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

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

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

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