complete. As if by some miracle, twenty-five minutes of footage thought lost was found in 2008 and restored for the first time for all the world to see. The find is considered to be one of the most significant in cinema history; and it was unveiled for the first time last year, and is now available on DVD.

I first saw one version of “Metropolis” when I was very young, probably about 15 or 16 maybe even younger. It was in rather shabby condition, I don’t remember the running time, but many scenes that were available were missing on my version, it also omitted the spectacular original musical score by Gottfried Huppertz, as well as the influential state of the art opening credit montage.

I actually didn’t know what I was missing until only two years ago when I saw “Metropolis” for the first time on DVD on a large screen in a friend’s film class. The film struck me as operatic and epic in scope. Everything about it was big and wonderous. Fritz Lang’s vision of the future hasn’t really changed much in film’s today, he mapped out the destination for all science fiction films to follow.

Seeing “Metropolis” now in its most completed form (Only two scenes are still missing from the original product) it is now more spectacular than ever. It is more complete, it flows more smoothly. There were some cases where a couple of shots were missing in a sequence, while there are others where the sequences themselves have been fully restored, but they now give you the full “Metropolis” experience, at least the fullest one we can hope for for now. Much of the newly found footage has been damaged beyond repair, the scenes still look grainy, but at least it’s still there.

The theme of “Metropolis” is very blunt, it has to do with the battle of the class system. The Metropolis of the title is a huge futuristic city, but it is run from the underground by working class people. The workers trudge away in long hours working the mighty machines, while the higher class people live above in luxery. The son of the founder of the city is Freder, who goes sees what life really is like for the workers underneath. The workers are becoming fed up and threaten to revolt against their boss unless they are treated better; their spiritual leader is Maria (Brigitte Helm) a saintly woman who preaches that some day a mediator will come and bring both classes together.

Freder’s father hears of this revolution and hatches a plan with a mad scientist to kidnap Maria. The scientist does so and uses her image to copy onto a new robot that he has just invented. The robot takes over the place of Maria and tells the workers to revolt.

“Metropolis” is anything but subtle, especially in its allegories of the tower of Babel and the seven deadly sins, each of which come alive in some form or another, but “Metropolis” is more a film about cinematic ideas, and about new ways of storytelling. It is one of the greatest of all silent films, and perhaps the one that most people are familiar with not counting the comedies of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton.

The film came near the end of silent film and the period known as German expressionism, it’s director was Fritz Lang, thought by many to be a tyrant; however no one can deny that he wasn’t a visionary. Lang’s films always have a dark underbelly, in this case it was a fear of mob rule as the workers unite under the orders of the phony Maria, thus they almost destroy themselves in the process. Lang’s cinema has always been unique, he would go on to create some of the great film noirs in history when he moved to Hollywood, but “Metropolis” is an entity unto itself, it’s his most ambitious and epic film, it stands the test of time, it shows filmmakers today what great imagination and vision can accomplish. “Metropolis” is a great film, and it’s great to finally see it to its full glory.

Movie quiz

2010-12-29T11:45:00.000-08:00

1) Best Movie of 2010
So far "True Grit"

2) Second-favorite Roman Polanski Movie
"Chinatown", #1 "Repulsion"

3) Jason Statham or Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson
I like The Rock

4) Favorite movie that could be classified as a genre hybrid
"Two-Lane Blacktop" as existential road/minimalist/chase movie

5) How important is foreknowledge of a film’s production history? Should it factor into one’s reaction to a film? The finished product should be all that should matter.

6) William Powell & Myrna Loy or Cary Grant & Irene Dunne
William Powell and Myrna Loy

7) Best Actor of 2010
Matt Damon

8) Most important lesson learned from the past decade of watching movies
Movies have the power to touch on any type of artform

9) Last movie seen (DVD/Blu-ray/theater)
DVD: "El Cid" Theater: "Tron"

10) Most appropriate punishment for director Tom Six
I don't know who that is

11) Best under-the-radar movie almost no one else has had the chance to see
"In Bruges"

12) Sheree North or Angie Dickinson
Angie Dickinson

13) Favorite nakedly autobiographical movie
"Contempt"

14) Movie which best evokes a specific real-life place
Woody Allen's "Manhattan"

15) Best Director of 2010
So far The Coen Brothers

16) Second-favorite Farrelly Brothers Movie
"Fever Pitch"

17) Favorite holiday movie
"It's a Wonderful Life"

18) Best Actress of 2010
Hailee Steinfeld so far

19) Joe Don Baker or Bo Svenson
Joe Don Baker

20) Of those notable figures in the world of the movies who died in 2010, name the one you’ll miss the most
Leslie Nielson

21) Think of a movie with a notable musical score and describe what it might feel like without that accompaniment. "2001" it wouldn't have that extra excitement that the music brings. I can't imagine those ships docking without that classical music.

22) Best Screenplay of 2010
"The Social Network"

23) Movie You Feel Most Evangelistic About Right Now
"True Grit"

24) Worst/funniest movie accent ever
Kevin Costner in Thirteen Days

25) Best Cinematography of 2010
"True Grit"

26) Olivia Wilde or Gemma Arterton
Olivia Wilde

27) Name the three best movies you saw for the first time in 2010 (Thanks, Larry!)
"Summer Hours", "Before Sunset","Eraserhead" I'm probably missing something.

28) Best romantic movie couple of 2010
Not a year for romance in my opinion

29) Favorite shock/surprise ending
Of this year it was probably the end of "Shutter Island", but I couldn't choose overall.

30) Best cinematic reason to have stayed home and read a book in 2010
Summer movies.

31) Movies in 2011 could make me much happier if they’d only _______________
put an arthouse movie theatre closer to where I live.

The Philadelphia Story

2010-11-25T15:33:00.000-08:00

Is there a more beloved,sacred genre in the annals of Hollywood cinema than the romantic comedy? Maybe sacred isn't the right word, try exploited. Romantic comedies have taken a beating over the years, lacking any sense of real romance or sincerity in favour of stupid humour and sometimes meanness. Romance was once a reason to go to the movies because they always made it better than it was in real life.

There was a time when romantic comedy was done well, its golden age came in the 1930s and early 40s. Usually slapstick was involved, but there was also a sophistication to it, this was mostly due to the clever screenwriters and directors, along with a charismatic cast.

One of the best examples of romantic comedy done absolutely right is "The Philadelphia Story". The film already boasts a trio of the biggest stars there ever was Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn, and Jimmy Stewart. Although at the time Grant was really the only true bankable star, Stewart's star was rising after his breakthrough hit "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" the year before. Hepburn was dubbed "box office poison", she had done "The Philadelphia Story" on stage in New York and acquired the rights to it in hoping it would revive her career, it did in spades. Hepburn originally lobbied for Clark Gable and Spencer Tracey to be her co-stars, but how could you argue with Grant and Stewart as unworthy substitutes?

The story involves Hepburn's character Tracey Lords, a high class woman about to be married for the second time. Her last marriage was with Grant's character C.K. Dexter Haven, which ended very badly, and rumours of their violent relationship plays throughout the film.

On the eve of Tracey's wedding, Dexter has concocted a plan in which we think is a way to get back at his ex-bride. He hires reporters from a gossip magazine to do a story on her wedding, something Tracey and her family would frown on. These reporters are played by Stewart and Ruth Hussey. Stewart is Mike Connor, who's a real writer and hates working for the seedy magazine and its publisher. Hussy's Liz is a tough talking photographer in the same boat, yet they do the job anyway in order to eat.

It is soon revealed that Dexter's plans for the reporters is truly noble and he in fact still has strong feelings for Tracey, but in order for there to be happiness, both parties need to be taken down a peg.

"The Philadelphia Story" is a film about growing up a bit,and it's also about class systems. Both Tracey and Dexter come from the upper class, yet there is a certain dignity about them, they never pretend to be who they are, yet they later both admit to have made mistakes. Tracey's fiancee George comes from the lower class but worked his way up, but it is revealed he did it all for the wrong reasons. Then there are Mike and Liz who have known nothing but being in the working class, it seems they might be the most honest and decent all together, Mike and Tracey even share a brief romance and it is then we think she has to end up with him. But really in the end, it's really about who Katherine Hepburn will end up with, Cary Grant or Jimmy Stewart, and of course any cinephile who has an inkling on who these leading men are will know it can only end one way.

"The Philadelphia Story" is a romantic triangle, yet it's clever enough to see past the cliches, I'm not sure back then there was a cliche, since everything seemed so fresh, it must've been the later generations who used up all the ideas till they became dull and boring. Tracey's fiancee George is shown as a phony right off, everyone seems to know it but Tracey herself, the real triangle is between Dexter and Mike, yet neither of them are competitors at any moment, they even share a delightful scene where Mike comes to Dexter's door drunk, they both fall for the same women, but they always act like adults instead of fools.

I might just love "The Philadelphia Story" because of the stars who are in them, all of which show off just why they became stars. Dexter was just the kind of role for Cary Grant, I'm surprised Hepburn didn't want him for the part right away (The two made three other films prior to this). When Grant plays a role like this, it's hard to imagine anyone else filling those shoes, we sense his cheekiness, but also his bitterness and sorrow, Grant never had to grandstand for attention, the way he carried himself spoke volumes.

For Stewart, he never had another part like this, Stewart became America's everyman, which overshadowed his greatness as an actor. As Mike Connor, he's able to walk away with the film, his scenes where he is drunk are absolutely the funniest scenes in the film, and despite Mike's somewhat misguided direction in love, Stewart is still able to make him likable.

Then there is Hepburn, who tailor-made this film for her comeback, for me this is the Katherine Hepburn performance I think of, when I think of a Katherine Hepburn performance. Tracey like Hepburn is quite the modern woman, you can sense the firey nature in both these woman, you could swear they were the same woman. Hepburn made a habit of not feminizing herself too much, she never played a damsel in distress on purpose. Tracey is a woman who must discover that she does need saving by the right man.

Along with the three actors, the heart of the film comes from the sophisticated screenplay by David Ogden Stewart, it's one of those screenplays that can only exist in Hollywood, where the actors get to say such wonderful, romantic, and witty lines to eachother, that kind of spark is hard to come by these days. The film is quite talky, but when the lines are this good, and are being said by actors who can say them well, who can complain.

The film was also directed by George Cukor, a man known for women's films, he also had a long professional relationship with Hepburn. He made the original film "The Women", and made two great musicals "A Star is Born" with Judy Garland, and "My Fair Lady" with Audrey Hepburn. He has a way for sophistication in this film, it never becomes riotous funny, it has a heart, and Cukor knows when to play the humour without it going too far.

"The Philadelphia Story" remains a benchmark in the romantic comedy, it's as well known and loved as "It Happened One Night" or "His Girl Friday" from that same era, it reminds us exactly how well romance could be done in the movies, and how wonderful it could be made if there was great talent behind it.

Up

2010-11-16T20:49:00.001-08:00

We're getting to the point where it's safe to say Pixar has made about as many animated masterpieces as the golden age of Disney. There's no doubt in my mind their films will be around long after this generation and the generation after that are long gone. As one critic said about Pixar, they make movies for everyone, they are crowd pleasers on the surface, yet they aren't afraid to tackle real human emotion. Think of their flag ship franchise "Toy Story" which deals with talking toys, yet in the three films they starred in, the one constant theme is a fear of abandonment, something we all must face. Also take "Wall-E", which deals with a romance between two robots, and gets to the same kind of pathos and sentiment usually seen in a Chaplin film.

To me the most powerful film of the Pixar label, and the one that enriches with repeat viewings is "Up". "Up" represents much of what I love seeing in movies, it's sweet, funny, sentimental, and full of adventure and unexpected moments. Pixar is known for all of these elements in their films, but with "Up" I think they reached the peak of that certain kind of storytelling which definitely struck a chord with me.

The heart of the story is about a promise between a couple who grow up as childhood sweethearts, and live a happily married life. The wife is seen as very outgoing, while the husband is the more stable easy going type. They both have a dream to some day go to South America to a place known as Paradise Falls. They try to save up for the trip, but things always come up such as car repairs or house repairs which delay their trip. When the husband tries to surprise his wife with tickets to go, she falls ill and dies. All of this happens within the first ten minutes of the film in a wonderful silent montage of the couple who spend an entire lifetime together.

The beginning of the adventure begins when the now 78 year old husband who's name is Carl decides to make his and his wife's dream come true by attaching a bunch of balloons to his house sailing him to Paradise Falls, it's a way to keep his promise. Carl doesn't see much of a future at home anyway after he is being forced into a retirement home, but what he doesn't expect to find is a young boy named Russel who is trying earn a badge for his wilderness explorer group. Russell comes to Carl's house one day, and mistakenly gets on board when the house flies away.

The two make it to Paradise Falls but on the wrong end of where Carl plans to land his house, so they must walk there. It is here where they run into a tall but lovable endangered bird, who is being hunted by a famous old Adventurer Carl used to admire as a boy. There are also a bunch of talking dogs who try to track the bird. That's right, they talk through a radio transmitter embedded in their collar, the most vocal and lovable is a misfit dog named Doug who isn't as mean as the others and soon joins Carl and Russell on their adventure.

The first thing to notice in "Up" as in all Pixar films is the use of color, when the balloons appear for the first time from Carl's house, it's an extraordinary sequence, "Up" is definitely one of the brightest films made in a long time, in fact the whole film has an irresistible cheery quality to it, even the title evokes the kind of mood you're supposed to get when watching this film.

What sets "Up" apart from other films of its kind is its use of an old man as a protagonist. Carl is the heart of this film and his love for his departed wife grounds it to a type of reality that we can relate to, it's because of this, the film can also incorporate talking dogs, and still be believable. There is also the relationship between Carl and Russell that is very touching. Neither character is a cliche of the usual cartoon canon, Carl is a widower and there is always a kind of sadness that comes with him, his house is a symbol of his past, something he must get behind him. Russel is a kid from a broken home, we learn in a very touching scene he doesn't have a father figure, yet he isn't depressed about it, he has a positive attitude, but we know he's probably hurting as well.

We can sense that where these two characters are coming from motivates their actions in the film which makes it all the more enjoyable. The film was directed and written by Pete Docter and Bob Peterson, who have created a wonderful Hollywood movie, it's ironic that the films made in Hollywood which have the most heart these days seem to be coming from animation departments. Perhaps because animation is able to open up to a world of wonder because it is all make believe, but Pixar seems to understand better than most, there must always be something behind that wonder to add any weight to it.

"Up" is a joyous film, it represents the best Hollywood has to offer these days of entertainment, it's a film that doesn't lose any of its magnificence for me no matter how many times I watch it, I have a feeling it will last long after I'm gone, and more and more people will discover it as they did with films like "Pinocchio" or "Bambi".

The Lady Vanishes

2010-11-08T19:53:00.001-08:00

One of the things, movies can do so well is play with our expectations, it's so interesting as a viewer to not know what's going to happen yet. This is one of the reasons why Alfred Hitchcock is considered such a master of cinema, he toys with our emotions, sending a plot in one direction, when we thought it was going another. "The Lady Vanishes", one of Hitchcock's early masterpieces and surely one of his most purely entertaining films is an exercise on playing with our expectations.

"The Lady Vanishes" opens with a very light touch, it takes place in an over crowded hotel in Europe where we get the chance to meet all the major players of the film. At the beginning, we really aren't even sure who the main character is, or who the lady the title refers to is. The most prominent characters in the beginning are two British cricket fans (Nauten Wayne and Basil Radford) who are worried about missing the upcoming tournament. These men in fact are minor, but provide the best comic relief. There is also a man and a woman posing as a married couple but are carrying on a secret affair (Cecil Parker and Linden Travers). Finally we meet the romantic leads, they are Iris (Margaret Lockwood) and Gilbert (Michael Redgrave). Their story starts off as more or less a romantic comedy, he annoys her to no end, yet you realize the first moment they meet that they will fall in love.

There is also Miss Froy (Dame May Whitty) a sweet natured elderly women who Iris meets on the train back to Britain. Miss Froy is indeed the woman eluded to in the title, when she suddenly for no reason she becomes missing with Iris falls asleep. Throughout the majority of the rest of the movie, Iris is convinced Miss Froy is on the train, yet no one seems to have any recollection she is there. Gilbert of course helps her out, even though he is skeptical at first as well.

Other characters are introduced on the train as well, and Hitchcock was a master at casting people with villainous or treacherous faces, throughout Iris' search, we know something isn't quite right, yet it's hard to put our finger on it. Before the train, Miss Froy is seen outside her hotel room listening to a singer from outside her window, but the singer is seen killed, later, before the train, an attempt on her life is made. We are meant to feel what Iris feels while she is searching the train, we the audience have seen Miss Froy, yet everyone else is saying we haven't. Iris is accused by a doctor (Paul Lukas) that she is delusional, and we also feel it with her, Hitchcock plays with this sense of uncertainty for as long as he can, almost until we can't take it anymore, when will he answer this burning question?

"The Lady Vanishes" was made at the height of Hitchcock's success in England, two years after this film, he would go on to Hollywood and make "Rebecca", and the rest as they say is history. People have often argued that Hitchcock lost some of his charm when he left England, and his films were mostly about craft. I can understand what they mean, yet I disagree with them, his British films do have a certain sensibility, at times they are more playful and there is always that kind of wit you don't see in the American films, yet that is something I think Hitchcock always brought with him no matter what nation he worked under. Hitchcock might've grown stale in Britain, and Hollywood seemed to be suited more for his kind of storytelling, and it's a good thing too, since he pretty much changed the way American films were made afterwards.

"The Lady Vanishes" however remains terrific entertainment, it's the type of film Hitchcock made so well, blending genres such as comedy, mystery, and suspense so well, it actually does keep you guessing. "The Lady Vanishes" actually wasn't always the first film I thought of when I thought of Hitchcock, yet when I watch it again and again, it becomes more and more delightful, it depicts a master right before he would conquer the film world.

Universal Horror

2010-10-31T15:15:00.000-07:00

Horror and cinema are a match made in heaven. It is said you can tell a good filmmaker if he's able to pull off a good horror film. In horror you have the basic elements of a dark atmospheric look, people screaming, and probably some blood and gore thrown into the mix.

Horror is almost as old as cinema, it's usually credited at the beginning with German expressionism. "The Cabinet a Dr. Caligari" was a benchmark of that era, which is commonly referred to as the first horror film. Then there is F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu" in 1922, which is still the greatest realization of the "Dracula" legend.

Today, horror movies remains popular with new types of horror monsters invading the multiplexes. Some of these monsters are inspired, others are not. I usually tend to avoid new horror movies today, I sometimes feel like I respond to a different time, I don't like what people refer to as "torture porn", I couldn't sit through the first "Saw" movie, and I've avoided movies like "Hostel" or the remake of "These Hills Have Eyes". Maybe there is artistic merit to these movies, but I know I will live a happy life without seeing either of them.

Halloween is of course upon us , and this is usually the time to reflect on some the greatest horror films of all time, and this is something I'm always interested in, mostly because I love lists. Most movies that make these lists mostly stem from the late 60s-70s era like "The Exorcist", "Rosemary's Baby", "Jaws", or "Alien".

I admire those horror movies very much, but for me, the most fun horror movies come from the early Universal days most prominently the early 30s. These were the films directed by Todd Browning, James Whale, and Karl Freud, and starring people like Bela Lugosi, and Boris Karloff.

Movies like "Dracula" starring Lugosi, and "Frankenstein" starring Karloff remain special to me, I don't really find them scary, like most people of today who have perhaps seen too much, but I love them just the same. Like most early sound pictures, "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" suffer from a creaky and wooden type of look and acting style, yet that's part of their charm. The films themselves remain quite imaginative, and are also exercises in the art of camp.

"Frankenstein" was the first of these films I saw as a kid, I watched it as a double bill in my basement along with another great monster movie "King Kong". I was probably around ten or eleven at the time. I loved the film even back then, I've always had an affinity for classic black and white movies, and these types of films spoke to my imagination as a child.

A few years later I would watch "Dracula", a film I still have my troubles with, it's probably due to the fact that the film was based on the stage play of Bram Stoker's novel and suffers from not being very cinematic, which is why today I still prefer "Nosferatu" as well as the remake by Werner Herzog. Still I am charmed by Lugosi's Dracula, he rises the film above its staged trappings.

There are two films I think are vastly underrated in the Universal monster cannon, which I think are both superior to "Dracula", the first is "The Mummy" from 1932 directed by Karl Freud and starring Boris Karloff. "The Mummy" has a lot in common with "Dracula" story wise, but I found it to be far more interesting, and Karloff relishes in the role as the dead Egyptian Mummy brought back to life.

The second film is "The Invisible Man", directed by "Frankenstein's" James Whale and starring Claude Rains. This film is based on the novel by H.G. Welles, and actually did frighten me as a child, Rains plays a mad scientist who finds the formula to make himself invisible, yet he of course goes mad in the process. I found the story quite chilling, and despite many remakes or rip offs, the original is still the most effective.

Perhaps my least favorite has to be "The Wolf Man", which I find to be overrated, the film stars Lon Chaney Jr. who is fine in the role as a man who is bitten by a werewolf, and the supporting cast is superb as well with the likes of Claude Rains and Ralph Bellamy. However I wasn't impressed by the presence of the Wolf Man, it appears only a handful of times in the original film and he doesn't do much but snarl at the camera. The make up effects are quite astonishing, but his appearance just didn't seem as epic to me as that of Frankenstein or Dracula, or The Mummy.

I often wonder had the Wolf Man not come so late, his first film was ten years after the first appearances of Frankenstein and Dracula. He was limited to the laws of movies after the pre-code era, meaning, you couldn't do anything that was deemed that gruesome or dangerous.

Of course the greatest of all these horror films is the sequel to "Frankenstein", "Bride of Frankenstein" which stands as a masterpiece, and pretty much sums up why I think all these films endure. "Bride" is a gorgeous movie to look at, it's one of those films that belong in the world of black and white, it also is aware of itself like the others weren't before. Director James Whale made a horror comedy, which was obsessed with dark humour regarding life and death. It's wickedly funny, and epically put together. The climactic scene where the Bride becomes alive is probably the greatest of all scenes of its kind, it blends both horror, comedy, and pathos in its shots. I still chuckle with delight whenever I hear the musical score from "Bride of Frankenstein", or hearing Elsa Lanchester shriek when she first touches Karloff's monster, and of course her snake like hisp before she is about to be destroyed. The look and the tone of the film become so perfect, and to me it represents what all of these films strived to be, and almost were.

The Universal films remain fun films for me to revisit, I recognize their weaknesses, yet I still have great pleasure in watching them, they remind me of that first piece of horror I felt as a child watching my first horror film, I love them because they represent a time when film was still new, and still inventing itself, they may be primitive today, but still I'd choose them over torture any day.

Million Dollar Baby

2010-10-25T01:11:00.000-07:00

Clint Eastwood has made many great movies throughout his career both as an actor and a director. It could be argued that he has had the most endurable career of anyone in Hollywood. The last film Eastwood starred in was "Gran Torino", which was number one at the box office its opening weekend. Eastwood is now in his 80s, his acting career may be behind him, of course I wouldn't count him out, yet he still manages to average at least one film per year that he has directed. There always seems to be a place for Clint Eastwood, he's carved his only little niche.

The films Eastwood has directed also have its own style, and like the man himself, they aren't fussy, some of them remain laid back and soothing, yet the story remains important. His style has only refined through the years, but perhaps it was perfected with "Million Dollar Baby", which is definitely one of his masterpieces.

"Million Dollar Baby" had a strange birth, Eastwood took the first draft of the script by Paul Haggis, claiming it was perfect just the way it was. Eastwood's instincts were probably right, Haggis' original script stuck to the bare bones, and like the best of Eastwood's pictures didn't have any excess to it.

The story is set up like an old fashioned Hollywood movie, Eastwood plays Frankie an old boxing manager who has been in the business all his life. Frankie owns a gym, and runs it along with his longtime friend Scraps (Morgan Freeman) who is the janitor. At the beginning of the film, Frankie is managing a boxer who gets the chance at a title shot, something Frankie has never had, yet by playing it safe, he loses his boxer to another manager.

Enter Maggie (Hilary Swank) a girl who sees Frankie and wants him to train her to become a champion. Maggie comes from a trailer park upbringing, she feels boxing is the only way for her to attain a future, Frankie on the other hand doesn't want to train her due to the fact that she's a girl. Maggie is determined she's worth it, she continues to come to the gym to practice herself, and soon Frankie can't resist, he decides to take her on.

The relationship that blossoms between Maggie and Frankie is the heart of this film, Eastwood manages to make it into something that plays against cliche. Both Maggie and Frankie are missing something in their lives, we hear Frankie has a daughter he writes every week, yet his letter are always returned to him, it isn't even specified if his daughter is alive. Maggie grew up admiring her father who died when she was young, the rest of her family are lazy trailer trash who are on welfare. There is a deep caring and love that comes in this relationship between Maggie and Frankie, and it only becomes more meaningful in the heartbreaking finale.

"Million Dollar Baby" could've been a film made in the 1940s era, it has that feel of it, of course many of Eastwood's films feel like they come from another time, he always seems to be beating to the sound of his own drum unlike many filmmakers of today who may have forgotten the importance of story over style. Eastwood takes his time telling his stories, and developing his relationships, he's always able to get good performances from his actors because I believe he's willing to give them room to create full bodies characters. It's almost as if Eastwood's style is invisible when he does this, yet it's there only slow and methodical, this is a man who doesn't feel he has to prove anything to anyone. With "Million Dollar Baby", he gets a tremendous performance from Swank who has since this film gone on to play many strong willed women. Morgan Freeman also gets his time to shine in this film, it's become rather a cliche to cast Freeman as a narrator, which is one of his jobs in this film, he's also Frankie's closest friend and conscience. He's the one who knows Frankie the best, and perhaps knows what he should do better than he does.

"Million Dollar Baby" might not have been as special had it not been for Eastwood's reluctance to treat this as a regular Hollywood formula story, it in fact only starts off as that, the tone of the film remains somewhat sombre, Eastwood never forgets he's dealing with bruised characters, all of whom have something to prove, yet there are consequences.

The final act of the movie has caused much controversy, some have considered it manipulative, while others feel Eastwood made a fatal error by reducing Freeman as a narrator, breaking the structure of the whole film. The ending is in fact the key to the whole story, and it works because we have taken a journey with Frankie and Maggie, and it ends on the right note for both characters. Eastwood's films usually have a dark edge to them, and this film is no exception, Eastwood bathes the film in contrasting shadow and light images, and it works well with the tone of the film, yet it's also a story you can get so caught up into. I loved seeing the relationship of Maggie and Frankie grow, it is perhaps one of the best relationships put on screen in modern film.

I returned to "Million Dollar Baby" after a few years of not watching it, the film didn't seem to age, it just felt so familiar, but that could probably be said with most of Eastwood's films. Eastwood has proved himself as an American Auteur, there is a certain feel to all of his films that show his trademark. A film like "Million Dollar Baby", everything clicks so beautifully with the material, the script, and the cast, Eastwood is unstoppable, this story just seemed perfect for his brand of storytelling, and it is truly one of the great classics of the last ten years. Like the man himself, Eastwood's films never seem to get old, just wiser, and more interesting as time goes by.

Movie Review: Hereafter

2010-10-24T10:38:00.001-07:00

It takes a bold film to attempt to tackle such universal issues such as the afterlife, let alone one that is a mainstream Hollywood movie. Clint Eastwood's "Hereafter" succeeds beautifully in giving us a human story about life after death in a way that I thought was very life affirming.

"Hereafter" concerns three separate stories of people who in some way are affected by questions of the afterlife. Matt Damon gives one of his most affecting and understated performances as George, psychic who actually seems to have the real gift to communicate with people's loved ones. George however doesn't look as this as a gift but a curse, he seems to be unable to touch a person without seeing a vision. In another story, french actress Cecile De France plays Marie, a newswoman who dies for a moment during a tsunami. She survives, but while she was clinically dead, she has also experiences visions of a possible afterlife. Then there is young actor Frankie McClaren playing Marcus, a boy who recently lost his twin brother Jason (Also played by McClaren). Marcus wants answers and tries to find someone who is able to communicate with Jason.

"Hereafter" follows a formula such as "Crash" or "Babel" where these three stories are in some way linked and by coincidence they intersect at some point. Eastwood however doesn't stress this link, he cuts from one story to another in a very straight forward and simple way, I never felt I was being manipulated.

"Hereafter" is a very gentle film, it's quiet and reflective like much of Eastwood's work. He focuses on these people who are all in their way lonely and trying to make a connection so they don't feel as lonely. Damon in particular does a good job showing his character's struggle to live a normal life, by taking on a job at a construction plant, and doing a cooking class all in an effort to fit in. He has an all too brief encounter with a girl (Bryce Dallas Howard) he really likes, but things change when she discovers he's a psychic.

McClaren is very affective, he gives a sense of not being a professional actor, I'm not sure if he is or not, his face sometimes doesn't seem to change, yet we always seem to know what he's thinking, the scenes with him and Damon are particularly touching.

France's character is perhaps the one who speaks for the majority as someone who ponders the questions we all ask: "What happens to us when we die?" It's such a common question in which we know we won't get an answer until it actually happens, yet it has always fascinated us. Marie becomes so obsessed, it threatens her career and her personal life, yet coming from one who has thought long and hard about this question, I could understand her pursuit.

All this being said, I'm not sure if "Hereafter" is a perfect movie, yet it is probably the film that has affected me the most all year, I am fascinated by the subject, and Eastwood's approach, this is probably his best film since "Letters from Iwo Jima". No matter what the subject he tackles, Eastwood keeps a calm and sober style, like his music score, Eastwood plays his films like jazz, he deals with moments and scenes that on the page might seem cliche, but he understates them in a way that make them seem real and more meaningful. With Damon, he has found a great leading man for these kinds of stories, he brings the same kind of soft and understated approach to these scenes and they work beautifully.

In the end "Hereafter" becomes more a film about living with death in our minds and being able to live our lives happily, afterall life is the only thing we can be sure of, and we might as well make the most of it. This is a film not to be missed.

You Can't Take it With You

2010-10-20T20:58:00.001-07:00

It's easy to become reflective in one's life, to weigh our contribution to the world. Perhaps we could say we have lived a life of wealth, or perhaps we have lived a poor one. There are two schools of thought on the subject of wealth; perhaps being literally wealthy with money is what you could mean, but then when all is said and done, what do you have to show for it? The other type of wealth is the more intangible kind, where you are measured by how good of a person you are to your fellow man, and the love and friendship you've received throughout your life. These are the two schools of thought brought up and analyzed in Frank Capra's "You Can't Take it With You."

The story is based on a very popular play of the 30s written by George S Kaufman and Moss Hart, but was radically changed by Capra and his constant screenwriter Robert Riskin to suit more Capra's sensibilities. It's about an eccentric family who are encouraged by their patriarch (Lionel Barrymore)to do what makes them happy. The family therefore can be described as unorthodox but lovable within the community. Barrymore is a widower Martin Vanderhof, who in the past had the chance to be a very rich man, but decided he wasn't happy so he decided to devote his time to collect and appraise stamps. His daughter Penny (Spring Byington) enjoys writing plays, her husband (Samuel S. Hinds) likes working down in the cellar making fireworks. The family clan is rounded out with their youngest daughter Essie (Ann Miller) who loves to bake and do ballet, while her husband accompanies her on the xylophone.

The one member of the family who seems to be living in the real world is the eldest daughter Alice (Jean Arthur). Alice seems to be the only one holding down a job as a secretary, but she doesn't seem to mind, since she has fallen in love with her boss, a young bank executive named Tony (James Stewart). Tony and Alice want to get married, which is great news for Alice's family, yet not so much for Tony's. Tony's father is Anthony Kirby (Edward Arnold) a very wealthy businessman who incidentally trying to buy Vanderhof's house in order to create a large real estate deal. Alice is also deemed too common by Tony's mother (Mary Forbes) and looks down on their marriage. Acting in good faith, Tony takes his parents to the Vanderhof home to show them how they really are, yet things don't go as planned.

"You Can't Take it With You", was another gem in the Frank Capra cannon in the 1930s, it gave him his third Academy Award for Best Director, and the film itself also won for Best Picture. Capra was the messenger of hope in the 1930s, which was why he remained so popular. The country was in the midst of The Great Depression, yet Hollywood was churning out mostly escapist entertainment, movies were the one place where people didn't have to be reminded of the hard times going on in the real world; yet that never stopped Capra from commenting on it.

"You Can't Take it With You" starts off as a lighthearted comedy at first, but it soon turns into a more serious film about the state of the world, and also the state of humanity. Barrymore's Vanderhof, and Arnold's Kirby take centre stage in the film's latter half, as Capra uses them to depict two different ideologies. Kirby is perhaps the most interesting, he isn't a bad guy at all, but Capra shows him as somebody who has lost his way, he's at a crucial moment in his life and mirrors what Vanderhof might've been like before he changed his direction.

Kirby is also a representation of the greed of that time, a banker who never thought of what his actions were doing to the rest of the country (Gee, kinda like today!) There is a powerful scene in fact where Kirby is confronted by a businessman played by H.B. Warner, who is ruined thanks to Kirby's actions, he warns him that if he continues to go down the greedy path, he'll be left with nothing. I couldn't help but think of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol", which parallels this where the Ghost of Jacob Marley warns Scrooge what could become of him if he continues with his greedy ways.

Because of these themes of money vs. happiness, "You Can't Take it With You" becomes very contemporary, much of what is discussed in this film make interesting parallels about the state the world is in today. There is even a scene where Jean Arthur is talking to Jimmy Stewart about men who play on people's fears in order to sell them things they don't need, I could not help but think of people like Bill O'Reilly, or Glenn Beck when she uttered this.

Frank Capra was known as a rank sentimentalist, but he was in fact a radical filmmaker, I can't name another mainstream director of that time who tackled such important issues. The Vanderhof family seem very contemporary today, and Capra seemed to admire their eccentricities. Throughout the film, they remain happy by doing what makes them happy, and of course they are persecuted and even accused of being communists, however Capra, who was surely one of the most American of filmmakers is showing that they represent what America should aspire to be, to Capra, the Vanderhof's resemble "the pursuit of happiness", who are we to stop them from attaining it?

The Circus

2010-10-17T10:53:00.001-07:00

"The Circus" is Charlie Chaplin's unsung masterpiece. It isn't as well known as "The Gold Rush", "City Lights","Modern Times", or "The Kid", even though it was quite popular when first released. Chaplin actually won a special Academy Award for it in 1927 for writing, directing, and starring in the film.

However as time went by , "The Circus" has been thought of as a minor Chaplin work, however, it remains poignant, and it has a final image of The Tramp that could rival the ending of "City Lights".

"The Circus" is a story of high comedy but also of unrequited love; we begin with seeing a girl (Merna Kennedy) who works as a horse jumper at the circus, we also find out she is the daughter of the circus owner, a tyrannical man who starves his daughter when she messes up on a trick.

Meanwhile The Tramp wonders into the circus after being mistaken as a pickpocket and is chased by the cops. The police chase him into the center ring and his natural clumsiness is mistaken for a real clown act. The audience love him so the manager hires The Tramp on as a clown.

The Tramp tries to learn several clown routines (All of which Chaplin himself would've know with his years in vaudeville), but despite his best efforts, he is fired soon after. Another incident happens where Chaplin is chased by a donkey into the centre ring and once again the audience love him. The manager decides to keep The Tramp on as a maintenence worker without letting him know he's the star of the show.

The Tramp then connects with the girl giving her some of his food, he is soon smitten and the two become close friends. When The Tramp finally does find out he is the star of the show, he's able to make demands on the manager for a higher salary and no longer harming the girl.

However The Tramp's fairy tale life is threatened with the arrival of a handsome tightrope walker (Harry Crocker) who the girl falls in love with. In the climactic finale, Chaplin tries to prove he's just as brave by taking the tightrope walker's place and risking his life.

I find everything that happens between The Girl and The Tramp all leads down to the final scene in the film. It's a solitary Tramp who is left behind after the circus leaves town. Chaplin was a master of the close-up, and he gives himself one of the greatest in movie history. He is sitting in the middle of where the big top once was, his face is that of sadness and longing, but also hopeful. This shot sums up what Chaplin's whole philosophy of who and what The Tramp is. The Tramp is a character, but he's also an idea, he's a symbol of the little guy, someone who must face hardships, and lonliness, but also someone who is able to walk on in the face of uncertainty. With The Tramp, Chaplin gave audiences someone to root for, very often in his films, The Tramp did get the girl, but in this one he doesn't, despite it though, he's able to put on a brave face anyway and walk away with his dignity in tact.

Chaplin had a sentimental streak about him, which some critics unfairly use to deem him passe in favour of a more contemporary Buster Keaton. However I feel Chaplin will always be around, he was the biggest star of his period, and you can recognize the face of The Tramp just in sillouette. With "The Circus", Chaplin brilliantly combines high comedy and pathos and in all of his films with The Tramp did it better than anyone else.

Heat

2010-10-13T21:43:00.000-07:00

It's been a few years since I've sat down and watched Michael Mann's "Heat", arguably the director's best film. It was somewhat overshadowed in its initial release due to the coverage of it being the first film starring both Al Pacino and Robert De Niro and having them share precious moments of screen time.

Indeed the film is a terrific showcase for both great actors, and the one scene they share together in a coffee shop is quite special just seeing the two of them act and react to one another, it's a great treat. However let's not take anything away from the pure craft and technique Michael Mann had to create such a beautifully shot epic crime saga.

On the surface, "Heat" doesn't offer anything new, it's a story about bank robbers and the police who pursue them. This type has been done since the old Warner Brothers days of James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, and Edward G. Robinson. Even some of today's most popular films like "The Town" follow the same formula. "Heat" however tells its story in a new modern light. In the film Mann is interested not only in the professional lives of the criminals and the law, but also how their lives seem to parallel the others.

The main criminal here is Neil McCauley (De Niro), a career bank robber, a man who has trained himself to walk away from any kind of commitment or normal life if he feels the heat around the corner. Neil is never settled, his house is isolated and solitary. His friend and accomplice Chris (Val Kilmer) asks him "When are you gonna get some furniture?" he says "When I get around to it." Chris then asks him "When are you gonna get a wife?" he says "When I get around to it." For Neil, his life is his work, he remains disciplined even as he finds himself getting involved with someone (Amy Brenneman), he's still willing to walk away.

When Neil and his men rob an armored car, he is now being trailed by ace detective Vincent Hanna (Pacino), a man like Neil dedicated to his work, despite it taking its toll on his personal life. Vincent is now on his third marriage that is disintegrating before his eyes. He's obsessed with the chase and catching his man, he understands he has to stay as sharp and dedicated as the men he's after.

What's interesting about "Heat" is Mann's attention to detail and authenticity, he makes us understand the lives of these two by showing them both as men of honor but also as flawed human beings. "Heat" never remains black and white when it comes to crime, it's too smart for that, these are people finding their own morality in an immoral world, and it's fascinating seeing that it's coming from both sides of the law.

The main color of "Heat" I would say is blue, it sometimes seems to streak the entire frame, particularly in De Niro's house where he can look out on the ocean, which is just as desolate as his character. It's a beautifully shot film and Mann adds to the atmosphere a sense of realism unseen in genre filmmaking before.

The climactic bank robbery stands alone as one of the best ever shot, merely because of Mann's attention to detail. The intense gunfire is loud and pounding, probably sounding like what a real gun would instead of hearing bullets ricochet in the Hollywood manner. All the men playing Pacino's fellow officer's all seem real, they are men doing their job, there isn't one of them who flies of the handle the way you might see in a regular crime movie.

Despite all this authenticity, Mann remains a stylized director, and he throws in some hypothetical scenes to give the movie its weight, the most famous of course being the coffee shop scene with Pacino and De Niro.

The scene couldn't exist outside of movies, it's not often you think of a cop having coffee with the man he's pursuing. Yet the scene is also not just an excuse to get these acting heavyweights in a room together. It actually becomes a philosophical, and existential discussion between these two men who must feel a certain bond between one another. At one moment Pacino talks of a dream he had about all the victims killed by the men he's put away. You leave the scene feeling what these men are all about in relation to the other and it's quite wonderful to see.

"Heat" stands above many of the other modern genre films made today, mainly because Michael Mann has a certain respect for this material. He takes equal time with the criminals and the police to see what makes them tick. Mann of course would come back to this type of film time and again with "Collateral", "Miami Vice", and "Public Enemies". You can sense there is a type of obsession with Mann not unlike Neil and Vincent in this film, and something like that is quite admirable. It takes a very special filmmaker to take a crime movie and make it quite beautiful.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

2010-10-08T11:35:00.001-07:00

"The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly" is a great film for many reasons, for me, it's a film that I'm hypnotized to each time I see it on television, it belongs with one of those great action yarns of the 60s with charismatic stars such as "The Great Escape", "Cool Hand Luke", or "The Dirty Dozen". You get sucked into its somewhat simple plot just because it has one of those irresistible stories: three greedy desperate men each know a secret to a buried treasure and will do anything to get to it first.

The idea of this film leads to an inevitable conclusion where these three desperate men must face eachother in perhaps the greatest showdown in cinematic history.

What makes this film stand above all its contemporaries and all its imitators is it's something of pure style, made by the master of the craft Sergio Leone. Leone only made six films, but each of them are visceral exercises of violence, and love of the movies. It's no wonder a filmmaker like Quentin Tarantino chose "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" as one of his favorite films.

The film starts off with a long epilogue to introduce the three main characters; we first meet "The Ugly" Tuco played by Eli Wallach a rat faced killer who is probably the most desperate of them all to get the money. Then there's "The Bad", Angel Eyes played by Lee Van Cleef, he's the usual suspect to show up in westerns wearing the black hat and someone who goes through life without a conscience. Then we meet "The Good" played by Clint Eastwood, he's "The Man with no name" character who appeared in two previous Leone films "A Fistful of Dollars" and "For a Few Dollars More". His name isn't given although Tuco often calls him Blondie. Blondie is by no means the hero with a heart of gold, but in Leone's west, he is the closest to good you come by, he shows evidence of compassion, but he leads his life with a somewhat cynical look at the world, something he has carried with him throughout all three Leone pictures.

At the start of the picture we see Blondie and Tuco working together. Tuco is a wanted man and Blondie is a bounty hunter who turns him in to collect the reward. When Tuco is about the be hanged, Blondie shoots him down and the two ride off and split the money. Each time Tuco escapes, his ransom increases, but once he gets to $3000, Blondie decides to part company and leaves Tuco without any money and a horse, so he exacts revenge.

Tuco soon catches up with Blondie and takes him as a prisoner, his plan is to watch him die a slow painful death in the dessert, but fate takes a hand when they are interrupted by a runaway stagecoach where a dying man tells of a buried treasure hidden in a cemetery. Tuco overhears the name of the cemetery, but when he is distracted, Blondie overhears the name of the grave it's buried in. Without one man trusting the other with his own secret, the two are stuck together until they can find the treasure.

Meanwhile Angel Eyes is conducting his own investigation and he too knows of the treasure, it isn't soon till he catches up with Tuco and Blondie.

"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", came at a time when the western genre was at a transition. Leone pretty much revitalized the genre along with Sam Peckinpah. Their image of the west was no longer stuff of legend like the ones of John Ford or Howard Hawks. The lines of who's good and who's bad in these films become blurred. Although, it says in the title, who's supposed to be good, bad, and ugly, Leone doesn't really leave it that black and white. Tuco gets much of our sympathy, although he's a ruthless killer, Leone gives a scene with his brother who became a monk. The idea that one brother became a bandit while another one a man of the cloth was not an original idea, yet Leone along with Wallach's performance (which should've gotten a nomination) give pathos to Tuco, and we are able to realize that he's not all that bad. Leone isn't as sympathetic to Angel Eyes, yet I suppose a film like this needs the usual villain.

The film is also one made by a man who enjoys the movies, Leone obviously loved the American westerns particularly the ones of John Ford with his use of vast open spaces. He was the forerunner for people like Tarantino who's own encyclopedia knowledge of movie history would become part of his cinema. That's not saying Leone was completely unoriginal, on the contrary. Look at the final shoot out which is a perfectly choreographed mini-movie in itself. It starts off slowly where the men get into position, perfectly composed in frame. The camera soon gets tighter into each man's faces, with the editing switching fiercely from their eyes to their guns. Leone knows exactly when the payoff should happen. The sequence is remarkably long, probably longer than it would be in real life, it's one of the great moments in cinema. A sequence like that has been copied before and we think of that as a Leone moment.

Sergio Leone was a supreme master of cinema, unfortunately he only lived to make six films, five of them in the western genre. The sixth one was a gangster saga "Once Upon a Time in America" and was probably his most complex story. With each film, Leone's characters and stories became darker, he was growing as an artist each time, it's a shame his career was cut short, but for a man who only had six films, those are some six.

"The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" was also the last film he made with star and muse Clint Eastwood, a man who's character had few words and who's face stood motionless was is probably what attracted the great director to the actor. Eastwood would come out being a huge star/director in his own right and dedicating his masterpiece "Unforgiven" in part to Leone. It's hard to wonder where the two men would be without the other. "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" is a testament between a star and director who were a match made in heaven.

Movie Review: The Social Network

2010-10-05T20:42:00.000-07:00

I wasn't sure if it was just me, but there are two moments in David Fincher's "The Social Network", where the conversation between two people becomes somewhat distorted with noise from the movie's soundtrack. This happens in the two scenes with Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) and his soon to be ex/ex girl friend Erica (Rooney Mara). The conversations take place in large public areas, where many people are talking all at once, and loud music is blasting through. Much is said between these two highly intellectual people from different wave-lengths, yet there isn't any feeling of connection.

In "The Social Network", we are meant to believe that this lack of connection Mark feels for his girlfriend is what sets him off to create Facebook, the social scene in the silicon Valley age.

Mark as played by Eisenberg and written by Aaron Sorkin, is a computer prodigy, he lacks the social skills he so desperately wants, yet as some sort of revenge, creates his own social network in his computer in a way he fully understands.

I was hooked in "The Social Network" right from the get-go, to me it is the most entertaining movie I've seen all year. It has a brisk pace that keeps its rythm all the way through without missing a beat. The dialogue is bright and witty, and the acting is done to perfection.

The film, is of course about the creation of Facebook and rather about the time we live in now, to be more specific, the time America lives in now. Mark Zuckerberg in this film has been compared to Charles Foster Kane in the way he's blinded by ambition, but it doesn't make him a bad guy, in fact I found myself rooting for him at time.

Mark is a brilliant guy, who came up with a brilliant idea, yet to say that the idea was entirely his might not be exactly accurate, the film does a nice job in deconstructing the founding of Facebook, and by doing that we get the sense at the kind of guy Mark Zuckerberg was.

We first meet Mark on that fateful date with his girlfriend, which prompts him to go back to his Harvard dorm room, and write nasty things about her on his blog. As sort of a prank, he and his roommates create a site on their computer that rates the "hotness" of different girls on campus. He gets into trouble, but his actions sets off the idea of Facebook in motion.

Mark meets the Winklevoss twins (both played by Armie Hammer), who give him the idea of creating a social network exclusively for Harvard people. Mark then creates a partnership with his best and only friend Eduardo (Andrew Garfield) and makes him CFO of a new website he calls "The Facebook".

The film goes back and forth in time cross cutting between a lawsuit Mark has between the Winklevoss twins, and with Eduardo who sued him in real life. What the film does get across very well was even if Mark should've shared the credit to these people, he was the one with the ambition to see it go big. He gets some help from Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), the man behind Nabster who shows him what Facebook could be.

In the middle of it all we get the sense that Mark isn't interested in the money at all, he does feel this was his idea, he wants the credit. The tragedy of the film comes with the fact that in the end, he's still the same guy he was in the beginning, he can't quite connect with people on a personal level. The real Mark Zuckerberg may not be like that at all, how are we to know, the point is, it makes for a very fascinating character study.

"The Social Network" is a film that I think works on all four cylinders, when you have this much talent, it's hard to see how it could fail. The collaboration between Fincher and Sorkin, sometimes reminded me of Howard Hawks and Ben Hecht. That might've had something to do with the pacing, the rapid fire dialogue, if there were more women in the picture you'd swear this were some sort of screwball comedy.

At times, I did long for more of a female voice, particularly because the Rooney Mara character was so compelling the few scenes she was in, yet I understood that she had to stay distant from Mark in order for the film to work.

I would say "The Social Network" is David Fincher's most accomplished film, he actually may not be getting much of the credit here seeing that this is an Aaron Sorkin screenplay, which has been taking most notice. But watch what Fincher does with these heavy dialogue scenes, sometimes they just show two people sitting at the table talking. Take the seen between Timberlake and Eisenberg in a club, and how he shows Timberlake's character almost menacing in the lights flashing on him.

Much should be said of the editing between people. It sometimes becomes a juggling act, but it pays off really well each time. There is a scene where Eduardo is confronting Mark over the phone about freezing his accounts, meanwhile his crazy girlfriend is setting fire to his bed. Not a beat is missed, and it gives for a great comedic payoff in the end.

"The Social Network" to me is a film with a pulse, you know it's there, you can't take your eyes off it, each frame and piece of dialogue is alive, I was lead out of a stupor and taken in to see something vibrant on the screen, I can't wait to see it again.

Mulholland Drive

2010-10-02T20:38:00.000-07:00

To me, a film like David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" is a great film because it does what movies do better than any other art form. It's a film for the sense, not necessarily for the analytical purposes, or for people with literate minds. This is a film that puts you through a maze, I don't think it can be ever figured out, but it rewards with each viewing no matter what.

There is a plot of "Mulholland Drive", and according to Lynch who wrote and directed it, it can be followed. Lynch seems to have fun with his films where he leaves everything open to interpretation.

The history of "Mulholland Drive" has been well documented by Lynchophiles alike; it started out as a television pilot for ABC, but the network dropped it after seeing the final cut. Lynch went back to the drawing board and decided the idea could be made into a feature film. While the pilot was left open-ended, Lynch was able to find a solution that could easily be best described as dreamed up...probably.

The film is a Hollywood story and follows a young wide-eyed girl named Betty (Naomi Watts) who moves to the town from Canada to be an actress. She takes up residence in her Aunts lavish apartment and hoping to land it big. But when Betty gets to the apartment, she's surprised to discover Rita (Laura Harring), a woman who has survived a car accident but has lost her memory. The only evidence to her old identity happens to be a bunch of money that is found in her purse. Betty decides to help Rita find out who she really is.

There are other forces at play here involving a film director (Justin Theroux) who is being intimidated by a group of mystery men to cast an unknown actress for the lead role in an important movie he's making. There is also a hitman (Mark Pellegreno) who discovers a mysterious black book that might be related to Rita; a strange looking cowboy, and a strange looking creature/homeless man living in an alley of a Winkies restaurant, and he might hold the key to the whole mystery, yet what do we know.

About two thirds into the way of "Mulholland Drive", there is a dramatic shift, after Betty and Rita visit a theatre where everything is recorded and we are told by the master of ceremonies what we see is an illusions. Suddenly things change and Watts and Harring become two completely different characters.

You can question the plot of "Mulholland Drive" all you want, I find it interesting that Lynch has opened the door to many different variations, you could come out with a different interpretation each time you view it. For many, the film is an allegory for stardom in Hollywood, and it's Lynch's cynical view of the movie making business. That could be part of the story, seeing how one of Lynch's favorite films is Billy Wilder's "Sunset BLVD." which is also a film about broken dreams in Hollywood, but the film leaves it much more open than just that. Lynch uses cinema as a sensory experience, and while sometimes this leaves the viewer in the dark, it's a radical change of pace to linear storytelling.

Lynch seems to sometimes be working in a stream of consciousness, where he doesn't care if what he is showing makes sense, his images and pure atmosphere usually remain so powerful that it makes for a purely satisfying cinematic experience. One of the problems I had with Christopher Nolan's "Inception" was how it was a film that was trying to remain abstract yet not letting go of audience expectations. Thus, "Inception" became a film about dreams with rules, David Lynch works without rules, he knows that dreams sometimes don't make sense, and sometimes movies don't have to either. I suppose it's a matter of taste with a director like Nolan and a director like Lynch, however I much prefer to be kept in the dark a bit and making up my own mind about what I am seeing.

"Mulholland Drive" is one of David Lynch's cinematic masterpieces, and perhaps his most enjoyable and satisfying. I love returning to it because each time it's like watching a different film, and each time I feel closer to unlocking its secrets, until later, when I realize the secret is part of what makes it great.