THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE (1962)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Western

Director: John Ford

Cast: James Stewart / John Wayne / Lee Marvin

Plot

A U.S. Senator returns to the Western town where he made his reputation and reveals the long-hidden secret behind his legendary rivalry with the dangerous killer Liberty Valance.

What I Liked

Much has been made about the moral complexity of “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” and with good reason.  Much like “The Searchers” (also directed by John Ford) this film pulls back at least some of the curtain of myth and simplicity presented in the Hollywood Westerns that preceded it.  In fact, it is sort of a precursor to the more mature Westerns to come, such as “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” and “The Assassination of Jesse James,” in which the heroes of the films are incapable of living up to the legends surrounding them.  Also like in those other two films, this one represents the American West at a bittersweet moment in history, when the Old West (represented by John Wayne’s Tom Doniphan) was beginning to give way to the coming of law and order (represented by Jimmy Stewart’s Ransom Stoddard).  Wayne’s mythological cowboy hero, as a man who is his own law, is on the fast track to obsolete and realizes it.  Yet the entire film, from start to finish, laments the loss of the old ways, even as it recognizes the necessity of the new.  In short, thanks to Ford’s ever-maturing approach to the Western, there’s more underlying complexity in “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” than in the vast majority of the Hollywood Westerns that preceded it.

What I Didn’t Like

For all that it challenged, the movie still needed to remain viable box office entertainment for the masses.  That meant adhering to certain preconceived notions held by the film-going audience of its era.  The big name actors all stick pretty much to the types we’re used to seeing from them.  Stewart is the wide-eyed crusader who is honest to a fault.  Wayne is the brawny man of action.  Lee Marvin is a tough-talking, violent badass.  And Andy Devine is the comic relief, a well-meaning buffoon.  One could see all that as perfect casting, but in a film that questions so much about American myth-making, it would have been nice to see these major stars break from their own myths.  Visually, the film still exhibits much of the silliness that was commonplace in Westerns of the period.  The streets and people are all too clean; the clothing and sets too new looking.  “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend” says a character in the film.  It’s the most famous line of the movie and the sentiment informs the entire film, thematically.  In the case of “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” there’s still much more legend than fact; and, in the early 1960's, audiences were absolutely fine with that.

Most Memorable Scene

Jimmy Stewart’s character gets a not-so-warm welcome from Liberty Valance and his gang early in the film.  It’s a rude awakening for Stewart as to what he’s up against with his arrival in the West and introduces the conflict that will define his character’s arc through the rest of the film.  It’s all surprisingly violent and sadistic for a film of the period.  It is a nice grab for the viewer’s attention after a fairly drawn-out and dull prologue.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

ORDINARY PEOPLE (1980)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Robert Redford

Cast: Timothy Hutton / Donald Sutherland / Mary Tyler Moore

Plot

Troubled by a tragedy from the past, the members of an otherwise normal suburban family struggle to cope with their loss and relate to one another.

What I Liked

So apparently there’s still anger among certain cinephiles that “Ordinary People” beat out “Raging Bull” for the Best Picture Oscar.  While Scorsese is my favorite director and “Raging Bull” is regarded as one of his undisputed masterpieces, I have to say, I do kind of get why “Ordinary People” was picked.  As a fan of Marty, DeNiro and boxing, the visual character study of Jake LaMotta will always be more entertaining for me, but “Raging Bull” relies so much on shock value and style that it can at times feel as overbearing and brutish as its subject.  Meanwhile, “Ordinary People” is a much more subtle film that is strongest in its moments of silence and simplicity.

To put it another way, “Ordinary People” was far less flashy than “Raging Bull” and dealt with some truths that many viewers might have still feel hit unnervingly close to home.  It is a film that deals largely with what goes unsaid, the conflict played out in frightened stares, nervous gestures, and uncomfortable silences.  That description might make it seem boring, but I personally could not stop watching the movie, thanks to a perfectly paced script with well-rendered, relatable characters.

The fact that every actor with a speaking part is perfectly cast and plays their role flawlessly certainly helps the film retain its intense emotional impact more than thirty years after its release.  In fact, to me, the great Oscar travesty that year was not that this movie beat out “Raging Bull” for Best Picture, but that Timothy Hutton was forced to settle for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar.  Hutton’s character, the anxiety-ridden and depressed teenager Conrad Jarrett is absolutely the main character of the story and Hutton gets far more screen time than either of the more famous people who got top billing in the film (Mary Tyler Moore and Donald Sutherland).  So how exactly did Hutton get demoted to being a supporting actor in the eyes of the Academy?  It is really his career-making performance that is the crux of the film’s plot, conflict, and emotional resonance.

What I Didn’t Like

Particularly when viewed all these years later, with psychology and dysfunctional families very familiar themes in American pop culture, “Ordinary People” never feels particularly original, at least not on the surface.  Even with its title, the filmmakers rely on a movie convention that was already cliché by 1980: the secrets haunting a seemingly perfect suburban neighborhood/household and the myth of “normalcy.”  Charles Laughton, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kramer, Mike Nichols, and John Carpenter had all mined similar themes in various ways previously.  But none did so with the touching realism and absence of ego that director Robert Redford accomplishes here.  His movie is the epitome of substance over style.

Some of the scenes involving Conrad meeting his psychiatrist (played by Judd Hirsch) also now feel a bit silly, full of overacting and cliché confrontations that might have very well felt poignant back in 1980.  The prevalence of therapy as a plot device in film means that these scenes don’t feel as special today as they might have then.

Most Memorable Scene

Hutton’s lunch meeting with an old friend from the hospital has much of that unspoken conflict I mentioned earlier.  There’s a great deal that is revealed here about Conrad here without much being said.  Here are two old friends meeting one another again, separated by time and distance from where they had first come to know one another.  The circumstances of their pasts and their own personal problems prove too strong for either one of them to break through so that they can once again communicate with one another the way they used to.  This movie if filled with tragic failures to communicate, but this one will prove the most tragic of all.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

CARRIE (1976)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Horror

Director: Brian De Palma

Cast: Sissy Spacek / Piper Laurie / Betty Buckley

Plot

Shy social outcast Carrie White struggles to understand and control her telekinetic abilities as the high school prom approaches.

What I Liked

*spoiler alert*

My above plot description doesn’t really do justice to the complexity and uniqueness of “Carrie.”  Loaded with underlying commentary about everything from religion, puberty and conformity to parenthood, sexuality, and suburbia, this is one of those movies that can be too easily overlooked as cheap shock value when it is in fact one of the most mature and multi-faceted horror films I have ever seen.

One of the best things about “Carrie” is that the film breaks so many conventions of the horror genre and yet its status as a supreme example of that genre is undeniable.  Take a look at other top horror films of the 1970s (for example, “The Exorcist,” “Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” and “Halloween”) and you’ll find some elements in common.  The killer is the villain.  The protagonist is pursued by, but ultimately escapes from, evil. Frights, shocks, and deaths abound, from start to finish.  None of these apply to “Carrie.”  Here the title character is the only killer, and yet the true villains are her shallow, bullying classmates, who become her victims.  Likewise, our protagonist is the one, ultimately, from whom everyone else must run.  And, most interestingly, the film is almost devoid of the standard horror shock value until its infamous climax (which certainly makes up for lost time).  Until then, we are simply watching a suburban (if supernatural) teen drama.  This isn’t to say there aren’t many hallmarks of horror still present.  The ignorant but well-meaning adults; the religious themes; the focus on sex and sexuality; they’re all very familiar elements (clichés, even) of horror.

Despite its lack of obvious shock elements, “Carrie” is nonetheless haunting from start to finish in large part thanks to Sissy Spacek’s devastating performance.  She conjures up so much feeling from and for her character through the eerie combination of vulnerability and rage that she brings to Carrie, that the movie feels like horror the whole time, without much scary taking place on screen but one actor’s total mastery of her character.  Mentions should also be made of Piper Laurie who is plenty scary as Carrie’s religious zealot mother.

What I Didn’t Like
*spoiler alert*

There’s not much to complain about.  Perhaps one could say the movie is a little slow compared to what a modern horror viewer might expect, but I didn’t feel that slowness at all.  This is just one of those movies which can hypnotize the viewer through its mood and characters.

The only part of the movie that bothers me when watching it is the ending.  Not the whole high-school-gym-bloodbath part.  Love that.  It’s most of what follows.  Mom being stabbed in a position to look like she’s Christ crucified.  The Fall of the House of Usher collapse.  The silly rise-from-the-grave dream sequence at the conclusion.  In a matter of the few closing minutes, director Brian De Palma and screenwriter Lawrence Cohen cave to silliness and cliché, cheapening an otherwise flawless film.

Most Memorable Scene

No contest here.  Even if you haven’t seen the movie, I’m sure you already know what scene in Carrie stands out from all the others.  So why bother saying it.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5