PINOCCHIO (1940)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Adventure / Animated / Fantasy / Musical

Director: Hamilton Luske / Ben Sharpsteen

Cast: Dickie Jones / Cliff Edwards / Christian Rubb

Plot

Given life by a fairy, marionette boy Pinocchio dreams of becoming a real boy, but first must prove himself worthy by showing he can be good and honest.

What I Liked

I can’t help but marvel at the thought of how many people had to work to put together a movie like this in 1940.  I hesitate to use the word sensuous to describe a children’s movie for fear that the term’s true meaning be misconstrued.  However “Pinocchio” is absolutely a delight for the senses.  Lushly painted and imaginative settings, wonderfully drawn characters, exciting action, and one absolutely classic song after another keep this film a genuine spectacle more than seventy years after its release.  CGI and computer animation have their benefits, but for sheer beauty and grandeur, not many animated children’s adventures to this day could compete with this, one of Disney’s greatest triumphs.

Maybe more important to its longstanding success than even the visuals and songs are the irresistible characters.  It may be corny to say it, but Pinocchio, Jiminy Cricket, and Geppetto are all so vibrant and happy-go-lucky that their enthusiasm for life just becomes infectious.

As for the music, well it's tough to think of another musical in which every single song became a standard.  “When You Wish Upon a Star” debuted here.  You’d be hard pressed to think of a movie song that tops it in terms of melody and beauty.  “Somewhere Over the Rainbow,” maybe.  If you ask me, for visuals and music combined, the “I’ve Got No Strings” sequence is an even more enjoyable moment.  Care-free and wonderfully innocent, Pinocchio’s on-stage romp is not only fun to watch, it is a marvelous little piece of technical animation as well. And oh yeah,  "Always Let You Conscience Be Your Guide" is here too.

By the way, a bunch of kids sitting around smoking, drinking, and playing pool in a kids’ Disney movie?  They don’t make ‘em like this anymore.  Uptight moms everywhere would collectively implode with indignation.

What I Didn’t Like

“Pinocchio” certainly has an overall innocence to it that just comes across as badly outdated when looked at with too much of a critical eye.  But who cares?  Honestly, the goofy over-sentimentality and aww-shucks enthusiasm is really all part of the fun.

I’m not a huge fans of musicals or overly-sentimental movies, but I can’t in good conscience find a single thing here worth criticizing.

Most Memorable Scene

The entire ocean sequence, from Pinocchio’s thrilling dive off of a cliff to the underwater stroll to Monstro the Whale’s freight train charge are all absolutely stunning.  Don’t let the underwater sequence pass you by without pausing to remember that this was only the second feature-length animated film ever made (after “Snow White”).  There may be a lot about the bubbly-voices, friendly fish, and hazy visuals that seem cliché for underwater animation now.  But in “Pinocchio” all of these ideas were unprecedented and the filmmakers’ display of them impressive enough to become definitive.

My Rating: 5 out of 5

PATHS OF GLORY (1957)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama / War

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Cast: Kirk Douglas / George Macready / Adolphe Menjou

Plot

 Three innocent French soldiers are court martialed as scapegoats following a disastrous World War I battle.

What I Liked

A tragedy-laden indictment on the hypocrisy, corruption, and absurdity inherent in war politics, “Paths of Glory” feels far ahead of its time as a scathing anti-war movie made at the height of McCarthyism.  Part of that feeling comes from the casting of Kirk Douglas in the lead as the Colonel ordered to send his men to certain death and then the only man willing to defend them against unjust persecution.  Douglas was of course one of the great manly heroes of this era in American film, world famous for his portrayals of ultra-masculine adventurers, cowboys, and soldiers.  Going into this one, the viewer would expect a similar no-questions-asked, patriotic war film.  Yet, in “Paths of Glory,” Douglas plays a different sort of hero in a more thoughtful film that questions the pre-packaged representations of bravery idealized in some of his previous films.  To see Spartacus championing men put on trial for cowardice certainly heightens the sense of duplicity and irrationality that pervades the movie, start to finish.

Douglas’s hero is given a perfect foil in George Macready’s portrayal of the absolutely despicable General Mireau, who endows the character with enough snobbish egotism to compete with any Disney villain, yet somehow avoids going so over the top as to render the General unbelievable.  The battle, courtroom, and prison scenes may be fraught with terror and tragedy, but those scenes featuring meetings between the military officers surpass all other scenes for the horror they display in the sheer ignorance and evil displayed.

Director Stanley Kubrick’s mastery of all facets of this film is total.  The quest of herded soldiers on a suicide mission across a post-apocalyptic no-man’s-land of barbed wire, corpses, and exploding shells feels like genuine stock footage smuggled out of Hell.  These nightmare visions are contrasted perfectly with depictions of the officers’ world of heavenly splendor and safety amid vast drawing rooms, chateaus, and ballroom.  It’s that kind of incongruity that makes the film work.  One feels guilty laughing at the ludicrousness of a General giving platitude filled pep talks to shell-shocked soldiers while bombs and gunfire erupt just over their heads.  But that’s clearly the filmmakers’ point.  It’s all so illogical that it would be hilarious if it weren’t so damn sad.

       

    

What I Disliked

One could make the case that officers in general are treated unfairly by this picture.  Certainly not all officers are as sadistic or corrupt as General Mireau and his cronies.  “Paths of Glory” may question pre-conceived notions of bravery and cowardice.  But few movies have such an obvious dichotomy of good and evil.  There are very good guys here and very bad guys and nothing in between.  All of the good guys are grunt soldiers and all of the bad guys (with the exception of Douglas’ Colonel) are officers.  Some moral complexity would not only make the film more interesting, I would think it would be a more accurate depiction as well.

Most Memorable Scene

There are some shockingly (for the 50s) gory flashes of grenade-blackened and decapitated corpses that show Kubrick wasn’t willing to pull any punches in a quest for what later generations would call hyper-realism.  Yet the most moving scenes are those of the soldiers standing, leaning, and crouching silently in those claustrophobic trenches.  There’s no action, no dialogue, just the gritty black and white footage of men lined up for the slaughter, shot with Kubrick’s documentarian-like eye for authenticity.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

KIPPUR (2000)

Country: Israel

Genre(s): War

Director: Amos Gitai

Cast: Liron Levo / Tomer Russo / Uri Klauzner

Plot

A helicopter rescue team spends the Yom Kippur War transporting the dead and wounded, witnessing first-hand the horrors of war.

What I Liked

Apparently director Amos Gitai got his start as a documentary filmmaker.  Watching “Kippur,” that does not surprise me at all.  A dramatized film based on his own experiences in the Yom Kippur war, the film’s greatness lies in the utterly convincing realism Gitai brings to it. Watching it, there is definitely the sense that the characters, places, and events not only did happen but are happening in real time before your eyes.  The clothing, the hair styles, the military paraphernalia, the characters, even the film it is shot on, feel flawlessly authentic to the time, place, and situation.

That the film feels like a matter-of-fact documentary is not to say that it doesn’t have a very clear sense of style and art behind it.  Gitai makes sparing use of the musical soundtrack, heightening the intimacy and documentary-like feel of the film.  Most of the background sound is pure noise: engines, gunfire, bombs, helicopters.  However, when he does use the music, it comes with a subtle yet important emotional effect.  With an eerie, atonal sound, the music brings an otherworldly feel to some of the happenings on screen, particularly toward the end as the helicopter crew fly above the wartorn, lifeless landscape of their homeland.  It’s a foreboding depiction of war’s inhumanity and certainly one of the film’s most memorable moments.  Throughout the film, Gitai brilliantly captures the claustrophobia and dehumanization of the war, as bodies are stacked upon bodies, living and dead in the helicopters, transports, and in the camera.  Even the opening and closing sex scenes, are just a lot of grinding flesh pressed upon more grinding flesh.  It ain’t pretty, but that’s the point.

What I Didn’t Like

 Definitely not the feel good movie of any year, “Kippur” is certainly not meant to be.  Don’t come into to this movie looking to feel inspired or thrilled with adventure and heroism.  In fact there’s very little of traditional action fare here.  Through most of the movie, the main characters are driving around in a car, talking, flying around in a helicopter, or collecting casualties from battles that have already happened.  For some, this film will be either a downer or a snoozer or both, but, as someone who truly went through the things we see on the screen, I’m sure part of Gitai’s goal was not to glorify war or make it seem exciting at all.

Most Memorable Scene

Surely the most emotionally effective scene of the whole thing takes place as the rescue crew find themselves trying to pull a dying soldier out of the mire of a horribly torn up battlefield.  With tanks prowling the background like mammoth demons, the crew becomes immersed in a pit of mud.  In as real and frightening a depiction of Sisyphean hell as you will ever see, they continually falter and drop the injured man back into the quagmire until it is they who need to be rescued both physically and mentally.  Devoid of gore or flash, it is nonetheless one of the most horrific and emotionally torturous war scenes you will ever see.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

MY FAIR LADY (1964)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy / Musical / Romance

Director: George Cukor

Cast: Audrey Hepburn / Rex Harrison / Stanley Holloway

Plot
Wealthy Professor Higgins takes in poor Eliza Doolittle from the streets, intending to teach her to speak proper English, and become a renowned English lady.

What I Liked

“My Fair Lady” melds the sentimentality of Hollywood musicals, the charm of stage plays, and the amazement of the best motion picture epics into an impressive treat for the senses.  There are the requisite memorable melodies and several entertaining performances, but the real stars of the show are the sets and costumes.  Shot nearly half a century ago, the colors remain potent, the costumes iconic, and the many sets as impressive as any sound stage production I’ve ever seen.  Whether we’re in the bustling, dingy streets, the immaculate well-to-do neighborhoods, or a majestic ballroom, the craftsmanship and artistry invested in the settings are on a level usually reserved for the most extravagant of historical epics.  They turn turn-of-the-century London into a delightful and romantic fantasy land that would make Walt Disney jealous.

Speaking of animated, outdoing stars Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison for charm is Stanley Holloway as Hepburn’s drunken father, Alfred Doolittle.  Typically I’m not one for the entirely unrealistic portrayals of alcoholics as lovable scamps, which is exactly what happens here.  That’s one cliché that can’t have based on any truth at all.  However, Holloway is just so damn irresistible in his vivacity and bravado.  He steals every scene he’s in, makes amusing use of the sets he performs in, and generally pulls out all the stops in bringing fun to a movie that needs it.

Compared to co-stars Hepburn and Holloway, Rex Harrison turns in a decidedly understated performance with a subdued but very present charm of his own.  Almost speaking rather than singing his songs, his performance is more natural and believable than anyone else in the film.  He is convincing as self-centered Professor Higgins, and his awestruck perplexity at Eliza’s behavior provides a great deal of the movie’s comedic strength.

What I Didn’t Like

As for Audrey Hepburn herself... well, she was simply okay.  Of course she is lovely and her look in the film is as iconic as looks get.  But beyond her pretty face, she didn’t have much here.  Early on she’s annoyingly over-the-top with her bestial screaming.  We get it, you lack manners.  That doesn’t mean you have to be a harpy with a Cockney accent.  When she is finally tamed by Higgins (not really a spoiler, is it?) she’s just plain boring.  Hepburn never seemed to find a likable middle for her character, or maybe it just wasn’t written.  Regardless, I thought her male counterparts outshined her, in performance if not looks.

Beautiful the film may be, but the fact is that, generally speaking, I am just not a fan of musicals.  At nearly three hours in length, this one in particular was hard to get through.  I don’t know how many starts and stops it took me to get through this one.  Unfortunately I just find nearly ever movie of this genre boring, even the best of them.

It might have helped if, for all of its production values, the film had a little more complex choreography.  When combined with effective camera use, intricate and interesting movements is one thing I admire about a good musical.  There wasn’t much of any of that here.

Most Memorable Scene

“Get Me to the Church on Time” is one of two musical numbers where Holloway is allowed to shine and the one where he is the most brilliant.  The lovable drunk character is turned into something of a Bacchus, a resplendent god of debauchery, glowing with joy.  Mr. Doolittle lives the life he loves and loves the life he lives and those of us watching have a great time doing that.  It's not the best song of the lot ("The Street Where You Live" is) and I may not like the concept of a drunk being vivacious and charismatic, but Holloway and filmmakers make me forget all criticism and just enjoy the entertainment.  I find that extremely rare in a musical.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

LAST TANGO IN PARIS (1972)

A.K.A.: Ultimo tango a Parigi

Country: France

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Bernardo Bertolucci

Cast: Marlon Brando / Maria Schneider / Jean-Pierre Leaud

 

Plot

Weary of the superficial world around them, two lonely people begin an anonymous and loveless sexual affair hidden away in an abandoned apartment to which they both have a key.

What I Liked

Given its reputation for pushing the boundaries of sex scenes in a major motion picture, “Last Tango in Paris” is surprisingly un-erotic; and that’s clearly intentional.   The scenes are shot very matter-of-factly.  There’s no sexy lighting, coloring, or camera angles, no outlandish locales, positions, or scenarios.  Just very straight-forward shots of people fucking on the floor of a mostly empty apartment.  It is not the director’s intention to make the viewer feel like a participant in the sex, nor to make him want to be.  Instead the sex is presented as though it were part of a documentary, or a medical or psychological study.  So if the sex isn't used to titilate, it's used to invoke something else entirely.

More loathing than lust, the sex here is done as part of a cycle of personal turmoil and anger in which both participants were trapped long before they met.  In the case of the female participant, Jeanne, portrayed with finesse and believability by relative upstart Maria Schneider, the relationship offers the closest thing to truth and honesty she knows, which ends up being why she cannot seem to break herself of the habit.  Her fiancé, obsessed with making a film and with becoming what society expects of him, wants to make her part of his artificial world but has no clue what she wants or who she is, nor does he care.  So she fancies herself in love with Marlon Brando’s male lead, Paul, who really is nothing more than a lonely misogynist.  Eventually his capacity for hate and violence destroys all that’s good in her.  Sexy but vulnerable, Schneider plays this role with the subtlety and art that co-star Brando lacks.

What I Didn’t Like

Much has been made of Marlon Brando’s performance.  Apparently he improvised a great deal in this film, something he did with greater frequency as he got older, more egotistical, and lazier.   Brando was a magnificent, groundbreaking actor, it’s true.  But I found that in “Last Tango in Paris” he overindulges himself in playing the depressed, sadistic, and contempt-filled Paul.  The character has been called misogynistic, but I feel this is a misnomer.  Paul hates everyone, male or female, and Brando portrays this part well, effectively coming off as a hulking, demonic beast, a permanent Mr. Hyde.  The problem is that the character just isn’t believable as a real human being.  If you ask me, Brando may have had the more interesting character, but it was Schneider who stole the movie from him with her down-to-earth performance.

Beyond that, watching two people engage in a self-destructive relationship seems to be the only point of the film.  True, it explores the self-destructive nature of people in general, but it does so in a way that is neither interesting or engaging.  I just didn’t feel like I had learned, gained, or enjoyed anything (aside from Schneider’s looks) by watching this movie.  Even Paris, universally regarded as one of the most beautiful and erotic cities in the world, is rendered lifeless and boring (intentionally) by Bertolucci.

Most Memorable Scene

The finger-in-the-ass and the butter-rape scenes are the most notorious moments of “Last Tango in Paris,” but for me the most interesting scenes were those Schneider shared with Jean-Pierre Leaud in the role of her fiancé, Tom.  Tom’s insistence on building a world of lifeless artifice around himself and Jeanne and her hesitation to break out of that mold is the cause of her obsession with being violated and degraded by Paul.  From a psychological standpoint, the Jeanne-Tom relationship brings a depth to the film that fleshes out the otherwise pointless victimization that goes on between Paul and Jeanne.

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5

REDS (1981)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama / Epic / Romance

Director: Warren Beatty

Cast: Warren Beatty / Diane Keaton / Jack Nicholson

Plot

Leftist journalists Jack Reed and Louise Bryant live out a tumultuous romance while documenting and participating in the political turmoil surrounding World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the rise of the U.S.S.R.

What I Liked

*spoiler alert*

The history of motion pictures reflects a fascination with the Russian Revolution, and certainly obsession with the subjects of communism, patriotism, and capitalism.  Since the development of the movies as an art form and industry happened in the same years as the Revolution and the consequent decades of socialist vs. capitalist struggle, it’s not surprising that motion pictures are drawn to these issues.  Some of these films are quality, some are shit, but nearly all make a clear and definitive stand on one side of the argument or the other.  From “Battleship Potemkin”  to “Animal Farm” to “Red Dawn,” filmmakers have used the same political struggle to create rallying cries for their chosen side and one-sided indictments of the opposition.  Warren Beatty’s “Reds” is likely the best movie I’ve seen to take on these themes simply for showing the failures of both systems.

Of course the title and the fact that its main characters are leftists would have one who has never seen the film think that it is yet another one-sided piece of propaganda, idealizing communism and making martyrs out of radicals.  Certainly the film is sympathetic to its heroes and their cause.  However, “Reds” also has plenty of criticism for the Soviets and their government.  Some might be surprised to see that John Reed’s transformation from journalist to politician to propagandist is portrayed not as ideal but as tragedy, as his hopes for the burgeoning U.S.S.R. are dashed and his passion for change betrays him.  Ultimately, the film is about two staunch individualists trying to get along not only with one another but with a world that despises individualism.

The politics of the film aside, “Reds” is really magnificent storytelling and engaging entertainment at its best.  Some of the finest and most charismatic actors ever to grace a movie screen work together here to bring us likeable, interesting, and believable characters.  They are brilliant and romantic but never idealized, never above selfishness, hypocrisy, and hurting one another.  They are beautifully blemished souls populating a huge and fascinating historical backdrop.  Peppering this tale are real life interviews with the men and women who knew Reed and Bryant.  These interviews are woven seamlessly into the story, sometimes anecdotal, other times charming, and always thought-provoking in their assessment of the real people as well as of the subjectivity of human memory.  Epic in scale, energized with passion, and honest in vision, “Reds” is as satisfying as the movies get.

What I Didn’t Like

Truly, I can’t find a flaw with this movie.  I suppose it isn’t exactly revolutionary in execution, breaking no new ground in technique or art, but it is nonetheless impeccably executed.  Some may find its more than three hours in length daunting, but not me.  The time flew by.  Indeed I never felt like I was a viewer of a movie, but rather a witness to fascinating people and events.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert*

Interestingly, no one moment sticks out above the others for me.  They were all intriguing and entertaining.  However, in the interest of continuing to pick a scene, I’ll go with the moment capture in the film’s poster, the reunion of Jack and Louise after spending years questing after one another and being forbidden each other’s company because of the paranoia and bureaucracy of competing nations.  Betrayed by the world around them and ignoring the constant threats to their lives, they refuse to abandon each other and, when they do eventually find each other again, all of the film’s emotions culminate in an exhausted but adoring embrace.  You'll either be fighting back tears or outright bawling.

My Rating: 5 out of 5