BREATHLESS (1960)

A.K.A.: A bout de souffle

Country: France

Genre(s): Art Film / Crime

Director: Jean-Luc Godard

Cast: Jean-Paul Belmondo / Jean Seberg / Daniel Boulanger

Plot

Pulled over by a cop while driving to Paris in a stolen car, Michel shoots and kills the officer.  In Paris, he reunites with Patricia, an American woman with whom he previously enjoyed a brief fling, and tries to convince her to flee to Italy with him.

What I Liked

Paying homage to American noir films of the 1940s, yet with a lighter, inspiring mood that any self-respecting noir filmmakers vehemently avoid, “Breathless” still entertains more than fifty years after its debut.  Benefiting from director Jean-Luc Godard’s insistence upon demonstrating his knowledge of filmmaking tradition and then refuting that tradition at every opportunity, the film has a detached coolness reminiscent of a Miles Davis album, which makes the jazzy soundtrack all the more appropriate.  Using a variety of in-your-face techniques to completely fly in the face of the Hollywood studio methods of motion picture storytelling, Godard , along with his cast and crew, clearly had fun finding ways to reintroduce their audience to watching movies all over again.  It’s a film that, while representative of its director’s passion, never takes itself too seriously.  The influence of "Breathless" on Quentin Tarrantino's writing and directorial style is evident in nearly every line of dialogue and every shot.

Lead characters Michel and Patricia were the epitome of hipsters in the early 1960s,  They are stylish, young people trying ever so hard to live care-free lives, but are truthfully far too narcissistic to avoid getting into trouble.  This of course predicts the generational and social issues that would arise in the coming decade, in Europe as well as the United States as youth culture would play such an increasingly vital role in the shaping the times.

Jean-Paul Belmondo seems born to play Michel, bottom-feeder criminal bouncing from one scam to the next, a cigarette constantly dangling from between his smirking lips in imitation of his idol, Humphrey Bogart.  Meanwhile, Jean Seberg fascinates as Patricia, the self-obsessed American beauty who enjoys Michel’s attention until things get too serious. Michel and Patricia, never sans sunglasses, share the screen for almost the entire last two-thirds of the film.  As a couple, they make for a great representation of youth culture in its time and also a clever portrait of the timeless and tragic problems between the sexes.

What I Didn’t Like

Personally, I enjoyed it, but this film does have a meager plot that progresses at a seemingly improvised pace.  Director Godard characteristically makes frequent cuts in unconventional places.  The actors improvise much of their dialogue and their characters spend a great deal of time talking about things not obviously connected to the film’s plot.  These are not filmmaking choices that will endear “Breathless” to those who approach it with expectations rooted in films from the Hollywood assembly lines.  Then again, those who approach it with an open mind coupled with a love for Hollywood motion pictures, might find the movie an enjoyably fresh, even five decades after its initial release.

Most Memorable Scene

Ironically, it’s the scene in which the least amount of physical action or plot development takes place.  A large part of the middle section of “Breathless” takes place in Patricia’s apartment, to which she arrives to find the uninvited Michel in her bed.  The pair, a brief sexual fling in their fairly recent past, then set about talking to one another in a conversation that goes absolutely nowhere.  As Michel ruminates on his half-assed philosophies about life and tries to convince Patricia to take her clothes off, Patricia has a great time ignoring, rejecting, and insulting him.  Despite their pseudo-romantic past, the pair clearly don’t know a thing about each other and don’t care to do so.  Each is obsessed with his or her own image of themselves, and obviously care nothing for each other.  Yet both of them are completely oblivious to this problem and the whole conversation just collapses into a cold, decidedly unromantic failure.  Again, it’s Godard’s defiance of the Hollywood romance conventions that really mark the scene as unique and (grotesquely) beautiful.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

TRISTANA (1970)

Country: Spain / Italy / France

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Luis Bunuel

Cast: Catherine Deneuve / Fernando Rey / Lola Gaos

Plot

Following her mother’s death, Tristana is sent to live with the aging Don Lope, who falls in love with her.  Feeling trapped by Lope’s overprotection, Tristana sneaks out to meet another man.  As time passes, the realities of life force Tristana and Lope to confront the consequences of obeying their passions.

What I Liked

Tristana is the most stylistically conventional of the Luis Bunuel films that I’ve seen thus far and yet the most thematically inscrutable.  Almost a half century after producing his groundbreaking surrealist films, the director produced this more formalist production, making use of more conventional plot elements and story structure.  Still, even if the film is more easily understood on the surface, symbolism, psychology, and philosophy are seething beneath that surface.  By the end of the movie, any viewer with any kind of sensitivity toward good art will find that ruminating on the nature of human relationships, emotion, gender, and even the meaning of life itself is impossible to avoid.  Bunuel does this all while shunning the more obvious imagery of his earlier work in favor of the power of suggestion.  And the power of suggestion is at the heart of his surrealist roots.

Bunuel is obsessed with the intricacies of daily life in this movie, much of which revolves around the actions of Lola Gaos in the role of Saturna, Lope’s housekeeper and Tristana’s confidant.  Saturna’s turning down of the covers on Lope’s bed or her preparing a cup of tea, all things that would be ignored by other filmmakers, are given ample screen time.  At first these moments don’t stand out, but taken as a whole, it is clear Bunuel was intentionally bringing a special significance to Saturna’s role as a kind of pacifist in the ever-changing battle of emotions between Lope and Tristana.

The three lead actors, Catherine Deneuve (as Tristana), Fernando Rey (as Lope), and Gaos are all well cast in their roles, which they all perform well.  They are convincing as an ensemble, never trying to outdo one another and instead contributing to the film as a whole.  Perhaps this too is something for which Bunuel, as their director, also deserves credit.

What I Didn’t Like

“Tristana” is a slow burn to say the least.  There are only a few moments of outright confrontation or suspense in the movie, and these moments are relatively tame when compared with similar moments in other films.  It is obvious Bunuel wanted his film to reflect a more subtle drama reflected in the changing relationships and emotions of his main characters.  By the time the film ends, it is evident that this approach is clearly part of the film’s power.  However, one must have the abundant attention span required to make it to the end, in order to experience that reward.

Incidentally, Deneuve’s French is overdubbed throughout the film by a Spanish actress.  The process itself is technically well-done in that its hardly noticeable unless one looks closely.  Still, it is silly to cast a French woman as the lead in a Spanish film just to record over her lines.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert*

In one of the film’s later scenes, Tristana, having lost her leg to disease, tells a priest that she has needs that are no longer met.  A short time later, she walks out onto a balcony and exposes herself to Saturna’s son.  The camera focuses on Deneuve’s face, the most striking close up of the entire film.  We see nothing of her body; we only watch a very carnal smirk turn from tempting to disturbing as it spreads across her face.  Even the boy, who had asked Tristana to do this, retreats into the trees, apparently confused and horrified.  It is easily Deneuve’s best moment in the picture and also possibly a tip of the hat by Bunuel to the more nightmarish imagery of his earlier films.

Rating: 4 out of 5

GHOSTBUSTERS (1984)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy

Director: Ivan Reitman

Cast: Bill Murray/ Dan Aykroyd / Sigourney Weaver

Plot

After investigating a ghost sighting, three out-of-work scientists go into business as Ghostbusters.  Initially dismissed by the public as quacks, they soon become heroes when an ancient deity attacks their native New York City.

What I Liked

As was the case for so many people of my generation, this movie was one of the cinematic cornerstones (along with, for me anyway, “Superman,” “Batman,” “UHF,” and the Indiana Jones films) of my childhood.  I spent countless afternoons watching this movie, watching its cartoon spin off, running around in my best friend's backyard dressed as a Ghostbuster, or playing in my room with my Ghostbuster action figures.  So maybe nostalgia has got me somewhat biased here, but I can't imagine few people of any generation could dispute that this movie is still thoroughly enjoyable thirty years after its initial release in theaters.

Bill Murray was my favorite part about this movie as a kid and today he still is.  Screenwriters and co-stars Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis left plenty of room in the script for Bill to adlib, which turned out to be a genius decision.  The guy is the undisputed world champion of deadpan and his Dr. Peter Venkman easily steals the show from the others.  Back in the 1980s I admired his cocky attitude and funny lines; today it is his straight-faced delivery that kills me.

Bill’s poker-faced approach is made even more funny by the outrageous antics happening all around him.  Like no other film that I know of, “Ghostbusters” successfully blends goofball comedy with blockbuster special effects.  Explosions, ray guns, earthquakes, demons, a wonderfully dated soundtrack, and one towering Stay Puft Marshmallow Man (definitely the best movie set piece of the decade, right?); it’s all done with such bombastic drama and cheeky gusto that laughing is simply unavoidable.  To put it simply, “Ghostbusters” is still more fun than almost any other movie you will ever see.

What I Didn’t Like

If there is anything at all that you don’t like about this movie, you have no soul.

Most Memorable Scene

Oh wow, I’ve given myself a tough dilemma here.  Of all the movie’s I’ve reviewed thus far, this is probably the toughest to pick just one scene, but I’m going to force myself.

Obviously the rooftop/Stay Puft climax pulled out all the stops on the “Wow” factor, but really the scene that always pops up in my head first whenever “Ghostbusters” is mentioned, is the one where Peter, Ray, and Egon all visit the library in the beginning.  It’s a hilarious introduction to the characters in a suspenseful setting and ends with the most frightening ghost in the whole movie.  An unforgettable gag and also a terrific primer for the type of hijinks that are about to ensue.

My Rating: 5 out of 5

BROKEN BLOSSOMS (1919)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama / Romance

Director: D.W. Griffith

Cast: Lillian Gish / Richard Barthelmess / Donald Crisp

Plot

In London, Chinese immigrant Cheng meets and falls for Lucy Burrows, an impoverished white girl who has suffered repeated abuse at the hands of her prizefighting father.  When Lucy escapes, she finds refuge in the room above Cheng’s shop.

What I Liked 

Well, in the spirit of my past reviews, I suppose I’ll have to type something here, despite my reserves about doing so.  The movie had some boxing in it.  So there’s that.  I also have to admit Richard Barthelmess delivered a thoughtful, subtle acting performance as Cheng, even if the fact that casting white men to play stereotyped Chinese men was abysmally racist.  I also suppose I should note that, for a 1919 film, it was commendably brave of director D.W. Griffith to make a Chinese character the male romantic lead in an era so xenophobic, especially as Griffith had previously directed one of the most notoriously racist films of all time, “Birth of a Nation.”

What I Didn’t Like 

Let me put it this way.  If you look at my last entry, it's been months since it was posted.  That's because it really took me that long to convince myself to finish watching this 90 minute bore.

Much has been made of the fact that this was the most reserved and downbeat film from Griffith, the first great epic film director.  The problem is, by stripping the film of the historic setting of “Birth of a Nation” and the grand sets of “Intolerance,” Griffith essentially robbed the film of any aesthetic value that would make it appeal for someone watching the movie a century into the future.  The rest is all histrionic melodrama from lead actress Lillian Gish, appalling stereotypes of Chinese people, and goofy faces from the villain, all piled up on a plot that’s far too bare-bones to be interesting today.

All that remains is its historic value as a touchstone in the development of the Hollywood filmmaking style (and also its place as the first film produced by United Artists).  The language of motion picture storytelling was still in its infancy in 1919 and this film helped push the art forward a few steps, but that fact doesn’t make it any more bearable to watch today.

Most Memorable Scene

The most famous scene is that of Lillian Gish’s spastic writhing and cringing as she hides from her abusive father in a closet.  Apparently her performance was so convincing in that time that it frightened even Griffith himself.  The truth is that this scene is far too melodramatic to hold up today.  For me, the best moment was of course the boxing match, which plays out shortly before the aforementioned confrontation.  The fighting is laughably amateurish but if you’ve ever seen motion picture footage of prizefights from the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century you’ll find the boxing match in “Broken Blossoms” actually looks fairly authentic, even if it is choreographed.  More importantly, it represents the only sustained action in a film that otherwise feels interminable.

My Rating: 1.5 out of 5

THREE COLORS: RED (1994)

A.K.A.: Trois Couleurs: Rouge

Country: France / Poland / Switzerland

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Krzysztof Kieslowski

Cast: Irene Jacob / Jean-Louis Trintignant / Frederique Feder

Plot

After accidentally hitting his dog with her car, a young woman meets a former judge who spies on his neighbor’s phone conversations.  The pair begin an unlikely friendship that changes both of them.

What I Liked

Fraternity.  That’s what the third color, red, stands for in the French flag, and that is the theme behind Krzysztof Kieslowski’s third film in a series loosely based on those colors.  It seems like a simple enough task to create a film showing how all of us are connected, especially through a medium that is in itself an example of that theme.  However, Kieslowski does so in a way that transcends any Oprah Book Club notion of togetherness and brotherhood.  This is a comprehensive portrait of how human beings are together in this world, both to our benefit and to our detriment.  We are shown how some people find togetherness in the most undesired places while others try to force togetherness in situations where it will not and cannot work.  Fraternity, we find, is both elusive and unavoidable.  It is desperately sought out by some and taken for granted by others.  The most mundane actions of our daily lives can have a profound impact on those of people we may never meet.  I’m rambling now, but all of the above is illustrated in the 99 minutes of this film.

“Three Colors: Red” has the depth and pacing of a novel.  In fact, had it been a novel, I suspect it would be considered among the best of the twentieth century, a musing on postmodern life in the technology age.  Each of the main characters is a stand-in for themes greater than themselves.  In fact, I believe one of them, the reclusive old judge spying on his neighbors, can easily be read as a stand-in for the Christian God, among other things.  Full of all of the complexity of human nature, emotion, morality, and even fate, this is not only an excellent movie; it is a terrific piece of literature, as well.  It is clear that the death of Kieslowski in 1996 robbed the world of a significant artist.

What I Didn’t Like

I haven’t seen the second film in the series (“Blue” is the first; “White” the second, “Red” the third), because it wasn’t included in the book I use as my source.  Based on how good the other two are, I’m sure I’ll be watching it sooner, rather than later.  However, “Red” can be said to be guilty of the same point of criticism that which some might find in “Blue.”  That is, watching it can be seen as too intellectual of an enterprise; the pure entertainment value is limited.  To quote my entry on “Blue,” “It is possible to spend too much of the film trying to recognize all that the filmmakers are trying to convey through their art, as opposed to sitting back and enjoying a moving film.”  Some may say the same thing about this film.

“Red” also has the added drawback of not starring Juliette Binoche, who turned in an outstanding performance in “Blue.”  Because the films are only loosely linked to one another, they are primarily about different characters and thus have different actors (Though Binoche makes a brief appearance towards the conclusion).  Irene Jacob has the lead in this film and she is good.  She has a beautiful and expressive face that immediately makes her character sympathetic, if not terribly interesting.  Perhaps her character was meant to be a blank slate, someone in whom the viewer can see his or herself during the journey of discovery that is “Red.”  In which case, Jacob does the job required of her.

Most Memorable Scene

The bizarre relationship between the main characters in this film begins with the woman’s invasion of the man’s home while he is sleeping.  Not much later she is shocked to learn that he too has been invading the homes of others (if only with his ears), and with far less praiseworthy intentions.  Yet she is clearly interested in joining him in his voyeurism, despite her professions of being disgusted with his actions and philosophy.  The scene where she stays in the man’s room as he switches his radio signal from house to house, listening on the affairs of his neighbors, and finds she has more in common with this lonely, strange man and his victims than she wants to admit is the crux of the film and its message.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

THREE COLORS: BLUE (1993)

A.K.A.: Trois Couleurs: Bleu

Country: France / Poland / Switzerland

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Krzysztof Kieslowski

Cast: Juliette Binoche / Benoit Regent / Charlotte Very

Plot

A woman tries to start a new life after losing her husband and daughter in a car accident.

What I Liked

The previous movie I reviewed here, “Now, Voyager,” was a drama built around the intensity of human passion and pain, a high quality melodrama.  “Three Colors: Blue” deals with similar themes, but in a way that is much more personal.  Juliette Binoche is nothing short of devastating in her portrayal of a widow of a famous composer, seeking to escape all memories of her past and build a new life for herself as though the previous never existed.  The success of the movie’s plot and meaning rests almost entirely on Binoche’s shoulders and she carries that weight with aplomb.  The strength of her performance is in her silence, her looks, gestures, and silent tears.  Her character does not moan and sob like those in “Now, Voyager,” but rather shows her pain through her efforts to ignore the hurt.  It is a performance deftly crafted out of subtlety, empathy, and self-assurance.

Binoche’s performance is exactly what is needed for “Three Colors: Blue,” a perfect fit for the puzzle that is the overall film.  Director Krysztof Kieslowski gives poetic meaning to the minutiae of everyday existence that would normally be dismissed as most trivial.  Moments like a droplet of coffee sitting on a saucer or a close-up of an eyeball moving about in its socket are interlaced between moments of recognizable tragedy and anguish within the narrative of the plot.  Binoche and Kieslowski show us that the tragic beauty (and sometimes even the heroism) of being human can be found in every fleeting instant of our lives.

What I Didn’t Like

This movie does exactly what it clearly set out to do, all of which I’ve gone over above.  In terms of accomplishing its goals, “Three Colors: Blue” is flawless.  However, there will be those, who will not appreciate those goals.  It could certainly be argued that watching the movie is too much of an intellectual enterprise than an emotional experience.  It is possible to spend too much of the film trying to recognize all that the filmmakers are trying to convey through their art, as opposed to sitting back and enjoying a moving film.  For me, though, I found the film a perfect balance, the intellectual strengths coming from Kieslowski’s eye for detail and the emotional catharsis from Binoche’s performance.

Most Memorable Scene

In case we miss the point of the film’s more subtle moments, there is particularly fascinating moment about half way through the film where Binoche’s character is sitting on a park bench and closes her eyes.  Doing so, she misses the sight of a decrepit, bent-backed, old woman hobbling down the sidewalk from who knows how far away to come to a recycle container.  The hole in which she is to insert her glass bottle is at least three feet over the woman’s head, yet somehow she manages to wrench, stretch, and contort herself over an agonizing period of just a few seconds just to get that bottle where it needs to go.  By the time Binoche opens her eyes, the old woman has hobbled out of view and our main character has missed a truly remarkable moment in her own life.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

NOW, VOYAGER (1942)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama / Romance

Director: Irving Rapper

Cast: Bette Davis / Paul Henreid / Gladys Cooper

Plot

Following an emotional breakdown, spinster Charlotte Vale goes on a cruise and falls in love with an unhappily married businessman.  Transformed into a stylish and confident woman, she returns home to confront her domineering mother and pursue personal happiness, yet is unable to escape the memory of her past affair.

What I Liked

“Now, Voyager” would never be made today, at least not in anywhere near the form that it was made in 1942.  It represents the pinnacle of Hollywood melodrama, a genre of operatic histrionics that has long since fallen out of vogue with American film audiences.  As such, this movie is a sort of time capsule of public tastes, particularly among women, in the 1940s and 1950s.  In short, melodramas (sometimes called “women’s pictures”) were essentially the chick flicks of their day, and “Now, Voyager” is perhaps the most popular and highly regarded of them all.

For me, lead Bette Davis is the strength of the film.  True to the genre, the script is full of overemotional and over-romantic dialogue, threatening to make the film feel dreadfully dated.  Yet Davis handles her character with a subtlety and confidence that overcomes the limitations of her script by downplaying Charlotte’s emotions.  Davis gives her character as much depth through subtle gesture, posture, walk, and expression as possible, rather than through melodramatic clichés like swooning, moaning, and weeping.  Women, as embodied by Davis, are complex and intelligent, not simply love-sick crybabies.  It is Davis who transforms not only the character from wallflower to lady-about-town, but also he movie from mindless schlock into a rare (for the period) character study.

What I Didn’t Like

Despite Davis’ accomplished acting, there is never any doubt that “Now, Voyager” is the quintessential, almost definitive, melodrama, a style that is admittedly not among my favorites.  The strings-saturated soundtrack (which apparently won an Oscar?) doesn’t quit, just as the script has all of the central characters incessantly putting “Oh” in front of each other’s names.  It’s “Oh, Jerry” this and “Oh, mother” that for two hours on end.  Oh, stop.

I’m glad this kind of movie died out, though its legacy lives on through television in the form of the soap opera.

Most Memorable Scene

Apparently the closing scene of the film features the first time in motion pictures that a man put two cigarettes in his mouth to light both and hand one to his lover, a suggestive gesture that caused quite a stir among the female audiences of the day but has since become a cliché.  This is as good of a scene as any to pick for it’s being a definitive moment in romantic cinema, but also because no moment really struck me as exceedingly memorable.

My Rating: 3 out of 5

ANIMAL FARM (1954)

Country: U.K.

Genre(s): Animated / Fantasy

Director: Joy Batchelor / John Halas

Cast: Maurice Denham / Gordon Heath

Plot

In this adaptation of the famous George Orwell novel, farm animals overthrow their human master to run the farm themselves.  The lawful society they set up for themselves, based on equality, soon falls prey to corruption.

What I Liked

I’m giving a *spoiler alert!* here not because I give away specific spoilers here, but because some of what I write below can be inferred to give away many important aspects of the drama.

I read the novel “Animal Farm” back in middle school (so we’re talking over 20 years ago), and while I remember a few details and the main gist, I cannot recall the novel well enough to judge this film’s accuracy to the text.  From research, I gather that it is mostly faithful, except for the conclusion.  Like the source material, the movie is a not-so-subtle allegory for the Soviet Revolution and the subsequent betrayal of the Communist ideals for which the Revolution had supposedly been fought.  There are obvious stand-ins for Czar Nicholas (the human Jones), Lenin (the pig Snowball), and Stalin (the pig Napoleon), while the rest of the people and animals are analogous to specific portions of the populace at large.  However, one of the great things about both the novel and the film are that in truth the story is applicable to the history of most any government or civilization.  Read the stories of most of the human societies of the present or past, big or small, and you’ll likely find that they formed out of a combination of both necessity and idealism, rejecting the dangers and abuses of the past; that rejection is followed by a period of chaos, which, for successful nations is eventually replaced by the establishment of order through consensus, law, and cooperation.  However, someone among the new leadership always finds a way to corrupt the system to suit their own needs, leading to yet more abuse or chaos.  “Animal Farm” follows this common theme, following the details of the U.S.S.R. specifically, but I think most who watch it will conclude that the same basic themes could be applied to the U.S.A.

Interestingly, the audio includes only two human voices, those of narrator Gordon Heath and Maurice Denham, who takes care of every other voice, human or animal, in the story.  It is a credit to Denham that his being solely responsible for the voices of pigs, ducks, donkeys, and the rest goes unnoticed if you aren’t already aware of it prior to watching.  One would easily believe different actors are sharing the load.  The soundtrack is also peppered with some authentic records of real farm animals, but Denham handles a hefty responsibility very successfully.

What I Didn’t Like

This was the first privately-produced, full-length animated feature made in the U.K., which means it can’t help but be compared with its contemporaries from the U.S. powerhouse in animated features, Disney.  In terms of animation, there is really no comparison warranted, Disney films of even the 1930s are far superior to even the best visuals from “Animal Farm,” made a full two decades earlier.  But truthfully, the comparison isn’t fair.  First of all, the makers of the British film didn’t have the American company’s budget.  Second, the animators of “Animal Farm” still manage to add some eye-catching moments of both style and action, never once failing to entertain the eye.  Third, “Animal Farm” covers ground thematically on which Disney would never consider treading.  Unlike “Snow White” or “Pinocchio,” this is a film which only adults can truly appreciate, even if it is wrapped in a fairy tale’s trappings and was marketed toward children on initial release.

Most Memorable Scene

For the most visual and emotional impact, the scene that strikes the hardest is the tragic death of Boxer, the powerful and industrious horse who becomes a symbol of everything that is good about community, institutionalized or not.  The scene of his death features some of the most thrilling animation of the film, but also represents the complete loss of the ideals for which the Revolution had been fought.  In fact, 20 years later, Boxer’s fate was the only specific event of the novel which I could still remember well.  Twenty years from now, even if I never watch this movie again, I’m sure this will also be the part of the film I recall the most vividly. 

My Rating: 4 out of 5

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (2005)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama / Romance / Western

Director: Ang Lee

Cast: Heath Ledger / Jake Gyllenhaal / Michelle Williams

Plot

After meeting while on a job corralling sheep, two men fall in love.  Separating at the end of the job, each spends the ensuing years desperately lonely, hiding within a heterosexual marriage.  A reunion and the love it rekindles causes a great deal of emotional turmoil for the men and their families.

What I Liked

“Brokeback Mountain” features some spectacular cinematography, most notably of the title location and other nature scenes, but director Ang Lee and crew also make terrific use of the camera for scenes shot in town or even indoors.  The scope of the film wavers between expansive freedom and oppressive claustrophobia, and all of this is accentuated marvelously by the cameras.

It is a great credit to the actors, then, that they outshine the marvelous visuals, even the otherwise overpowering panoramas of gorgeous mountains, expansive lakes, and lush forests.  Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Williams, and Anne Hathaway all turn in convincing, sympathetic performances.   Ledger’s death has made it so that praising his acting when commenting on any film in which he appeared has become an unspoken requisite.  That makes me want to find a reason to criticize him, but the fact is he the best of the entire talented cast, damn near perfection as repressed, conflicted cowboy Ennis Del Mar.  Ledger’s performance is a clear reference to the “strong, silent type” of cowboy which has been portrayed by everyone from Gary Cooper to Clint Eastwood in the classic American Westerns.  Yet his portrayal questions that archetype’s strength and highlights the cost of that silence, finding a tragic subtext in a macho ideal.  Michelle Williams is also an excellent study in the damage of repression as Ennis’s wife Alma.  Despite their characters not being as interesting as Ennis and Alma, Gyllenhaal and Hathaway are equally capable in their more reserved roles.

What I Didn’t Like

It’s a good thing that the film had excellent cinematography, characterization, and acting to fall back on.  Because otherwise the movie was overly long and disappointingly dull.  As the relationship of the two men played out over a period of twenty years, I kept wondering when something interesting was going to happen.  All of the conflict is character-driven and, as well rendered as the characters are, it would have been nice to have some sort of event worth watching happen.  I’m not asking for James Bond here, but some sort of external conflict would have been nice.  Were it not for the amazing scenery, this would have been a story better fitted for a novel than a motion picture.

Most Memorable Scene

The last line and moment in the final scene drops all of the weight of all of love, nostalgia, loss, and regret right onto the viewer’s chest.  I was holding back some serious tears.

Incidentally, for all those people who stayed away from this film because it was a “gay movie,” or because it represented some liberal media conspiracy, you might be surprised at how tame the gay sex scenes were.  Not that this would (or should) be a reason for you to see past your own hang-ups and actually give the movie a chance.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

BRINGING UP BABY (1938)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy / Romance

Director: Howard Hawks

Cast: Katharine Hepburn / Cary Grant / May Robson

Plot

Nerdy paleontologist David can’t seem to get rid of kooky heiress Susan, who is determined to win his love.  The fact that Susan has a pet leopard named Baby only makes things more unbearable for the high-strung scientist.

What I Liked

I saw this movie once before as a kid, when my dad was watching it on AMC.  Back then I loved the hijinks involving Baby, the leopard that enters the plot about twenty minutes in as a pet of Katharine Hepburn’s character.  The reactions of everyone else to the big cat made me laugh, and I never forgot this movie because of that unique gimmick.

On a second viewing, this time as an adult, I was much more amused by the screwball banter between Hepburn and co-star Cary Grant.  Grant’s over-polite David and Hepburn’s obnoxious Susan make for a terrific comedic match as the pair constantly bicker with, interrupt, and confuse one another.  With Grant in straight-man mode, Hepburn’s gets the very best lines (many of them improvised), prattling away with befuddled logic that leaves Grant (and the audience) confused as to whether she’s impossibly idiotic or supremely witty.  The fun in Grant’s performance originates from his facial expressions and tone of voice, essentially his exasperated reactions to Hepburn and Baby.

In fact, Baby is almost as good of an on-screen partner for Grant as Hepburn.  I wasn’t surprised to learn that Grant was in fact genuinely terrified of the animal.  He is constantly watching the prowling cat out of the corner of his eye and making sure to jump out of its way.  His terror is natural, making these scenes all the more funny.  Ironically, it was not he, but Hepburn who the feline actor did in fact come after, only to be subdued by a trainer.

What I Didn’t Like

There’s plenty of slapstick comedy to be had as well.  However, for adults, most of the pratfalls and bumped-heads prove anti-climactic when compared with the character-driven laughs.

Also, an insufferable little dog shows up about half-way through and doesn’t stop barking for the rest of the picture, proving quite an annoying distraction.

Most Memorable Scene

Ironically, the film’s funniest moments occur before Baby ever shows up.  The first three encounters between David and Susan, on the golf-course, in the parking lot, and in a restaurant are all terrific blends of the different kinds of comedy to be found through the remainder of the movie: situation, slapstick, screwball, sexual, etc.  The different kinds of funny to be found here mean pretty much anyone can find something to laugh about in at least one of these scenes.  I certainly giggled more than once.  Since these three encounters all run consecutively, I’ve chosen to pick them all as one scene, the best one.

My Rating: 4 out of 5