Sunday, July 10, 2016

LE MILLION (1931)


A.K.A.: The Million
Country: France
Genre(s): Comedy / Musical
Director: Rene Clair
Cast: Rene Lefevre / Annabella / Jean-Louis Allibert


Plot
Hounded by creditors, a poor artist wins the lottery, the ticket to which is in his jacket pocket.  Great news, until he finds out that his jealous girlfriend has given his jacket away, an act that sets in motion a wild hunt across Paris.


Thoughts
Though “Le Million” may not illicit full-on belly laughs, the film retains an irresistible charm and remains highly entertaining more than 80 years after its release.  An early sound film shot and set in France, doubtless much of the film’s humor is either lost in translation or has dissipated with the changing of public tastes.  Prat falls and pompous buffoonery have not aged well.  Nonetheless, the story and pacing, combined with some terrific performances still provide constant amusement, even for today’s viewer.

“Le Million” still displays the hallmarks of the silent film era: the styles of dress and makeup, frequent chase scenes, exaggerated physical gestures by the actors.  Yet, instead of making “Le Million” seem dated, these elements bring a certain elegance to the film.  There are almost as many scenes without dialogue as there are with dialogue, allowing the talents of the actors and director Rene Clair for physical comedy to shine.  Rene Lefevre in particular is fantastic, whether talking or not, as the leading man Michel.  When I did chuckle, it was always because of Lefevre’s performance.


Most Memorable Scene
***spoiler alert***
There is a magnificent scene at the opera house, one of the places the Michel and many others have gone to try and track down the missing jacket.  Lefevre and the lovely Annabella, who plays his love interest, wind up hiding behind some set pieces on stage during a performance.  Forced to wait out the love song duet being performed, the pair reconcile.  As they do so, the lyrics of the song play out the feelings of the lovers.  Using no dialogue of their own, Lefevre and Annabella are both terrific here and it is this scene which takes the movie from amusing musical to absolute classic.



My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Saturday, June 25, 2016

L'AVVENTURA (1960)

A.K.A.: The Adventure
Country: Italy
Genre(s): Drama
Director: Michelangelo Antonioni
Cast: Monica Vitti / Gabriele Ferzetti / Lea Massari



Plot
When a young woman goes missing during a yachting trip with her wealthy friends, her fiancé and best friend begin a search to find out what became of her.  However, the pair quickly become distracted by their attraction to one another and the search becomes less important to them than their affair.


Thoughts
Director Michelangelo Antonioni clearly knew he had something special in lead actress Monica Vitti.  Of course, he cast her in the lead, but he also spent plenty of his movie on close ups of her face - as emotive as it is easy on the eyes - and he went on to use her in multiple subsequent films.  She is indeed something special, and does a terrific job portraying Claudia, a young woman conflicted by her growing romantic relationship with the fiancé of her missing best friend Anna.  Lea Massari, who plays Anna, a more mysterious character even before she disappears, steals the initial scenes from Vitti.  However, once Anna is gone, Claudia’s character is allowed to develop into the film’s most interesting facet overall.  Most of that development plays out over Vitti’s face and body, rather than through dialogue.  Claudia is the only central character who is not wealthy and perhaps because of that she allows herself to feel guilt and devotion on a deeper level than the rest of her circle, making her the perfect character on whom to center a movie such as this.  As the film’s conflict is primarily inner turmoil within Claudia, Vitti had to not only embody the character of Claudia, she had to embody the story of “L’Avventura” as well, and she did so impressively.

Outside of the performances (most of which convincingly capture the jaded self-obsession of the well-to-do, which is the crux of the emotional turmoil between Claudia and Sandro), the setting, and cinematography, all of which are a pleasure to witness, there is no real reason to watch “L’Avventura” from an entertainment perspective.  The plot narrative plot is overly simple.  In terms of story, the description I gave above is literally everything that actually happens in the movie.  The rest of the film’s story is all internal within the characters.  It’s impressive to watch masters (actors, director, photographers) excelling at their craft, but the traditional thrills and catharsis one might associate with the cinema experience are mostly if not completely absent here.  In the beginning, one gets the sense that we might be entering into a mystery film, what with the search for the inexplicably disappeared Anna; however, the film quickly moves away from traditional mystery elements in favor of more philosophical and social themes.  If you’re looking for escapist cinema, with the exception of the beautiful people and settings, you won’t find much of it in “L’Avventura.”


Most Memorable Scene
As stated in the prior paragraph, following Anna’s disappearance, Antonioni does dabble a bit in elements of traditional mystery thriller films, and he does so effectively enough to make the viewer feel as though they are present in the scene.  As the central characters search a craggy volcanic island in the ocean for their missing friend, the viewer’s eyes can’t help but desperately prowl the surf, the cliffs, and the hills for any sign of Anna as though we were one of her friends.  Camera work works fluidly with the nature of the location and the event to create a real sense of urgency and drama, even on multiple viewings.  Also as stated before, the filmmakers intentionally move away from this approach as the movie progresses, but these scenes resonate in the memory as terrific examples of just how effective of a mainstream director Antonioni could have been, had he any interest in mainstream success.


My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Sunday, June 19, 2016

REVERSAL OF FORTUNE (1990)

Country: U.S.A. / Japan / U.K.
Genre(s): Drama
Director: Barbet Schroeder
Cast: Jeremy Irons / Ron Silver / Glenn Close



Plot
Convicted of the attempted murder of his socialite wife, Claus von Bulow hires attorney Alan Dershowitz to handle his appeal.  Based on the infamous, real-life legal case.


Thoughts
It is the performances here that really make this film work above all else.  Jeremy Irons is at his chilling best as Claus von Bulow, a universally despised man convicted of causing his wife Sunny’s coma with insulin injections.  It’s difficult to think of a better instance of casting, and Irons won the Best Actor Oscar that year for the performance.  Irons allows viewers to easily understand why so many found von Bulow guilty simply for his icy demeanor, effete pretentions, and repulsive ego.  Even when he tries to cast himself as the victim and conjure up some kind of human sympathy, the character fails miserably, an unusual character trait in film, which Irons handles magnificently.  Where many actors and filmmakers would try to show a main character, criminal or not, as somehow sympathetic once you peel away the cold, hard exterior, Irons, along with director Barbet Schroeder and screenwriter Nicholas Kazan, show that no matter how many layers one peels back on von Bulow one just finds a deeper moral vacuum.  However, being completely self-centered and incapable of remorse does not necessarily mean that von Bulow is guilty of the crime.  It is this aspect of the von Bulow case which makes the task before his attorney, Allen Dershowitz, all the more challenging.  Ron Silver and Glenn Close are also terrific as Dershowitz and Sunny von Bulow respectively, which should be no surprise as both actors are typically excellent in any role they take on.

Beyond some interesting choices in storytelling and scripting, and aside from the previously mentioned actors, “Reversal of Fortune” is really standard baby boomer American drama of the 1980s and early 1990s from a filmmaking perspective.  There’s little in the way of style or flash, which is surprising since Schroeder was a central figure in the very stylized French “New Wave” cinema of prior decades.  For this film, though, the conventional cinematography and editing works, allowing the story and characters to take center stage, rather than any artistic pretentions of the filmmaker.


Most Memorable Scene
When the middle-aged snob von Bulow sits on a wooden chair in Dershowitz’s cluttered and noisy suburban home, surrounded by a team of mostly young law students, one gets a portrait of just how detached von Bulow and his class are from the rest of the world and of just how disgusted they are by it.  His back comically straight, his legs crossed effeminately, his clothing pressed and his hair immaculate, von Bulow’s face practically twitches with repulsion at virtually everything he sees, touches, or hears.  Meanwhile, to the others, and to the viewer, von Bulow comes off as nearly extraterrestrial, some comically bizarre creature crash-landed on a world from which he wants nothing more than escape and forced to endure the primitive ways of the natives.



My Rating: 4 out of 5

Thursday, June 16, 2016

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (1951)

Country: U.S.A.
Genre(s): Sci-Fi
Director: Robert Wise
Cast: Michael Rennie / Patricia Neal / Billy Gray



Plot
An extraterrestrial being named Klaatu lands in Washington D.C., his mission to along an important message intended to save all of mankind. He finds himself the object of paranoia and investigation instead.


Thoughts

“Klaatu barada nikto.”  One of the original sci-fi cult classics, 1951’s “The Day the Earth Stood Still” helped establish the 1950s as the decade for alien invasion science fiction movies.  “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” “Forbidden Planet,” “The Thing from Another World,” and “Them!” are just a few of the best examples of the onslaught of films from this sub-genre which really hit its stride in early Cold War era.  Ironically, “The Day the Earth Stood Still” stands apart from the films it helped inspire simply because it is not truly an alien invasion film.  There is no invasion.  Indeed, its extraterrestrial figure, Klaatu, essentially comes to Earth with a message intended to be the planet’s salvation.  Whereas the aliens in most sci-fi films of the era are killers or monsters, Klaatu is actually the closest thing to a hero that the film has.

As far as human heroes go, “The Day the Earth Stood Still” is also unique for a film of its time because it’s primary human protagonist is a woman, Helen Benson (played by Patricia Neal), whose assistance Klaatu enlists in his effort to get his message to the world.  Helen is braver and smarter than any human male in the entire film, an unusual characterization for the era that the domestic housewife ideal was about the only positive image of adult women in film.

Granted, while the movie is ahead of its time in terms of themes and plot, it still has many of the shortcomings common to all sci-fi in this period.  Though most of the performances are acceptable, some of the acting, particularly among supporting cast members, is pathetic.  Logically, some of the details of the plot make no practical sense (Just two soldiers are assigned to guard an advanced spacecraft that has landed in the middle of our nation’s capital?  Aliens have the same physical features and haircuts as Caucasian Americans?).  Nonetheless, the film rises above its shortcomings because its script is more thought-provoking than any sci-fi film up to that time, at least since the 1930s.

Though the movie’s effects are almost entirely outdated by today’s standards, one can still respect the production techniques and camera tricks necessary to pull off some of the film’s famous visuals.  I actually had a difficult time figuring out how a few of the special effects were pulled off considering the limited means available to the filmmakers in 1951.  If the effects are no longer as stunning as they once were, they remain impressive for anyone willing to pay close attention and give them any thought.

Better yet, because the plot is kept relatively simple and the script keeps the story moving along at a brisk pace, the move remains an entertaining and enjoyable viewing more than sixty years after its release.


Most Memorable Scene

The arrival of the spacecraft in Washington D.C., a scene which has been imitated quite frequently since, is still vibrant with both drama and spectacle.  As the world scrambles to both understand and defend itself against what has happened, the viewer can’t help but be drawn in by the Cold War influenced paranoia, especially once the spaceship finally opens up to reveal its two passengers.  That a sense of drama remains steady throughout the film following this stunning opening is a tribute to the skills of the writers and director Robert Wise, as a tension-laden introduction such as this could stand to ruin the pacing of the rest of the film in lesser hands.



My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

STAR WARS: RETURN OF THE JEDI (1983)

Country: U.S.A.
Genre(s): Action / Adventure / Fantasy / Sci-Fi
Director: Richard Marquand
Cast: Mark Hamill / Carrie Fisher / Harrison Ford



Plot
Learning of the construction of a new Death Star, the rebels mount a new offensive strike, while Luke Skywalker prepares for a final confrontation with his father.


Thoughts

*So I am done separating these entries into “What I Liked” and “What I Didn’t Like” sections and will be changing it to a more inclusive, cohesive section concerning my overall thoughts about the film.*

When I was a kid, “Return of the Jedi” was my favorite of the “Star Wars” trilogy, for several reasons.  First was the Rancor, one of the most frighteningly cool creatures in the George Lucas/Jim Henson menagerie.  I liked all the forest fun (ropes, bows and arrows, slings, and speeder bikes) on Endor.  Also, Jabba the Hut and the Emperor made nice additions as repulsive baddies.  For the most part, though, it just seemed that I watched “Return of the Jedi” much more often than the other two entrants in the series that were out at the time.  I was never the “Star Wars” nut that a lot of other kids of my generation were, but I liked all three movies, this one the most; back then, anyway.

Many say that the ewoks ruined this film.  I enjoyed them as a kid and even remember watching the Saturday morning cartoon (I still have the first issue of the “Ewoks” comic book series).  Now, I understand why some die-hard fans find them annoying or childish.  Nonetheless, they are an important reminder not to take these movies too damn seriously, a reminder many people could use. 

Setting the ewoks issue aside, “Jedi” has a lot going for it.  The effects are improved even over the already impressive “Empire Strikes Back,” allowing the sets to get more elaborate and detailed.  The characters, machines, and space ships move more fluidly and with more thrilling variety and speed through these sets.  Thus the action in this film is much more dense, fun, and impressive than in either of its predecessors.  Of course, the visuals aren’t quite comparable with the breakthroughs CGI would give us in the following two decades, but they were nonetheless stunning and convincing for viewers in the early 1980s.

The improved look and action thankfully helps distract the viewer for musing too long on just how horrendous the films dialogue can be.  One cliché or trite line follows another in almost every scene where anyone does any talking.  At least many of the comedic lines are given to Han Solo, which allows Harrison Ford’s acting ability to soften the blow of some of the movie’s more cringe-worthy moments.  But Mark Hamill is still an absolute hack who should’ve have never been cast as the lead in the first film.  Any shot meant to capture Luke’s emotional turmoil in this movie is almost as unbearable as Chewbacca’s incessant whining was in “Empire.”

I know that many consider “Jedi” to be the worst of the original trilogy.  But if I’m being honest, I can’t really pick my favorite or least favorite among the original trilogy.  Despite Hamill, they all accomplish what they set out to do pretty impressively.  “Jedi” may not end on the down note that so many admire about “Empire,” but the closing entry in a trilogy like this simply can’t end that way.  And “Jedi” is every bit the escapist popcorn flick, if not moreso, that its predecessors was.


Most Memorable Scene
The rancor.  Loved that beast.



My Rating: 5 out of 5

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

STAR WARS: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (1980)


Country: U.S.A.
Genre(s): Action / Adventure / Fantasy / Sci-Fi
Director: Irvin Kershner
Cast: Mark Hamill / Harrison Ford / Carrie Fisher



Plot
In hiding from the vengeful Empire, Luke Skywalker continues his Jedi training, this time under Master Yoda.  Meanwhile, Han Solo, Princess Leia, and Chewbacca try to outrun the Empire’s fleet in the Millennium Falcon.


What I Liked
It’s pretty easy to understand why cinephiles and Star Wars fanatics usually consider “Empire” to be the best of the “Star Wars” franchise.  From an entertainment perspective, when compared with the original, it’s got more of everything.  More stars, more war, more budget, more “far, far away” worlds, and more characters.  It’s also got more depth of emotion.  The cinematography is more striking.  The characters, having already been introduced to us, are also allowed to develop slightly beyond the bounds of one-dimensional stereotypes.  There is also the famous twist of the truth about Luke’s father, which adds an extra dimension to the overall arc of the entire “Star Wars” mythology, elevating the scope of the series from lovable space opera to Sophocles in space.  That the film ends on the down-note of this big reveal was also something that set it apart from most action/adventure fare and effectively set up the sequel, not to mention set up the pattern for most successful film trilogies to follow.


What I Didn’t Like
When I was a kid, “Empire” was my least favorite of the three films out at the time.  This was because it was, taken as a whole, the least action-packed of the three.  Luke’s training and the period meeting Lando in Cloud City are both pretty tame.  As an adult, I can look past the lull in action and enjoy other facets of these scenes.

On an entirely different note, this movie makes me hate Chewbacca.  The whiny wookie makes that terrible sound way too much.


Most Memorable Scene
As with the first film, nearly every moment of this film is about as iconic as it gets.  Certainly the “I am your father” moment has endured the most in popular culture.  However, watching the movie this time, what struck me the most was the moments just prior to this, when Luke and Vader square off for the first time.  It’s not necessarily the fight itself that impresses, but the set design, lighting, and cinematography.  Gorgeous, suspenseful, and moody, the scene is the most visually stunning aspect of a movie that has plenty of amazing stuff to look at.



My Rating: 5 out of 5

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

STAR WARS (1977)

Country: U.S.A.
Genre(s): Action / Adventures / Epic / Fantasy / Sci-Fi
Director: George Lucas
Cast: Mark Hamill / Harrison Ford / Carrie Fisher




Plot
Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away, farm boy Luke Skywalker is swept up in a plot to free the imprisoned Princess Leia from the clutches of the evil Darth Vader and his imperial forces, which includes a planet-obliterating Death Star.


What I Liked
What is there possibly to be written in praise of “Star Wars” that hasn’t been written or said before?  I’m not even going to make the effort to come up with anything original and just detail what I love about this move, which is probably what anyone bothering to read this loves about it as well.

“Star Wars” was not the first Hollywood summer blockbuster; that honor belongs to “Jaws,” released two years earlier.  “Jaws” was the first film to put together an outrageous plot and eye-catching special effects to create unprecedented pandemonium at the box office and get virtually the entire world talking.  However, “Star Wars” does deserve credit as being the prototype for summer blockbusters in nearly every other since.  “Jaws” could be said to have a quest in its plot, but not the way that “Star Wars” does.  Writer-director George Lucas essentially gave us a tale full of the same sense of adventure one finds in epic poetry and ancient myths, filtered through twentieth-century escapist science fiction influenced by comic books, pulp novels, and cinema featuring characters like Flash Gordon and John Carter.  Familiar with the work of writer and historian Joseph Campbell, he took well-known (to the point of cliché) archetypes from myth, legend, religion, and fiction and rendered them relevant for a post-war, post-Watergate generation.  With these components, George Lucas reintroduced idealism and romanticism to audiences who had long since abandoned them as hopeless nonsense.

“Star Wars” is a testament to belief, not only in its plot (the all-encompasing “Force,” Luke’s rise from farm boy to savior, and Han Solo’s transformation from cynical pirate to hero) but in its very creation. Watching “Star Wars,” one can feel Lucas’ excitement for bringing the fantasies of his childhood to life.  The detail and creativity he demanded in creating convincing costumes, special effects, and settings is evidence of his passion for making the most of this opportunity to complete his dream project, despite next to no support from his production company and a relatively meager budget.

Let’s not forget all of the unforgettable and fun characters, creatures, and beings he gave us with just this single film.  Darth Vader, arguably cinema’s most memorable villain.  Han Solo, a role that transformed unknown Harrison Ford into a movie star.   R2D2 and C3PO, the robotic Odd Couple of outer space.  Chewbacca.  The cantina.  The Millennium Falcon.  The Death Star.  The list goes on.  Western popular culture has been transformed by “Star Wars” in a way that no other work of fiction from the past forty years can match.

On top of all that, it’s still so much fun to watch.  No matter how many times I’ve seen it.


What I Didn’t Like
Despite all the praise above, and despite what so many of its obsessive fans might proclaim, “Star Wars” is not a perfect film.  For starters, Mark Hamill, the least talented actor in the entire production, is somehow given the lead role as Luke Skywalker.  The amazing effects, characters, and design do a good job of hiding its one-dimensional characters and disappointingly simple plot, great for a popcorn summer flick, but ultimately without much originality or depth.  It wasn’t until the film’s tremendous success demanded sequels and prequels and the like that Lucas was able to bring his complete epic vision, with its much more intellectually satisfying themes, to fruition.  “Star Wars” did everything it needed to revolutionize filmmaking and create an unofficial nation of obsessive fans.  It is an entirely satisfying viewing experience for anyone who loves escapist cinema, but it has its weaknesses.


Most Memorable Scene
Sometimes I regret creating this category for my write-ups.  For the most part, I end up picking the film’s climax, which is almost by definition the most memorable scene of the film.  There are a few exceptions, but this isn’t one of them.  The X-Wing assault on the Death Star, with Darth Vader and his pilots in pursuit, is the most edge-of-your seat moment in the film (and maybe in any sci-fi film I've ever seen), not only for its completely convincing special effects and the drama inherent in what is at stake, but for the photography and pacing of the scene.  It’s terrific action filmmaking, one of Lucas’s finest moments as a director.



My Rating: 5 out of 5

REBECCA (1940)

Country: U.S.A.
Genre(s): Drama
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Cast: Joan Fontaine / Laurence Olivier / Judith Anderson




Plot
Having married Maxim de Winter, a wealthy widower and owner of England’s Manderly estate, a shy young woman finds the idyllic life she imagined for herself overshadowed by the memory of Maxim’s late wife and the mysteries surrounding her demise.


What I Liked
Famous for the being the product of an unlikely combination of producer David O. Selznick and director Alfred Hitchcock, “Rebecca” benefits from the combination of two very different approaches to filmmaking.  Selznick, the primary mastermind behind the previous year’s hugely successful “Gone with the Wind,” was noted for favorite big budget Hollywood epics, complete with massive sets, lavish costumes, and melodramatic performances.  Meanwhile, Hitchcock, who had to this point only done work in Europe, was known for his masterful use of simple settings, unnerving plots, and psychologically complex characters.  Both men were control freaks, Selznick being notorious for micro-managing every aspect of his productions, and Hitchcock insistent upon total creative control (and manipulation of his cast members).

So how did this clash between two powerful egotists with very different visions end up in anything other than disaster, much less in creating the 1940 winner for the Best Picture Oscar?  They had the right story to start with.  Daphne Du Maurier’s novel of the same name provided enough space for both men to work their magic to the satisfaction of themselves and their audience.  The majority of the film is set in the staggeringly massive Manderly mansion, a house with fireplaces bigger than some bedrooms I’ve lived in.  Here the Selznick eye for opulence and grandeur satisfies the Hollywood requisites of escapism and splendor.  Meanwhile, the plot gives us the tale of a fairy tale turned nightmare, a theme for which Hitchcock’s style of filmmaking was perfectly suited.  This remarkable combination makes Manderly itself feel like a living, breathing, and very ominous presence in the film, in much the same way the late Rebecca’s memory looms over all who reside there.

The casting for “Rebecca” was magnificent.  Laurence Olivier is equal parts charm and angst as Maixim de Winter, a man torn between his love for his new bride and the unforgiving secrets of his past.  Joan Fontaine, once of the most underrated leading ladies of the era, is sympathetic as a woman hopelessly trying to live up to everyone else’s the idealized memories of Rebecca.  Then there is Judith Anderson, looking for all the world like Bela Lugosi’s long lost sister, who is nothing short of perfect as the villainous Mrs. Danvers, the scheming housekeeper obsessed with Rebecca’s memory.


What I Didn’t Like
While the plot and underlying mood bear Hitchcock’s fascination with the perverse and the creepy, I still consider this film more of a Selznick production than a Hitchcock picture.  That is to say that the physical scope of the sets and costumes, combined with the inherent melodrama of the conflict, often overpower the subtler tones Hitchcock brought to the movie.  Granted, for a story like DeMaurier’s, Selznick’s is a benefit overall.  However, I’m much more of a Hitchcock fan than I am a Selznick fan, so my general feeling is that Selznick’s approach waters down Hitchcock’s, while Hitchcock’s talents strengthens those of Selznick.


Most Memorable Scene
***spoiler alert***
The staircase scene for the costume ball, without a doubt, is the most heart-wrenching and suspenseful moment of the film.  Long before the scene even takes place, any observant viewer will be aware that Mrs. de Winter, so intent on impressing her husband and his friends, is about to unwittingly perform social suicide with the costume she has selected.  As she reaches the stairs expecting her greatest triumph, her costume produces outrage and humiliation instead.  We can only watch helplessly as the poor woman descends to her own marital and social doom, cringing at the tragedy to come.



My Rating: 4 out of 5

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

MEMENTO (2000)

Country: U.S.A.
Genre(s): Crime / Drama
Director: Christopher Nolan
Cast: Guy Pearce / Carrie-Ann Moss / Joe Pantoliano



Plot
Leonard Shelby is unable to form new memories, the result of brain damage incurred while trying to save his wife from the hands of a killer.  Despite his condition, Leonard pursues the criminal, unsure of who to trust and what to believe.


What I Liked
“Memento” is easily one of my favorite films of the 2000s, a grim tale that is all about turning the most basic assumptions about storytelling and filmmaking upside down.  It is a film all about the power of perspective and self-deceit to affect reality.  Essentially, the story is told backward, opening with a killing that would normally serve as the conclusion to any other revenge film.  For “Memento,” though, the solution is the beginning of the mystery, not its conclusion.  Each subsequent scene takes place prior to the last chronologically and, as the film progresses, our suspicion that something is not right with appeared to be Leonard Shelby’s triumph deepens.  As soon as we figure out that something’s off, the fun becomes trying to break apart the puzzle that has already assembled.  By using this inverted and subjective approach in what is ultimately a mystery story, screenwriter and director Christopher Nolan puts the viewer in Leonard’s shoes.  As each scene begins, we are constantly wondering how Leonard got himself there and what the new facts we’ve learned tell us about the truth behind that opening killing.  The next scene then gives us the answer as to how Leonard physically got there, but only leaves us as to more questions as to the truth behind Leonard’s quest.

“Memento” is also steeped in film traditions.  On the surface it is a revenge story in crime thriller packaging.  However, it is also a clear homage to the film noir movies of the 1940s, complete with subjective filmmaking, black-and-white photography, seedy supporting characters, voice-over narration by the protagonist, and femme fatale.  Some of the fun of watching the movie is seeing these time-worn elements filtered through a fresh twenty-first century filter.  Kudos Nolan and his cast for reinterpreting film noir, rather than simply imitating it to the point of unintended parody, like so many other of today’s crime films do.


What I Didn’t Like

Despite so much of what is unique about “Memento,” the basic elements of the film are all-too predictable.  Since it is a crime thriller, it should be no surprise that the movie ends with a twist.  It doesn’t take but a few minutes of watching to realize that ultimately we are going to be thrown some kind of mind-blowing revelation at the film’s conclusion.  The rest of the film is spent trying to figure it out before the filmmakers reveal it, like we do with so many other such movies.  I’m not a big fan of twists in movies.  They’re ultimately just gimmicks mistaken by too many people for good writing.  In the case of “Memento,” the film didn’t really need any more gimmicks, as the movie ultimately could be written off as one giant gimmick.  Once the story is revealed as w hole, we realize that, had the movie been told in the conventional manner, the story would be boring as hell.  Therefore, it’s the gimmick of revealing everything to us through backward storytelling that is actually the crux of the film’s entertainment value.  Yes, there’s a lot more to be read into what the film and its story structure has to say about people and the lives we lead.  But when it comes down to it, “Memento” is a triumph of style over story.


Most Memorable Scene
I’ve seen this movie several times.  I own it.  But this time, I picked up on a line uttered by Leonard early on which stuck out to me.  “Just because there are things I don’t remember doesn’t make my actions meaningless.”  Knowing everything that the story ultimately reveals to us, I realized that this is really the whole crux of Leonard’s existence, a mantra which he will repeat at various points throughout the film, just in different words (“I have to believe that my actions have meaning, even if I can’t remember them.”).  This becomes the theme of the whole film, calling into question the value we place on memory, or even actions for that matter. 

For more emotional resonance, the flashback scenes outlining the struggle and fate of a character from Leonard’s past named Sammy Jankis probably have the most lasting impact.


My Rating: 4 out of 5

Friday, April 15, 2016

M (1931)

Country: Germany
Genre(s): Crime / Drama
Director: Fritz Lang
Cast: Peter Lorre / Gustaf Grundgents / Otto Wernicke



Plot
A serial child killer is on the loose in Berlin, taunting the police through the press.  Repulsed by his crimes and frustrated by increased police presence on the streets, the local underworld determines to hunt down and punish the killer on their own terms.


What I Liked
We’ve all heard of certain artists being described as being ahead of their time.  Movie director Fritz Lang was at least a generation, if not two, ahead of his contemporaries in so many ways, the epitome of a visionary.  All of the films of his which I have thus far seen reflect his uncanny talent for predicting the future of filmmaking, but for the purposes of length I’ll stick to my main topic here, “M,” an unsettling thriller that paved the way for so much to follow.  This was the first time that I’d ever seen this film, yet there was so much that was familiar about it.  This is not because the film is derivative; quite the opposite.  So many later films cribbed so much of what made them great from this movie.  To keep things brief, I’ll point out a couple of examples.

Visually, Lang makes such emphatic and original use of shadow that darkness becomes something of a character all its own, and a fascinating character at that.  Shadows stretch guiltily behind creeping figures, they form bars and crosses across horrified faces, they loom over the streets of a terrorized city, they provide sanctuary for both the predatory and the frightened, and at times they frame entire scenes.  In this unprecedented use of shadow, particularly within the environment of an labyrinthine urban environment, Lang predates Carol Reed’s influential mystery thriller “The Third Man” by a full eighteen years, and the entire noir subgenre in America by roughly two decades.

Then there is the character of the killer, Hans Beckert, portrayed so powerfully in a career-making performance by that most magnificent of character actors, Peter Lorre.  Lang, co-scripter Thea von Harbou, and Lorre himself created a new kind of film monster in Beckert.  This monster is no vampire, beast, or walking dead.  It is a man, a man who would appear harmless, even friendly to the average passerby; yet a man who is a slave to his compulsion to commit reprehensible acts.  These type of characters are so prevalent in television, books, and film today that it is easy to forget how new this concept was to filmgoers of 1931.  Nearly 30 years later, when Alfred Hitchcock (a director who arguably took a lot of his signature style from this film) introduced American movie audiences to Norman Bates, the film “Psycho” caused an uproar over its unsettling depiction of a psychopath and his shocking crimes.  At a time that Hollywood was producing monsters in the form of “Frankenstein” and “Dracula,” Fritz Lang had already stumbled onto a monster far more vicious, one that the Hollywood studios wouldn’t dare expose for decades to come, the human mind.

I could go on about the films which owe a debt to “M,” either technically or thematically, from “Frankenstein” to “A Clockwork Orange.”  After all, I haven’t really touched on the film’s exploration of crime and punishment, the individual and society, or law versus justice, there just isn’t room.  Suffice it to say that “M” is far more complex than a description of its comparatively simple plot would convey.


What I Didn’t Like

The film does get off to something of a slow start.  Outside of the creepiness of watching the killer at his work, most of the early portion of the film is composed of an extended montage of the social fall-out from his crimes and the ineptitude of the local authorities in catching him.  Though necessary to explain how it is that the gangster elements in Berlin decide to go after the Beckert, these scenes are almost entirely devoid of any interesting dialogue, action, or characterization.  Thus the third or so of the film was a real let down from what I had expected based on the film’s reputation.  However, those who are patient will be amply rewarded for sticking around, as things get considerably more intense once the gangsters begin their pursuit.


Most Memorable Scene

For the first two thirds of the film, Peter Lorre speaks maybe a half dozen lines, if that.  He is sufficiently creepy in his scenes as Beckert, but in the film’s final act he is given opportunity to show off his acting talents.  Hauled before a kangaroo court composed of the denizens of Berlin’s underworld, Beckert frantically cycles through a series of emotions in a matter of just a few minutes.  Lorre delivers a terrific performance from out of the shadowy corner in which Beckert cowers, one that wound up leading to a long career as one of Hollywood’s most famous character actors.  The performance only helps the impact of the scene, where somehow Beckert, a child killer and (it is implied) child molester, somehow comes off as a bit sympathetic, if only slightly, as he faces the horror of a vigilante mob.  Here the film’s more complex themes, which have until this point only been implied, are explicitly brought to the forefront.  “M” winds up asking a lot of questions about the nature of crime, punishment, society, and the human psyche.  Most importantly, it leaves the answers to those questions up to the audience.


My Rating: 4 out of 5    

Thursday, April 14, 2016

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971)

Country: U.K. / U.S.A.
Genre(s): Comedy / Crime / Sci-Fi
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Cast: Malcolm McDowell / Michael Bates / Patrick Magee



Plot
Sometime in the not-too-distant future, all-around hoodlum Alex is selected by the British government to undergo an experimental treatment intended to eliminate his immoral impulses.


What I Liked
The novel “A Clockwork Orange” by Anthony Burgess is one of my very favorite novels.  Apparently Burgess was none too impressed with director Stanley Kubrick’s interpretation of his most famous work.  Speaking for myself, outside of a few exceptions, I found the film to be a pretty dead-on interpretation of the book, capturing everything that I admire about Burgess’ text.  It’s also a satisfactory blend of political satire and science fiction, two genres at which Kubrick had already proven himself to be a master by 1971.

One of the novel’s most obvious and impressive features is the invented language – called Nadsat - which the author gives to main character Alex and the other young delinquents with him he spends his time.  By using this language for Alex as he tells the story in first person, Burgess allows the reader to unintentionally sympathize with a set of characters one would otherwise find repulsive; by the time I got toward the end of it, I found myself occasionally even thinking in Nadsat.  Kubrick too allows Alex to narrate the movie in Nadsat.  However, since the need for narration is much less frequent in a visual medium like film, the language has less opportunity to induce the same effect on the viewer as it does on the reader.  Nonetheless, the use of the invented language still allows the viewer to feel as if he has a special insider’s knowledge of Alex’s mind which is unavailable to other characters in the movie.  It is almost as if one can feel Alex nudging us with his elbow at some inside joke each time he whispers his thoughts to us.

As Alex, Malcolm McDowell is perfectly cast.  There is a constant and murderous delight in Alex’s eyes throughout, which became something of a signature of McDowell’s performances after this film.  Thanks to McDowell and Kubrick, the character is convincingly maniacal, sarcastic, and intelligent all at once, exactly as he should be.  Though Alex is surrounded by supposedly educated authorities and institutions, virtually all of these are bumbling, cartoonish, or completely impotent.  Alex is easily the most aware and intelligent character we come across in the film.

Incidentally, my personal favorite character is that of the head prison guard played by Michael Bates.  He’s basically a uniformed imbecile who loves for nothing else but stomping his boots and speaking in terse, staccato barks.


What I Didn’t Like
As much as Kubrick successfully captured the novel’s themes and satirical nature, in the end this movie lacks one of the components essential to any first rate film: emotional impact.  The dark humor is there, yes; but outside of that, as a viewer I’ve never felt any real emotional investment in or connection to what is happening on screen.  Perhaps that’s why I’ve only bothered to watch the movie twice, when I love the novel so much.  I just kind of watch it and think about, smirking occasionally, while waiting for it to end.


Most Memorable Scene
Maybe the most iconic scene of torture in all of cinema history, the scenes where Alex is in a theater, forced to watch films of violence and Nazism, are easily the most imitated and influential images from the movie.  That said, the home invasion followed by a gang rape, incredibly graphic for 1971, is a close second for sheer memorable impression.



My Rating: 3 out of 5

Saturday, February 20, 2016

TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962)

Country: U.S.A.
Genre(s): Drama
Director: Robert Mulligan
Cast: Gregory Peck / Mary Badham / Phillip Alford


Plot
Life in the Jim Crow South is experienced through the eyes of a young white girl whose lawyer father, Atticus Finch, accepts a case in defense of a black man unjustly accused of raping a white woman.


What I Liked
“To Kill a Mockingbird” is almost universally regarded as one of the finest motion pictures America has ever produced for many reasons, but it mainly comes down to this: like most timeless works, it works as popular entertainment, social commentary, and universal art all at once.

Like the novel it is based on, the film tells its tale almost exclusively through the eyes of a child, that of the restless and curious tomboy Scout.  This is the key to the film’s depth and power.  From an entertainment perspective, we are able to experience that sense of wonder and adventure adults lose somewhere during the growing up process.  By bringing the camera down to a child’s height, everything about the world seems bigger, more fun, and at times more frightening.  Most importantly, these scenes are never overly sentimental; they are full of truth and meaning, setting the film apart from films concerned only with nostalgia.  For Scout, her brother Jem, and their friend Dill, every question or dilemma becomes an excuse for investigation, exploration, and discovery, a universal truth that magically resurrects the best part of being a kid.

The social commentary is probably the most praised aspect of “Mockingbird.”  In 1962, concepts like rape and interracial sex were still fairly taboo for mass consumption.  So was open discource about race and racism, at least in mainstream film.  Author Harper Lee and the filmmakers of this movie forced America to take a hard look a shameful piece of its history that was not so far in its past.  The courtroom scene is the most obvious example of this, with the segregation of the white and black audiences (notably, Scout, Jem, and Dill sit with the black people), with the testimony and examinations, and with Atticus Finch’s unforgettable closing argument.  When Atticus stands up in that courtroom, most of the time we watch him from the jury’s perspective; he is speaking to us about America, about our history when he says “The defendant is not guilty – but somebody in this courtroom is.”  The film may have its enjoyable innocent nostalgia, but Harper Lee’s novel was mostly autobiographical and contains many unsettling truths.  It is the effect those truths have on Scout’s and Jem’s image of the world that is among the most memorable aspects of the film.  Also interesting, in many cases the unruly and fanciful children are more honest and rational than the adults and their society. 

Even going deeper than the obvious tackling of race and justice in America, or even the inevitable loss of innocence children endure, there is an even deeper universality to this film, one that is harder to pinpoint.  It is simply an overall sense that, in these characters, particularly the children, we are looking at a portrait of humanity, still wondering at the mysteries of life, it’s meaning, and the world in which it takes place.  Still trying to understand each other and why we do the things we do.  Still longing for belief in that strong moral compass represented by Atticus

Atticus.  He is one of the most iconic characters in all of film history, embodied so immaculately by Gregory Peck, who won an Oscar for his performance.  Through the eyes of his daughter, Atticus is a walking ideal, to the point that he could be called a stand-in for God Himself: creator, teacher, protector, comforter, moral guide, and idol.  Rarely is a character so morally and personally infallible also interesting.  Thanks to Lee, Peck, and the filmmakers, Atticus is the benchmark for the infallible hero against which all such characters will be forever measured.

All of the above gives “To Kill a Mockingbird” an combined emotional and intellectual impact that remains palpable today.  It will make the viewer want to play, to laugh, to cry, and to fight for those things worth fighting for.


What I Didn’t Like
The only possible criticism is that, while making a film obviously meant to criticize racism in America, the filmmakers relied on quite a lot of stereotypes, most notably in the sneering, drunken white trash bigot that is Bob Ewell, who if not a stereotype, is certainly a cliché.  Someone concerned with finding racial stereotypes could even argue that Tom Robinson, black man martyred by American racism, is a character representative of some racial misconceptions.  Robinson comes across as almost a frightened, simple-minded fool who needs an confident and intelligent white man to come to his aid; not exactly a flattering portrayal of African Americans in a film that is supposed to condemn racial stereotypes.  Anyway, most of this can be explained away as being told through the simple observations of a young girl, but it is nonetheless there.

It could also be argued that Lee never intended Ewell or Robinson to be stand-ins for an entire group of people.  However, that argument would then strip the film of some of its power, as it is the way in which the film puts the whole of American history and society on trial that has helped “To Kill a Mockingbird” become one of cinema’s enduring classics.


Most Memorable Scene
Much of what impressed me about this movie was in the production values.  Recreating a small town in Depression-era America doesn’t necessarily call for a huge budget, but the attention to detail in this film was phenomenal.  There is a moment early in the film when the children venture into Boo Radley’s yard and are frightened into fleeing in terror.  A short time later, a gunshot is heard.  In that moment, we hear maybe a half dozen dogs begin barking, seemingly form varying distances.  In several more sedated scenes after this, I also noticed details like distant dog barks and bird chirps that are subtly mixed in behind the dialogue as part of the setting.  It’s little details like this that which heighten the sense of place that lends the weight of truth to “To Kill a Mockingbird.”



My Rating: 5 out of 5