Zoolander (2001), Ben Stiller – Takes the scattershot approach to comedic filmmaking, throw as many jokes as possible in and hope enough come off. They do, this film is both clever and hilarious. Probably the best thing Stiller has ever done, definitely the best thing Billy Zane has ever done.
Anchorman (2004), Adam McKay - Maybe the most quotable film ever. Still makes me piss myself even though I have watched it countless times. Ferrell and Rudd in particular deliver comedic caricatures that will remain amongst the most memorable of my generation.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Movie (1990), Steven Barron - This is the live action classic that is still worth a look. Even on my battered Konka 51cm tube telly, on my old VHS copy. Has a really excellent and nuanced plot to build the 'hero in a half shell' action on. And a fantastic Casey Jones played by Elias Koteas who would end up impressing much later on in the great Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line (1998).
Police Squad! (1982), Jim Abrahams, Jerry Zucker & David Zucker – My my this is a silly show. The precursor to the Naked Gun films rocks a hilariously stupid formula with some great wordplay. The running jokes throughout the series get funnier and funnier. And of course it has the late great Leslie Nielson who is in fantastic form. Also worth watching for Johnny the shoe-shine guy who makes a hilarious appearance in each episode including this one featuring Dick Clark:
Monsters (2010), Gareth Edwards - Despite the title, this is actually more of a character study. Driven by a fine script, and two really good performances especially from Whitney Able in the female lead. And there are a couple of cool monster set pieces as well if you're into that kind of thing (isn't everyone?) with the special effects enhancing, not detracting from a film for once. I loved pretty much everything about this film.
Megamind (2010), Tom McGrath - The family animated film market is so saturated these days that I rarely bother unless there's a big fat Pixar stamp on it. Glad I did on this one. Stellar voice work by Ferrell & Pitt, fantastic soundtrack featuring AC/DC & the gunners compliment a witty, somewhat original superhero storyline.
The King's Speech (2010), Tom Hooper - Grand tale exceedingly well told through a script bursting with humour and pathos. Firth, Rush & Bonham Carter (freed from her husband's shtick) all deliver exceptional performances amongst the year's best.
Attack of the Giant Leeches (1959), Bernard Kowalski – Sometimes it's not the film, but the circumstances you watch it in. This is a pretty cool, passable 50s creature flick. But I watched it, talking crap with my Mum and Dad over the remnants of Christmas wine which was a pretty fantastic way to spend an evening.
Not Worth Watching:
The Tempest (1979), John Gorrie - Bashing these BBC productions is seen as a prerequisite for many a wanky undergrad. However, unless you are going to innovate (well) performances are the key to any Shakespeare film. But here they range from the so-so, Michael Horden's Prospero, to the laughable – David Dixon's distracting, Bowie inspired Ariel. I really had to force myself to sit through all of this.
The great Dennis Hopper passed away on May 29 of this year, so I thought it was time for a small, very belated tribute. Hopper's first notable film role was way back alongside James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause (1955). Through Easy Rider (1969) Hopper not only directed and acted in an absolutely fantastic road movie, he also helped bring about a fundamental change in the way Hollywood chose to make movies. More than just being a great actor, Hopper was also a brilliant photographer and artist, known for being willing to try most things. It is reputed that in his later years that Hopper never turned down a job offer. This resulted in his appearance in such questionable films such as Hell Ride (2008), Choke (2000) and the telemovie Firestarter 2: Rekindled (2002). But this period also resulted in a couple of my all time favourite Hopper performances. He played the main bad guy Victor Drazen in the first series of 24 (2001) which I think is a fantastic bit of television filmmaking. Seeing a renowned Hollywood actor pop up unexpectedly in a TV show blew my mind a little. If you are into big action stories with lots of intrigue and double crosses than this series of 24 is about as good as it gets, and that extends to anything made for the big screen. But probably my favourite performance of Hopper's is his turn on the Gorillaz song “Fire Coming out of the Monkey's Head”. On Youtube you can find some really cool film clips for the song, but check out this live rendition which I love:
After the monumental failure of Hopper’s directorial follow up to Easy Rider, The Last Movie (1971), personal issues and poor film choices saw his film career really decline. Today I will be checking out the film which began to rehabilitate his acting career - Hopper's villainous turn in the somewhat eccentric David Lynch's Blue Velvet (1986). Lynch's films could be labelled 'cult' and are quite divisive. Some think they are masterpieces, whilst others acknowledge his brilliance as a visual stylist, whilst deriding the finished products as nonsensical, and at times exploitative.
Narratively Blue Velvet is a detective story, albeit a very strange one. After his father suffers a stroke Jeffrey, played by Kyle McLachlan returns home from college to aid his recovery. Whilst walking home one day he comes across a severed ear and turns into an amateur sleuth, along the way recruiting a police detective's daughter Sandy, played by Laura Dern. The villain of the piece is Hopper's Frank Booth who has kidnapped the family of Isabella Rossellini's Dorothy to force her to perform sexual favours for him. On the most basic level the film follows Jeffrey's attempts to solve the mystery of the ear, and Booth's hold over Rossellini’s character. But that is putting it simplistically. At times the film entrances with truly sublime sequences, whilst at many other times it stutters on. One major issue is that there seems to be a lack of explanation throughout. Apparently Lynch's first cut of the film ran about 4 hours, whilst the finished film is just under 2. It shows. There are so many gaps, so many unexplained jumps in narrative. Yet despite Lynch needing to edit heavily he includes strange, long interludes such as a creepy, unexplained cabaret performance at a house party by Dean Stockwell's Ben which added nothing to the film for me. The gaps were so monumental that I actually considered that the narrative was all in Jeffery’s head for a little while. Much of the narrative is driven by him making leaps of logic rather than it actually being explained onscreen so I thought the big twist might be that, ta-da, he was just dreaming. Or that he was just an unreliable narrator, embellishing the mundaneness of his life and this was his resultant daydream.
For me, there was a paradox about the place of Hopper's performance in this film. I enjoyed it most before Hopper's character appeared, yet I think his performance is by far the best in the film. I think the film almost does not know what to do with such a fantastically evil villain. Hopper's performance has become one of the iconic psychopath roles in cinematic history, joining the likes of Anthony Perkins' Norman Bates and Jack Nicholson's Joker in Burton's Batman (1989), which I think his performance is reminiscent of. But it is notable how little time he spends on screen. He explodes on screen, wreaks havoc for 5-10 minutes, a wonderful caricature spitting f-bombs left, right and centre, then leaves. Repeat this 3 or 4 times, and that's it. Hopper plays evil well. And Lynch generally achieves the balance of having the character be over the top, whilst still maintaining a semblance of believability to him. The two central performances in the film are nice. McLachlan does quirky well, he went on to pretty much make a career out of it, while Dern is very good as the typical girl next door character (she is a very good actress who has proven adept in a range of genres). But the performance remembered from this film, for good reason, is Hopper's. It is easy to see that this film has been influential. The dead-pan dialogue regarding the merits of Heineken beer could have been written by Tarantino himself. Lynch proves himself adept at creating interest through the use of music. However some of it suffers from a lack of subtlety, although this may be magnified because it has been replicated by other works that followed. An example of this are scenes of violence being accompanied by upbeat, popular music. Something which doesn't work in this film (and I think rarely works at all). A nice stylistic touch though, at least early in the film is Lynch's engagement with melodramatic conventions such as emotive music, and the use of slow-motion in emotional moments.
Two themes stood out for me in this film. It does examine the seedy underbelly of society's clean-cut facade. The film is bookended by sequences of hyper-suburbia - white picket fences, perfectly manicured lawns and flower gardens, all with saturated bright colour. This is stereotypical, perfect American suburbia. At the end of the opening sequence of the film featuring these images, the camera zooms under the lawn, to an extreme close-up of a confined space teeming with cockroaches. The suggestion is clearly that what looks perfect on the surface, has some measure of rottenness underneath. This is a truism really. As Jeffery explains “It's a strange world isn't it.” Every night in a given place, even a quiet suburban one, terrible things happen. People are raped, murdered and physically assaulted and so on. Blue Velvet depicts all of these things but in reality I'm not sure how deep this theme is explored really. The point is made, but it is not really examined or illuminated as it could be. For me, the second theme that was predominant was the power of sex. Sex is a wonderful thing, but it can also drive people to do hideous things. A majority of people have probably at some time in their life placed a disproportionate amount of importance on the place of sex in their lives. Lynch extends this to extreme ends. There are strange scenes of sexuality – Dorothy forces Jeffery to get naked at knifepoint and gives him a blowjob because she is equally fearful and aroused when she catches him hiding in her apartment. Soon after Jeffery returns to his hiding place and witnesses Frank sexually assault Dorothy. Inexplicably, once Frank goes, Jeffery and her resume their sexual contact. This is an example of McLachlan's character not being able to overcome the power of sex. He knows this woman is in no position to be seduced. She has just been assaulted in the most hideous way, and even though she initiates the contact there is no way that he can believe she is in a position to engage on a sexual level. The lure of her body is too much and supersedes all other concerns. Dorothy seemingly utilises sex as a form of punishment. She seems to blame herself for the kidnapping of her family and seeks out sadomasochistic contact with Jeffery as punishment. She continually begs her to hit him in erotic trysts. He resists, but eventually gives in, an act he regrets for the rest of the narrative. The suggestion is that she does not enjoy these things in a physical or psychological manner, but rather they serve as an emotional release for what she is going through. Not a comforting release, but a reaffirmation of her (misguided) belief that she is to blame for Frank's heinous behaviour.
Maybe some fans of David Lynch films would surmise from this review that I just don't 'get' this film. That's possible. But for me Lack of coherence was the killer for this film, and all Lynch's style and the terrific performances were unable to overcome this flaw. There is an obvious issue with attempting to write a tribute piece such as this. How honest can you be - What if the film sucks, or the actor I am supposed to me saluting is rubbish in it? In some ways this issue reared its head for me with this blog. This film was so underwhelming for me. There are flashes of excellence, but the second half is such a slog, with little reward (and more than a few brutalities to sit through – Rossellini’s infamous appearance on the lawn, naked & battered). As a calling card for Hopper's talents though it is not such a bad thing. I don't know that he has ever given a better performance, on a pure acting level (I don't claim to have seen anywhere near all his films). But if I want to really enjoy something he has done, I'll whip out Easy Rider, 24 or my Gorillaz CD, rather than watch this film again.
Hope the festive season is treating everyone well. At least here in Aus it is bringing a raft of really interesting (and hyped) films that are opening over the Christmas break which I will be keen to check out. Working in retail at the moment meant the season has also brought me very little free time to write.
However I have managed to get the time to set up a fan page on facebook for this site. So 'like' the page so you can keep up to date with new blogs, as well as the occasional thought in between. I will also be sharing interesting links etc there that don't really warrant a whole article, but I think are worth checking out nonetheless. I am hoping the page will also help me engage with those of you reading out there a little better and on a more regular basis. Follow the link below to get involved:
The Karate Kid (1984), John G. Avildsen - Now this is a family movie, not the tripe that passes for one these days. Pat Morita has created one of cinema's most beloved iconic characters in Mr Miyagi & his central relationship with Ralph Macchio's Daniel is genuinely affecting.
Niagara Falls (1897), The Lumiere Brothers – Yep, made 113 years ago. I found it on youtube and was transfixed, watching it over and over again. The Lumiere's were two of cinemas founding fathers and it is fantastic that these wonderful images are so readily available online. Check it out here friends, pretty incredible stuff:
Knockin' on Heaven's Door (1997), Thomas Jahn - This life affirming German road flick about two terminally ill men is imbued with more spirit than just about any film I've seen. Concerns the fact we are all going to die and the way we should live in the face of that.
The Town (2010), Ben Affleck - Really authentic crime flick taking place in Affleck's Boston. Well made, violent and gritty film about a life of crime, and how hard it is to escape alive.
Lucky Country (2009), Kriv Stenders - Interesting early Australia set gothic tale. Wonderful scenery provides the backdrop for a tale that whilst not always completely satisfying still packs enough of a punch to make it worth your while.
The Frozen North (1922), Edward F. Cline & Buster Keaton - Hilarious North Pole set short sees Keaton playing against type as a bit of a cad. Really nice Western/pioneer spirit to the film. And typical Keaton hilarity of course. Here it is:
Love You Too (2010), Daina Reid - I am a fan of both Brendan Cowell & Peter Helier so had hopes for this gentle comedy. The inclusion of the fantastic Peter Dinklage really makes this worth a look. Plenty of spirit, quite a few laughs, and an emotional kick at the end to the sounds of what is probably my favourite song of all time all impress.
Not Worth Watching:
Jackass 3D (2010), Jeff Tremaine - These guys are at their best when they are good-naturedly hurting the shit outta each other. Unfortunately they've moved towards stunts featuring bodily fluids and more concerningly animals. I can't, even in my own small way, endorse a film whose credits state the American Humane Society monitored some scenes & no animals were hurt in those scenes.
The Last Sunset (1961), Robert Aldrich - In which Kirk Douglas and his hair venture to the ol' West. Not even his supreme talents coupled with Joseph Cotten's can elevate this abysmal clichéd Western with unpalatable themes of incest. Cotten, brilliant as always is on screen far too little. He and Douglas only share one scene – the film's best.
The Tailor of Panama (2001), John Boorman - Cerebral tale featuring Geoffrey Rush on fine form. Let down by a bland and at times nonsensical narrative and the attempts to make Pierce Brosnan's character look sleazy, which simply serve to portray all women as utterly stupid.
The American (2010), Anton Corbijn - Stupid name for a movie really, and for me it was a bit of a nothing film. Confuses nothing really happening for arthouse chops. Entire movie hinged on Clooney's main character, but I just did not buy him.
If you only have time to watch oneKnockin' on Heaven's Door
Paul Auster is (along with Dennis Lehane) my favourite living author. I am tempted to say he's the greatest author still writing, but really who reads enough to be able to make such a sweeping statement. Just as since the start of the film industry literature has inspired film, the opposite is also true. Film has inspired some fantastic works of writing. Auster's “The Book of Illusions” (2002) is one of these, and it features some spectacular and detailed descriptions of made up silent films and a storyline with a lot of similarities to the life of Fatty Arbuckle. The book, whilst I don't think it is Auster's best, is well worth a read, especially for film buffs. But now to the reason for this piece. As a reward for finishing the uni year, I splurged and bought myself a hardcover copy of Auster's latest book “Sunset Park” (2010). According to the dust jacket, one of the focuses of the book is William Wyler's film The Best Years of Our Lives (1946), a film I had only vaguely heard of and discovered was on the 1001 list. Later, reading a review of Auster's book it mentioned that a couple of characters in it go and see Robert Bresson's film A Man Escaped (1956), a film I had not heard of but that is also on the list. So, before I get cracking on my favourite author's new one, I thought I would take a look at these two films which clearly inspired him. I'm not sure how widely available they are at the moment. I managed to hire both of them from Electric Shadows here in Canberra, only on VHS though.
The Best Years of Our Lives was released in the year after the end of World War II and deals explicitly with the plight of returning servicemen attempting to reintegrate into a society they'd been outside of for a number of years. The three servicemen are Fred (air force), Al (army) and Homer (navy). They meet up whilst trying to find a flight back to their fictional all-American hometown of Boone City. The characterisation is extraordinary, with so much delightful detail in the individuals and their interplay. Fred was the highest ranking at War, but class-wise back in civilian life is the bottom of the three. Al, a rank and file soldier in the War is a white collar banker back at home. Their personal situations likewise add interest. Fred had only been married 20 odd days before shipping out, so barely knows his wife. Al has been married twenty years and has missed very important years in his teenage children's lives. Homer had a sweetheart called Wilma before he left, but having lost both his hands in the war, he is frightened at how she will react to his newfound appearance. Just as he is about to leave the other two to see his family and Wilma, Homer basically begs that they all go back to his Uncle's bar and have a beer. It is a wonderful scene, and the loving forcefulness with which Al and Fred force him out the door firmly establishes their mateship. All three of these romantic relationships evolve over the course of the film wonderfully. The most nuanced of these involves Al and the love of his life, as he attempts to feel at home in his own home again and she struggles to deal with the man who has returned. The man she loves but one who has clearly picked up some demons at the front. This may all sound a bit forced, but believe me it is not. It also may sound like a lot of detail to provide the necessary elaboration for. And you would be right on that one. But the film runs a whopping two hours and fifty minutes, and it is because it tells all three of these men's stories in great (but not unnecessary) detail. It is nice also that the interactions between the three do not seem forced or just thrown together for the sake of it. They feel natural, and as a viewer I found my interest piqued when they got together after time apart. I don't really feel more elaboration on the narrative is particularly necessary. Like I have said this is a film about servicemen reintegrating into society, about the worries that face them upon their return – jobs, women and people trying to “rehabilitate” them.
If you consider melodrama to be synonymous with bad, then sit down and watch the three scenes where these soldiers return to their families and eat your words. Yes they are over the top emotionally and in the acting delivery, but they pack a hell of a punch. You can almost feel the joy of Al's children when he surprises them, or the awkwardness of Homer's families when faced with the claws that have replaced his hands (should I stare at them? should I not look at them at all?). This is a war film, but there is not one battle scene in the almost three hours of the film. But the phenomenal script is able to evoke war brilliantly without them, see Homer recounting the sinking of his ship for example. Why show something with a tame re-enactment when you can have it related to you by a character who was there? For a film released in 1946 The Best Years of our Lives pulls no punches. There are frank depictions of drunkenness (not in a merry way, more a pissing away all of life's problems way) and likewise a rather frank, although brief, exposition of the adultery servicemen resorted to ease the pain of overseas service. Add to this the obvious sexual tension between the married Fred and Al's daughter Peggy and you have morally a pretty forward film. The film is also rich in social commentary. One of the earliest scenes sees Fred trying desperately to find a commercial flight, a returned hero in full uniform trying to get home to see his wife after years away. A rich fat-cat saunters up to the desk, rudely pushes in front of Fred and talks rudely to the lady on the counter. He then pays for the 16 pounds of excess baggage he feels the need to carry with him. Surely we would prefer Fred get the flight than this rich wanker. Fred can't get a flight home under any circumstances, but this guy can afford the massive excess baggage as well as his ticket. Also an issue is the lack of respect shown by the businessman toward Fred the returned serviceman. This is echoed throughout the film with the disgruntlement shown towards war returnees as they seek to re-enter the labour market. Fred eventually has to take a job as an assistant to the guy who used to be his assistant, one of those who resents the returning soldiers. As someone (possibly Fred) remarks, “last year it was kill Japs, this year it's make money.” This readjustment is hellishly hard for the three protagonists. Just as they need to reintegrate into society and the job market, these men also have to reintegrate in the same way into their home situations. Their situation is incomprehensible to me, the world has gone on without them, now need to find their way back into it. This is brilliantly evoked by Wyler and the script through Al's situation. Not only has he missed the formative teenage years of his kids, he has even forgotten that his wife of 20 years does not smoke. These difficulties rear their head on their first night back home in Boone City. A night that began with so much promise concludes with them all ending up pissed in the same bar, Fred and Homer sans their lady friends. At least the bar owner (and Homer's Uncle) Butch reassures them it will all be ok “unless there's another war and we'll all be blown to bits on the first day”.
Acting wise this is a great ensemble piece. No one really stands out, but by the same token you don't really notice anyone's shortcomings. People have bagged the acting abilities of the Peter Lorre-esque (in looks rather than acting), real-life amputee Harold Russell in the role of Homer, but I think he does an excellent job. I certainly found him believable, and more importantly natural. He expertly conveys the plight of a man who has withdrawn into his shell, intent on proving to the world that he is still an able man. The performance does not have the staidness that often afflicts those put in films for reasons other then their pure acting ability. Any shortcomings he does have as an actor are drowned out by the incredible dexterity he shows with the hooks that have replaced his hands throughout the film, such as being able to light and smoke a cigarette with ease. And to this day, Russell remains the only person to receive two Oscars for the same performance. He was nominated for best supporting actor in 1947, but was considered such an outsider to win the Academy awarded him a special Oscar for “bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans”, before he went on to win the other gong as well. Although the film is centred around the three male protagonists, the women give able support. Teresa Wright plays Al's daughter Peggy and is excellent, just as she is in Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt (1943). Her character goes on a wonderful emotional and romantic journey that matches those of any of the male characters on the film. She switches from determined home wrecker, to a woman refusing to allow her heartbreak to manifest externally with aplomb and believability. Her mother in the film played by Myrna Loy is similarly fantastic in a more traditional support role (with Wright's Peggy at times borders on being a lead character). The sound design and music on the film also really stood out for me, which is strange because it is the kind of element that I do not generally notice in a film. It really accentuates the action, and not just in bombastic moments. It is fantastic in the scene where Al wakes up with a brutal hangover after the first night back home for example.
I have mentioned a couple of times throughout this piece just how long this film is. Don't let that put you off the film is measured, taking its necessary time to get where it is going but does not drag. I always thought that the soldiers attempting to reintegrate into society subgenre was borne out of the Vietnam conflict, but this film and Key Largo (1948) have convinced me that this is far from the case, and it was clearly a major issue far earlier. This film is an all-time classic. The script is beyond belief, and surely has very few peers in film history. It is a tale of friendship that that manages to be both serious and uplifting, combining a whole bunch of characters and storylines into borderline perfection.
Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter
Robert Bresson's A Man Escaped is renowned as a minimalist, realist masterpiece. This actually made me a bit wary in approaching this film as I often find films that aim for stringent realism to feel forced, confusing boredom with realism. Our real lives are a little mundane which is why we attempt to lose ourselves in the fantasy world of cinema, no need to recreate it on screen. Early on A Man Escaped threatens to fall victim to this with a scene in a car with extremely shaky camerawork, and silence the belies the fact that cars generally make some noise. Thankfully though the realism throughout the film became more subtle as it went on.
Based on a true story, the film chronicles the attempts of Lieutenant Fontaine to escape Nazi custody. When he is imprisoned at the start of the film Fontaine is shocked and confused as to why his life was spared after he attempted to escape whilst being transported. Soon after incarceration he begins plotting his next escape by digging at his wooden door using a spoon. Bresson, through the early part of the film establishes a neat dichotomy, the men are kept in solitary cells so are essentially on their own, yet a camaraderie springs up between them. This is achieved through communication by tapping on cell walls and over the sink as they clean themselves. The body of the film comes in the form of Fontaine's small victories in his quest. Managing to pick the lock on his handcuffs, getting out his door, to the hallway, the skylight - a gradual progression that is really well paced. Knowing that the only way to escape his fate is to escape the prison, Fontaine's determination never wavers. It is given impetus when he is advised that he will soon face execution as the investigation (definitely not trial) into his circumstance has been completed. When he returns to his cell after hearing the news, Fontaine has a cellmate for the first time in the film. At this stage he is very suspicious of the new arrival, believing he may be a spy. The conundrum of whether to take the newcomer with him on his escape is expertly built up. Take him or kill him is the question Fontaine agonises over. Actually the overall tension builds up very slowly throughout the whole film, culminating in the lengthy final escape sequence.
Sound is employed incredibly well by Bresson throughout the film. Generally there is no music. Just silence overlaid with the sounds of Fontaine working – chiselling at the door or manipulating cloth into rope. With many realist features there is not much to talk about regarding technique. And for the most part A Man Escaped fits this mould. It is generally pretty simply shot. The film does make fantastic use of close-ups though. Much of the film consists of close-ups of Fontaine at work, especially when he is digging away at the door to his cell with a spoon. For a POW film there is remarkably little violence, and what there is is generally shown off-screen, with the bloody aftermath shown. However not even this is seen after the film's most harrowing violent outbursts. These come when bursts of machine gun fire signal that yet another execution has taken place. The effect of this is quite startling, with the loud cacophony exploding against the preceding silence for maximum effect. Thematically the film has a real existential bent to it. The notions of solitude and community are contrasted with one another. One of the prisoners is a priest who copies out bible versus for Fontaine. Fontaine himself appears to have a quiet faith but is more than willing to take things into his own hands, remarking that “it would be too easy if God did it all.”
The great triumph of the film for me was its handling of realism. It brings authenticity to the film rather than boredom. The film is something of a restrained masterpiece. Contrasts between silence and sound are used for emphasis, and Bresson appears to be in total control of his art form. This is a wonderfully textured film and in many ways has restored my faith in the value of realism on screen.
Andrew Lloyd Webber's version is probably the best known version these days, but the Carl Laemmle directed film version of The Phantom of the Opera (1925) was an early classic that has stood the test of time reasonably well. It is most notable now because it features 'the man of 1000 faces' Lon Chaney in the titular role. I will soon be putting up a review of The Wolfman (1941) which stars his son Lon Chaney Jr who delivers what I think is one of the top 5-10 performances of all time in that film. The attraction of seeing his dad in this film was one of the main reasons I chose to check it out.
The story concerns the Phantom who lurks deep below the opera house in Paris, and Christine, the woman he has fallen for. This film has a lot of bland, flat narrative bits. Nothing is really happening, the direction is uninspiring and the acting outside of Chaney (who is excellent) is serviceable but nothing to write home at. Running 93 minutes, the film feels far too long. A prevalence of shadows, black cats and spiderwebs mean it opens quite atmospherically but this for some reason is lost quite early on in and is not regained. But interspersed throughout this flatness are some absolutely stunning moments. The Phantom causing a massive chandelier to fall to the ground during a performance causing widespread panic, the first time we see his masked face, and the film's surprising shift into Technicolour where the Phantom appears at a masquerade ball as death dressed in stark red. Without a doubt though the film's high point is the stunning first unmasking of the Phantom. After warning his muse Christine never to remove his mask, she cannot control her curiosity. She pulls off his mask, with Chaney sitting front on to the camera as the Phantom's hideous facial features are revealed for the first time. The shock on his face is mirrored by the audiences. The makeup (apparently done by Chaney himself) still looks spectacular even by today's standards.
In fact a lot of the design elements of this film are top-notch, helping to compensate for the narrative shortcomings. The costumes are opulent and excellent. The Phantom's aforementioned facial appearance is incredible, as are the two masks he wears throughout the film. When dressed as red death in the ballroom sequence the skull mask he wears is chilling. Likewise the mask he wears for a lot of the film is creepy even today, much more so than the style popularised by Lloyd Webber's Phantom. Stark white, almost skinlike, with it just hanging off the bottom of his face. Don't know if it was because I watched this alone after midnight the other night, but I was well and truly creeped out by it. The main opera house set is also incredible. It is massive and ornate, the scale of set is something that you would not really expect from a mid 1920s film and having it bustling with extras adds to a wonderful sense of Parisian excess. The sewer-like underground lair of the Phantom is also monumentally constructed, including vast water sources which need to be crossed in a boat.
This film is worth a watch, just to see such an early rendering of this story. And the high points are really really high. But the flatness of much of the storyline mean it is not the wholly enchanting experience it threatened to be. Check it our here, and let me know if you agree:
My earlier blog titled Tim Stop Your Rambling (read it here: http://drinkingabeerwatchingamovie.blogspot.com/2010/09/tim-stop-your-rambling.html) proved relatively popular. So I thought I would make it a semi-regular feature. Three films from the 1001 list, one thousand words. Here we go.
Goodfellas (1990) – The film that sends Scorsese fanboys all around the world into fits of delirium. Don't even get them started on the Coco Cabana tracking shot please.
Based on a true story the film charts the rise of young Henry Hill, played by Ray Liotta, through the ranks of the mob. Especially it focuses on his relationship with the utterly psycho Tommy, played by Joe Pesci who is very good, and Robert De Niro's James Conway. Strangely when Henry and Tommy are meant to be young, early twenties up and comers they are played by actors who are, and look somewhere between 40-50. Usually I let these things slide in a film, but it jars for me in this. Especially because the film covers a lot of time (20-30 years) and there are really no signs of ageing, except De Niro whacking some more grey in his hair. Initially there is great camaraderie between these characters and their mob brethren. It is amazing how quickly though loyalty goes out the window though when someone ends up in jail or there is more money to be made from disloyalty. Money is king to these men, and they'll forsake anyone to get a little more. They also enjoy killing people for very little reason and treating women (generally their wives) like utter shit. Eventually, like any golden-age gangster flick, these guys all get what’s coming to them.
This is a film clearly made by an expert, its very pretty to look at. Scorsese is extremely proficient, mixing up the straightforward shooting with point of view and tracking shots. And as far as late gangster flicks go it's generally regarded as the pick of the pack. It's just not a real personal favourite of mine and for me never reaches the heights of a great film. I don't find it particularly exciting and I don't relate to these characters at all.
Verdict: Stubby of Reschs
Thelma and Louise (1991) directed by Ridley Scott before he felt the need to make every film with Russel Crowe, in many ways turned the road film on its head. Geena Davis' Thelma and Susan Sarandon's Louise are two Arkansas ladies looking to escape the shitty men in their lives for a few days. After Louise shoots a would-be rapist they end up on the run, with Thelma dabbling in armed robbery to finance proceedings.
I am a massive fan of Geena Davis, she is an outstanding actress. And the journey of her character carries this film, ably supported by Sarandon in a less flashy role. Actually the acting in this film in general is superb. Harvey Keitel is wonderful as a caring cop as is Michael Madsen as Louise's man, gradually managing to be less of an asshole. Their brief onscreen relationship is really nicely done. Finishing second only to Davis in the acting stakes is Christopher McDonald as her hilariously deadbeat husband. Shooter McGavin from the classic Happy Gilmore (1996) is so smarmy I lost count of the times I wanted to smack that moustache right off his face.
The fleeing of the women across the states allows Scott to pile on the gorgeous widescreen shots of the American countryside, always under impossibly blue skies. The confronting attempted rape of Thelma triggers an increasingly out of control chain of events including numerous crimes perpetrated by the two ladies. Witnessing Davis' Thelma grow from timid housewife to an utter badass who doesn't take shit from anyone is terrific fun. And the ending. Wow. I won't give it away, but if you have seen in let me know what you think of it. I'm a little torn by it, but I do appreciate the fact that Scott avoids any level of tweeness in his conclusion, which is where I thought the film was heading.
Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny
Dersu Uzala (1974) is the first Kurosawa film I've seen. Best known for The Seven Samurai (1954) Kurosawa is probably the most famous 'world' cinema director in history. Set in the early 1900s this is possibly the strangest 'buddy' film I've ever seen. It chronicles the relationship between the leader of a Russian military surveying team and an elderly woodsman. The woodsman, named Dersu and played by Maksim Mumzuk is one of the great characters of cinema. This compact man is at first mocked by the soldiers for his strange, in their eyes primitive ways. However gradually all the soldiers learn to love and respect Dersu, which sounds a bit lacklustre in theory, but the delivery is anything but. The Captain, played by Yuri Solomin who is incredible, recognises the wisdom of Dersu very early on and rightfully places a great deal of trust in his elderly colleague. These two are backed by a support cast of really interesting characters.
A number of set-pieces including Dersu saving the captain's life by building a makeshift shelter as the night closes in and one involving a raft took my breath away. In some ways this film is reminiscent of Herzog's Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972) but I personally think it is superior. It is shot in a very naturalistic style which reflects the themes of civilisation vs wilderness perfectly. The film was shot over two years in Siberia, and the result is one of the most scenic films I have ever witnessed. The shots of a wilderness probably none of us will ever witness in person are a gift. The sound effects of nature are turned right up, so bird calls, wind and rustling of leaves punctuate the action.
A lot of the notes I took while watching this film were just single words – philosophical, beguiling, metaphorical. This is one of those films that cannot be adequately described by words. It has immediately become one of my absolute favourite films and I would encourage you all to check it out. But make sure you watch it with subtitles, not the infernal dubbing.
Number Seventeen (1932), Alfred Hitchcock – Fantastic early Hitchcock mystery yarn with gothic overtones. Exhibits much of the maestro's professed adoration of early German directors such as Murnau.
The Other Guys (2010), Adam McKay - Pretty standard Will Ferrell fare. You either love or loathe his work and I belong to the former camp. Marky Mark is superb.
Pumping Iron (1976), George Butler - Really well made bodybuilding doco featuring a relatively young Arnie. Notable for him saying how working out is like “caahmming” for him, and also the fact he's a bit of an ass.
Black Books Season 2 (2002) - Possibly even funnier than season 1.
My Mother India (2001), Safina Uberoi - Simply shot but interesting Aussie doco which brings an alternate view of life in the diaspora. Aussie mother living in India is profiled by her Indian daughter living in Australia.
Kick Ass (2010), Matthew Vaughan – Everything Scott Pilgrim coulda, shoulda, woulda been. Emotionally punchy, violent, utterly hilarious. Doesn't take itself too seriously and features some rockin action sequences to boot. My favourite 2010 release thus far.
Justice League – The New Frontier (2008), Dave Bullock - Cold War set animated feature clearly influenced by Alan Moore's “The Watchmen”. Builds interesting, wonderfully ambiguous characters that overcome the OTT American patriotism, & the league's triumph disappointingly being totally down to one character.
Edge of Heaven (2007), Fatih Akin – I bagged Akin's tepid In July last month but this film knocked me out. A gloriously shot chronicle of the gaps between generations, ideologies, families, ethnicities, borders, languages & classes. Powerful and crushing.
Shakespeare in Love (1998), John Madden - I hated this when forced to watch it years ago. It's actually piss-funny and even the slightest Shakespearean knowledge lets you in on a bevy of in jokes. Elevates in the second half into something quite special. A 'romantic comedy' actually worth seeing.
Not Worth Watching:
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2009), Niels Arden Oplev - Picturesque but overrated thriller featuring unnecessary depictions of violence & sexual assault against women. Two average lead performances anchor what is a pretty reprehensible film. Avoid.
Bagdad Cafe (1987), Percy Adlon - Starts off very interesting. But the introduction of the usually intriguing Jack Palance in a posturing and annoying performance and a supremely unlikeable main character makes this easy to pass on. Equal parts boredom & overt sentimentality.
Two Minute Warning (1976), Larry Peerce - A fantastic premise for an action flick – a sniper loose in a packed footy stadium. Most of it is executed well, especially the cool first person view shots from the killers perspective. But the ending is so horrible & incomprehensible that this definitely can't be recommended.
Henry V (1989), Kenneth Branagh – Branagh is an excellent director, but this film is riddled with miscasting – the director in the title role most of all, he makes an effeminate king. What’s with the Obi Wan Kenobi cloak? And most puzzling of all, why no explanation of the king's lack of lips? Olivier told this tale on film much better.
Absolute Power (1997), Clint Eastwood – This thriller is a pretty abysmal film. Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Ed Harris, Laura Linney, David Palmer, David Palmer's wife and Richard Jenkins all feature. They shouldn't have bothered.
If you only have time to watch oneKick Ass
Avoid at all costs The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Obviously I watch a lot of things that are not on the 1001 list, and that I don't write detailed blogs on. So I thought each month I would write a quick summary at the end of each month about what I have seen. The onus here is keeping it really short and simple. I even decided against the witty names I came up with for these categories, in favour of simply telling you if its worth your time or not. And right at the end I'll select the one you really must see, and the one I suggest you avoid at all costs. Enjoy. Also please feel free to share your thoughts about these films in the comments section of this post.
Worth Watching:
Milk (2008), Gus Van Sant – Flawed but still exceedingly interesting biopic, carried by a trio of terrific performances by Penn, Franco & especially Brolin.
Lessons of Darkness (1992), Werner Herzog – Beguiling 'documentary' by the German maestro on the first Gulf War. Like nothing you have ever seen before – slow paced with astounding visuals. Check it out.
La Soufriere (1977), Werner Herzog – More straightforward doco effort from Herzog, still worth a look. He ventures to an almost abandoned island where a catastrophic volcano eruption is imminent. He seems disappointed when it doesn't come about.
Black Books Season 1 (2000) - I'm looking at implementing much of what I've seen here into my day job. Hilarious.
Titus (1999), Julie Taymor – A notable failure. Not everything in this adaption of Shakespeare's most violent play works. But worth watching for its visual style and a sequence involving cannibalism, Anthony Hopkins in a chef's uniform and a dude getting stabbed with a candlestick holder.
Them! (1954), Gordon M. Douglas - Fantastic classic sci-fi film which sees the American countryside threatened by giant ants. Say no more.
Chicago Cubs Highlights on www.cubs.com (2010) – The cubs are winning the occasional game, always a nice change. And the MLB has excellent highlights on the club websites.
The Human Body (1998), BBC – Typically assured doco from the BBC tracking the physical form's journey from birth to death.
Tomorrow When the War Began (2010), Stuart Beattie- Initially I had this film in the other section, cause its definitely flawed, especially script wise. But I really hope that the second film gets greenlit, cause Australia needs to produce a wide variety of films including big budget, slick ones featuring young Aussie actors directed by an Australian featuring a wonderful soundtrack of Aussie artists. This is also relatively enjoyable, with a solid young cast and a couple of good set-pieces. So go, see and support this film, so we can see others like it, that improve on its flaws somewhat.
Not Worth Watching:
Winter Sleepers (1997), Tom Tykwer – I'm doing a German film course at uni this semester which has introduced me to some astounding films, but this is not one of them. Crap.
Scott Pilgrim vs the World (2010), Edgar Wright – Tries way too hard to be cool and gets ultra repetitive very quickly. Even manages to make a cute girl wielding a novelty sized hammer in a fight seem bland.
In July (2000), Fatih Akin – Turkish-German romantic comedy which is not bad, just extremely mediocre and not worth your time. Just cause a Turkish-German director makes a bad Hollywood style rom-com, doesn't make it any good or interesting.
NRL Finals Series (2010) – Stupid Panthers.
If you only have time to watch oneLessons of Darkness.
After emerging from the wasteland of essay hell, I journeyed to the incomparable Electric Shadows Bookshop (www.electricshadowsbookshop.com.au) intent on renting some DVDs for a reason other than writing an essay about them. Finding myself in the Hitchcock section, I thought I would grab something not on the 1001 list so I would not feel obliged to write about it. However, with Hitch having 18 titles on the list, its not always easy to avoid one thats on there. Attracted by the presence of Joseph Cotten in the leading role I thought Shadow of a Doubt (1943) was my film. But, lo and behold its on the list, so here are my thoughts.
Cotten is best known as running with Orson Welles' RKO crew, and is fantastic in quite a substantial role in Citizen Kane (1941). Here he plays Uncle Charlie, a suave Philadelphia based mass-murderer who flees to suburban Santa Rosa to escape the law. He is welcomed heartily by his sister's family, especially her teenage daughter who also goes by the name Charlie. The two Charlies share a rapport and the relationship between the two of them drives most of the film. Young Charlie hopes her elder namesake will bring some light into the mundane family life she feels so trapped in, and which she is clearly rebelling against. Early in the film she squeals “Money, how can you talk about money when I'm talking about souls.” However her uncle brings more than a spark. I'm not sure if this was intentional by Hitchcock, me misreading the film or times changing but I was seriously creeped out by an apparent sexual tension between uncle and niece for the first half of the film. Luckily this passes and the film feels much more comfortable as a result. Eventually Young Charlie begins to suspect him of being a murderer, and even manages to wrangle a confession out of him. This comes with still quite a large amount of the action to come, and the third act deals with the moral conundrum faced by Young Charlie in relation to protecting her family and ensuring justice is served. Keep an eye out for the scene involving Young Charlie's research in the town library, it illustrates Hitchcock genius for suspense and ability to wow you with a little stylistic flourish without taking away from the narrative.
Film historian (and director) Peter Bogdanovich views this as Hitchcock's first real 'American' film. However the European influences on his style can still be seen throughout this film. To showcase an early chase on foot, he shifts to a high overhead shot, just as Fritz Lang does repeatedly in M (1931). The film seems to grow more and more assured as it goes on. For example the music initially grates and feels like an over the top, cheap attempt to ratchet up suspense. Later however it is more controlled and does contribute to the tension in an excellent way. All of the performances are good. Cotton excels in a role that could have descended into a pure-evil, sneering type character. He's understated, but still makes you dislike him terribly and believe he is capable of murder. Plus he looks rather good in a double breasted suit with a couple of cigars poking out the breast pocket. All the other performances are similarly good, notable the supporting duo of Henry Travers as Joe, Young Charlie's father and his best mate Herb played by Hume Cronyn. These two share a couple of exceptionally well-scripted and hilarious set pieces where they discuss suspense stories, and the best manner in which to kill someone without being detected. The manner in which Hitchcock intersperses these with the rather more serious and deadly going ons provides an expert twist of humour and irony.
The major upside of this film is its central conceit – two character who share a name and a rapport despite being different genders & ages end up being part of a suspenseful cat and mouse game. It is this that carries the film through its first two thirds, but it is in the third act where Shadow of a Doubt really explodes; delivering probably the most satisfying conclusion to a film I've watched. Hitchcock throws a twist or two into the mix, but they do not feel cheap or showy. He maintains, and even ramps up the suspense, leaving the viewer in real doubt as to how things will end. It is also perfectly paced, there is no rushed deus ex machina, nor does it go on and on a-la Return of the King (2003) and many others, tarnishing the memories of the whole film by leaving us begging for the end. I'm loathe to go into too much more detail in case it ruins this film for you. And despite the fact that it looks like I have given a way a lot of spoilers such as the fact Cotten plays a murderer (this was actually given away on the DVD case of my version), there are still heaps of surprises for you in this film if you go and check it out. Which you most definitely should. And if you don't trust my opinion, then you should trust Hitchcock (one of the greatest cinematic geniuses ever to live), who said this was his favourite of all the films he made.
If I have any positive attributes as a writer, brevity is not one of them. I tend to write very long reviews which attempt to examine every aspect of a film. So with this in mind I thought I would set myself a challenge. The aim was three films in 1000 words. So you get my thoughts on three films in the number of words I generally write about one film (if you're lucky). Could I get my views across in a much shorter space, and get my positive or negative thoughts across. No real thought went into the film choices. They were just a few I had to watch for uni that are on the list. Here we go. Wish me luck.
Fritz Lang's M (1931) chronicles a city's hunt for a heinous child murderer. The police are looking for him in force and are joined by the city's gangsters annoyed at the increased police presence being generated. We are treated to masterful intercut scenes of both the cops and the crims formulating plans, with the editing making it hard to discern who are the law-enforcers and who the law-breakers. One of many pertinent and timeless social comments made by Lang throughout the film.
M features the greatest introductory shot for a villain I have ever seen. The murderer's shadow ominously moving over a poster a young girl is throwing her ball against. It comes early in the film, but we instinctively know it's our murderer, and that knowledge made my blood run cold. Lang continues to reveal aspects of him bit by bit, only revealing what he wants. Indeed we view him as a cold, ruthless, calculating supervillain until the film's final scenes. Complimenting this approach by Lang is Peter Lorre's performance. Quite simply it belongs in the top few performances ever. Only on screen for a very time, he makes it count. His childlike face invokes in the viewer a range of emotions, most of them very uncomfortable ones. Some find a measure of sympathy for him in the film's final sequences. I personally didn't. But it is a testament to Lang's genius that sympathetic and non-sympathetic readings are equally valid.
Lang is a master of evoking emotion. The paced, waiting of a mother as she waits for her daughter's return as the fear of the inevitable rises is felt by all. And the manner in which the murder of young Elsie is shown (or not) will make your jaw drop. Lang can compose a shot as beautiful as anyone, and he proves that in this film. But his genius as a filmmaker is proven by this one exercise of restraint.
I couldn't do this film justice in 3,000 words let alone 300. Its a serial killer flick, a police-procedural, a heist flick, a social commentary and more. In short this is a masterpiece. If you or anyone you know doubt that film is an artform the equal of any other, watch this. In fact watch it right here:
Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter
Some Like it Hot (1959) is the grandfather (mother???) of cross-dressing comedies extending through to such classics as Tootsie (1982) and Mrs Doubtfire (1993), and not-so-classics such as White Chicks (2004).
It kicks off with two broke and down on their luck musicians, played by Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon, witnessing a shooting in prohibition era America. After dismissing their first idea of “growing beards” they go on the run with an all girl band, disguising themselves as female. Before long they both fall for the charms of Sugar played by Marilyn Monroe. Here I was expecting the film to go into familiar, two guys chasing the one girl territory. But whilst it flirts with this briefly it is too clever to go down that predictable path.
Whilst some of the jokes, like pretty much any comedy, have dated somewhat, the situational aspects of the comedy still provide oodles of hilarity for a modern audience. See Curtis trying to bluff his way around Osgood's boat that he has commandeered for a hot date with Sugar. For all the jokes however, the real treat in this film is the three wonderful central performances. Monroe despite starting slow oozes sex-appeal and surprisingly good comic timing. Curtis is similarly excellent as the smarmy brains behind the operation. But it is Jack Lemmon for me who is truly something awe-inspiring, delivering an all time great comedy performance. Anyone in need of proof of this man's genius needs only check out the 'maraca' sequence where the audience can't help lose themselves in the moment just as Lemmon has.
Some Like it Hot proves the benefit of having a talented director such as Wilder at the helm of a comedy. Its all tied together so beautifully. The gangster back-story that you can't help feel would work in its own right, a cracking score and slick black & white photography all provide a wonderful canvas for the three leads and a humorous script to weave their magic.
Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny
The Blue Angel (1930) is generally considered to be an all-time great film. I struggle to see why. The film revolves around respectable college professor Immanuel Rath who falls in love with, and marries the (solely due to her profession) unrespectable cabaret artist Lola Lola. Following this he descends into destitution and a form of madness, ending up performing as a clown in Lola's travelling company.
The issue is that the central romance the film depends wholly upon is rushed to the point of being unbelievable. Also, the wedding takes place over halfway through the film so the descent of this respectable man is barely chronicled at all. Instead director Josef Von Sternberg basically slaps a 'Four Years Later' sign on screen and everything has changed, without a whiff of satisfactory explanation. The formerly upstanding professor is now dishevelled whilst the once sweet Lola, who for some reason seemed to love the older man previously, now flirts overtly with others in front of him.
Marlene Dietrich who plays Lola Lola emerges from this the best. Hers is an excellent performance, and you can see why the professor falls for her character. She is also able to convey an excellent range of emotions, rising above material that provides no motivation for these shifts in character. The other performers are generally good, but not great and are clearly inhibited by the lopsided script.
Many much more insightful film commentators laud this film as a classic, so watch it for yourself and form your own opinion. But for me, despite a heart-wrenching final scene which illustrates what could have been, this was a bland and unbalanced experience.
Verdict: Schooner of Carlton Draught
That was an incredibly difficult exercise. And despite some doubts I would be able to do it, I scraped in with the three reviews amounting to 987 words. After watching M I was tempted not to include it here but devote a whole article to it, such is its brilliance. But I thought that defeated the purpose of this article and hopefully you get a sense of my wonder at this film, and my feelings on the other two as well.
Wolfgang Becker's Goodbye Lenin! (2003) is one of numerous films that deal with the period surrounding the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. However unlike most of this bunch, this film chooses a humorous approach to subject matter that is anything but (not just the wall, but familial abandonment, terminal illness and death of loved ones).
The film follows Alex, a teenager in the last days of the GDR. When she sees him being dragged off by soldiers at an anti-socialist rally, Alex's loyal to the cause mother collapses. She has had a heart attack and as a result spends eight months in a coma, missing the fall of the wall and the accompanying social changes and opening up of the East. Interestingly for a film chronicling this time period in German history, the fall of the Wall itself is actually dealt with very fleetingly. Rather than dwelling on it Becker instead briefly flashes up some news footage accompanied by a joke referring to a new “recycling campaign.” In a way this is unsurprising given that what is important is not the physical barrier that falls, but the ideology of the East that falls with it, an ideology Alex's mother believes in passionately. As a result of her heart attack, doctors advise that Alex's mother should not be subjected to any great shocks. So Alex takes it upon himself to build a microcosm of the GDR in their apartment and deceive his mother regarding what has taken place while she was in her coma. It is really a wonderful premise. I am sure similar ideas have been seen in films both before and since, but I think what this plot has going for it is the sheer magnitude of the event they are trying to hide. This is not just trying to cover up the massive party you had on the weekend when your parents were away. To attempt to cover up such a monumental societal shift takes a lot of commitment. This all unfolds as a series of amusing vignettes, with little coherent linkage besides the common purpose they serve. But these also provide some of the film's loveliest scenes. In one of my favourites which illustrates the depth of though Alex has to go to, he goes about finding old jars for his mother's favourite pre-fall brands, and fills them with the new imported produce which is all that are now on sale.
Any film that uses humour to address subject matter as serious as this risks making light of it. Fortunately Goodbye Lenin! Is able to tread this rather fine line well and never comes across as trivialising the human rights abuses perpetrated in the socialist state (although it must be said these are dealt with pretty sparingly). As Alex goes further and further into creating a socialist dream world for his mother, he does seem to become more sympathetic to the society he lived in before the fall of the wall. Whether the film has any pro-socialist sentiment, especially toward the end is a question for individual viewers. Whatever the view on that formed, I think the focus is on the strange sense of melancholy and displacement that must have been felt by those from the East when the Wall fell. Outside of a more competitive football team, all the West seems to bring to Alex's life is Burger King, Coke and a more accessible source of whipped cream related pornography. This does simplify it somewhat in that the freedom now allowed the characters is welcomed, but again is not a central focus of the film. There is an inner conflict within Alex, which is not really developed through the film in that whilst he comes to yearn somewhat for the pre-fall past he also has a hope for the future with its increased freedom and new girlfriend. It would have been interesting to how he reconciled these two differing ideologies going forward. The film however takes an almost universal light touch, with the only two scenes being exceptions to this are one brief, early appearance by the Stasi at the family home, and also the briefly confronting riot scenes.
When I heard this was a humorous take on the fall of the Wall, I was expecting subtle humour. That is not really found here, I found the humour trades predominately in quippy one-liners and slapstick (for the latter, see a plastered up Alex trying to get out of the bath after helping Lara practice for an upcoming exam). Some subtlety is injected into proceedings when Alex is forced to create fake newscasts to continue to trick his mother. These Be Kind Rewind (2008) esque set pieces are not as overblown or obvious as many of the other attempts at humour in the film. Alex's partner in crime in creating these fake television newscasts is his work colleague Denis with whom he builds up a strong friendship throughout the film. Denis also delivers the films biggest laugh out loud moment when referencing probably the most famous film cut of all time from Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Or maybe I just perceived this as the film's biggest laugh out loud moment because I watched the film at uni with a bunch of like-minded film nerds who gave the joke a rather rapturous reception. The relationship between these two young men making their way in the new unified Germany is really interesting, especially given Denis hails from the West. Along with these the other aspects of humour which really worked for me were the scenes of Alex's mother helping her friends draft complaint letters to the appropriate authorities regarding the quality and appropriateness of toasters, maternity wear and most memorably underwear. This humorous highlighting of East/West tension was both funny and illuminated this tension, whereas many of the other attempts were happy to settle for lowest common denominator belly laughs.
Another disappointment I did have with the film is that the supporting cast of characters are somewhat under drawn, with very little back-story. Apparently Lara is a trainee nurse from the U.S.S.R. But this is just mentioned and never delved into. I really wanted to no more about this fantastic woman who woos Alex and enjoys both death metal clubs and romantic sleep-outs under the stars. I wanted to know whereabouts in the U.S.S.R she was from, what she thought of the place, why she was in Germany and where she saw herself in five years. But unfortunately I got none of that. Obviously a film cannot be all back-story and there is a limit to how much delving can be done, but I would have been a lot more satisfied with a bit more. Technically I found the film rather run of the mill. Not every film needs to dazzle with technical flourishes but whilst reasonably done, its just all a bit average. This is strange seeing that Becker shows himself to have some real style when he opens up a couple of times toward the end of the film. This is best illustrated in the scene where Alex's mother's condition detiorates and she is rushed back to hospital. The shots of the ambulance rushing through the streets and tracking shots of Alex's ailing mother being rushed down hospital corridors; are intercut with ones of Alex’s sister frantically searching for the letters from her father that have been hidden from her all these years in a wonderfully affecting scene. I just wish that Becker had have trusted himself and been more willing to loosen up the filming style a little more throughout.
The ending of the film suggests that the whole charade has become much more important to Alex than to his mother. In filming a fitting farewell for the GDR he does do it out of love for his mother, but also ignores the effect that the whole exercise has on the other women he loves in his life. Both Lara and his sister warn Alex repeatedly against his ongoing crusade to deceive his mother. And it does appear that no one else is as passionate about it, or as desperate to make it work as him. The ending is also somewhat strange in the fact that it is a feel good one, whilst definitely not being a conventional 'happy' ending (I can't really say more than that without giving away a big spoiler). However the reappearance of Alex's father and the revelations it brings with it adds some intrigue and emotion into the last third of the film. I suspect that overall I have taken a rather shallow reading of this film. And no doubt there is deeper meaning here. I am not sure if it was too subtle, or my cultural background too lacking for me to quite grasp it. And I don't mean to be too critical of the film throughout this review. This is still a very competently made film, and if you are looking for a fall of the Wall film to watch with your mates and some beers on a Saturday night this is probably your best choice. But if you want to be challenged, confronted and effected by similar events then give Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck's Oscar winning cinematic tour-de-force (I'm pretty sure I once made a commitment never to use that term) The Lives of Others (2006) a shot.
In between watching endless games of football during the FIFA World Cup and getting a full time holiday job, I managed to fit in some study for my Intro to Film Studies uni exam. A bunch of the films on the course feature on the 1001 list, so I thought I would take the chance to share some thoughts. So here we go, in no specific order other than the order I re-watched them in, the first set of three.
The first film I checked out was Antonioni’s Blow Up (1966) which I missed in class so was watching for the first time. Like Rear Window (1954), another film on the course, this film features a photographer as its central character. Where Hitchcock's film focuses on the voyeuristic aspects of the profession; Antonioni’s addresses philosophical ideas regarding photos themselves like the manner in which they capture a moment in time, if once this moment is committed to film it can be changed and whether they are inherently 'true'. I think that given the symbolic nature of photos and the huge role that they play in everyday lives and society more generally it is unsurprising two of the period's most prominent director's chose to have photographers as their protagonists. Our main man in this film, is not a particularly likeable character for a lot of the film. He orders his assistant round, yells at models and generally just carries on like a bit of a tosser. He is a photographer after all. So as an audience our sympathies are not really geared toward him. In fact they are not really geared toward any character. This works in this film as it allows one to sit back and enjoy being transported back to another time and place with having to become particularly emotionally involved.
For a film that moves predominately in 'arty' circles, this is relatively simply shot. But it is also very well made. Even the photo shoot scenes that were so clearly mined by Mike Myers for Austin Powers (1997) material, are not completely overshadowed by their comic offspring that they themselves become comical. This is down to the fact that they are excellently filmed with some interesting editing that makes them a joy, and an interesting one to watch. The other area where Antonioni really shows his stuff is during the scenes in the park. Notably the first (and only) glimpse of nature we are treated to in the film making for a stark contrast with the London streets we have been journeying through. Our photographer friend obviously does not spend too much time getting in touch with nature, evidenced by his rather comical chasing of the local birdlife in an attempt to snap a good shot. The film probably hits his highpoint near it's midpoint with a couple of consecutive sequences. One shows the photographer developing his photos from the park in much detail. In the age of digital photography, it is great to see the process and art of developing a film explored in such loving detail. This is followed up by him surrounding his studio with the images, stalking around them like a private detective looking for that one clue that will break the case and sweating profusely. The long takes, and the fact that we are not really let in on what it is the photographer thinks he has found makes these scenes really interesting as we the audience are gradually let in on the secret – that he appears to have caught a murder on film.
Blow Up is an exceedingly cool film. It shows a lot of very chic people swanning around and doing very cool things like marching for a cause, taking photographs, getting a little threesome action and drinking at all hours of the day, all whilst wearing some pretty darn hip clothes. And they do it all to a very very cool soundtrack contributed almost entirely by Herbie Hancock. Hancock became a bit of a cool buzzword musician amongst a certain style of hip music fan a few years ago so is still pretty popular. Despite some of my friends getting into him, I must admit he totally passed me by. But he is the right dude to provide this soundtrack, matching the ultra-hip aesthetic of the film perfectly. Pretty much the only non-Hancock music comes in the form of a late cameo from The Yardbirds playing in a club in one of the film's stranger scenes. Aside from Hancock's great tunes, the other notable feature of the soundtrack is it's deployment of long periods of silence used to enhance tension. This is used to admirable effect when the photographer is stalking the couple in the park, when he is looking at fine detail in the photos of the murder and again when he returns to the park to search for the body. The lack of a soundtrack makes the viewer focus solely on the visuals, and imagine the possible ramifications our protagonist's actions could have for himself.
With around half an hour to go I was thoroughly enjoying this film. It did take a long time to get into the meat of the plot, with a lot of dithering before our man becomes certain that he has captured a murder on film. But I felt that it was really picking up in this regard and was anticipating a satisfying conclusion to the central mystery. I definitely did not get a satisfying conclusion. No doubt there are some who would disagree, but I think the movie really loses its way here. You could say it loses the plot. It became to me nonsensical. I'm not the kind of viewer who demands that everything be explained and finished up in a nice neat package. But the succession of scenes the film ends with added nothing to my viewing of the film, except a sense of annoyance.
So overall a dynamite first two thirds is let down by a woeful ending. Maybe I have just missed the point of said ending, or it went over my head, but I was incredibly disappointed with it. Still a worthy watch, there is much fine detail to pore over such as the significance of colour or silence, but as a piece of entertaining art it fell a little short for me.
Verdict: Stubby of Reschs
Errol Morris' The Thin Blue Line (1988) raises a number of controversial questions regarding the fundamental nature of the documentary film. The VHS case of the copy I watched praised Phillip Glass' “hypnotic score.” They are right, the score does add a hell of a lot to this film and is indeed hypnotic. But if documentaries are just filmed presentations of facts, surely they do not need the help of a score to influence opinion. Similarly the dramatically filmed recreations, apparently rather revolutionary for the time, surely through the use of camera angles and lighting among others distort the presentation of the memory's of those present. Herein lies the conflict of making a doco for the screen. Present an unadorned account of events, no music, no attempt to influence the opinion of the audience, or make something that is entertaining and risk losing some level of integrity along the way.
Essentially the film deals with the murder of a police officer in Dallas, Texas. Following evidence from a teen runaway called David Harris, an older man who had befriended him in the days preceding the crime, Randall Dale Adams, is sentenced to death for the deed. The suggestion by Adams' lawyers that he was pursued instead of Harris simply because he would get the death penalty whereas the juvenile Harris could not, is a chilling one. The way in which a man's life is something to be played with and bargained for is a sickening one, even if 'justice' is the motivation. As a person incredibly passionate about abolition of the death penalty, I think this film is as good an advertisement for these views as any. Despite the ethical eye for an eye arguments, the fact that the lives of people are put in the hands of people with seemingly zero regard for the truth, rather just looking for another notch on the belt, for me shows just how heinous the fundamental concept of the death penalty is. The film obviously presents a one-sided view of proceedings. Clearly the intention is to convince the audience that Adams was innocent and that it was in fact Harris who committed the crime. Spectacularly in the films final scene, featuring dialogue over a still of a tape recorder, Harris more or less confesses to the crime. This is possibly the most stunning scene in this, and pretty much all documentaries. I think it would be interesting if Morris had set out to make a film to prove Adams' guilt. What evidence would he have focused on? How would the re-enactments have differed? It could be argued that a lot of this film's notoriety comes from what it brought about rather than its actual artistic merit. Following the film's release Randall Adams was eventually released from prison. Whilst David Harris was never convicted of the murder, he was executed in 2004 for an unrelated 1985 slaying.
And the stunning conclusion, featuring dialogue over a still of a tape recorder, alone makes the film worth a watch. Similarly Glass' score is fascinating, interesting and nuanced; the type of score that one doesn't really expect to be exposed to while watching a documentary. But despite being well made and enjoyable, the film is not hugely different, except from the score, to a lot of TV docos you may have seen over the years. Its inclusion on the list is probably due to it being revolutionary for the time and influencing these numerous docos rather than being an absolutely mind blowing experience in its own right.
Verdict: Stubby of Reschs
F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu (1922) borrowed heavily from Bram Stoker's iconic vampire novel “Dracula” (1897), so heavily in fact that Stoker's estate successfully sued the filmmakers for plagiarism and all copies of the film were ordered to be destroyed. Fortunately for modern viewers, some copies managed to slip through this destruction order and the film remains available today. In my view borrowing from Stoker's book can only be a good one, it is one of the undoubted classics of English literature. Story wise, Nosferatu is the Dracula tale stripped down to its bare bones – a real estate agent goes to Transylvania to finalise a deal with a count, in the film renamed Orlock, comes to realise that the count is a supernatural presence, realises the lives of his loved ones are in danger, and finally dashes home to try and save them from the count's advances.
One of the issues with watching silent films in general in a modern setting is their quality. I saw two different copies of this film and they both differed quite substantially. For some reason DVD distributors feel it is their right to amend intertitles, credits (in this version both of these were a garish and distracting lime green) and sound at will. Even the tinting used, which has a great impact upon the effect of the film was very different between the two copies. The copy I saw for the purpose of this film used a lot of tinting, a bright yellow tint in the early love scenes (sunshine?) and blue tinting in the Transylvania night scenes (the supernatural?) to give just two examples. The frustrating thing for all of this is that it is impossible to know what the original director's intention was in regards to this. Would he have approved this use of tinting? Was the other DVD copy that did not include tinting, closer or further away from his vision? In the end I just tried to put these questions to one side and focus on the cinematography and storytelling where the director's original vision was able to be shown without later, outside interference. But at times this is difficult, and is hopefully something that distributors are aware of. For example the intertitles in this film look ultra-modern which snaps the viewer out of the age-old story every time they are shown.
The term melodramatic is generally a put-down in modern day parlance. The acting in this film is definitely melodramatic, but this is in no way a put down as it is both necessary and expertly done. Obviously without the benefit of dialogue, the need for actors to convey emotion physically is much higher in a silent film, meaning body language is dialled up to 11. The early scenes of this film which show the love between Hutter and Ellen show how well this can work. Their over the top facial expressions and embracing tell us everything we need to know, without words. Aside from these general thoughts, Nosferatu contains what must surely be one of the most iconic film depictions of a vampire, actually probably one of the more iconic performances in world cinema full stop. Max Schreck physically embodies the dreaded Count Orlock to perfection. His gaunt face, long bony fingers, massive hooked nose, sunken eyes and those teeth make him a spectacular incarnation of our greatest fears. Schreck does not simply rely on this physical image, but embodies the Count with an extreme creepiness that chills the bone. So good was this performance that it inspired the film Shadow of the Vampire (2000) which at its core the thesis that Schreck was in fact a vampire which is the reason he was able to give such a phenomenal performance. Technically, the acting is more than matched by this film's cinematography. The landscape scenes in Transylvania with the craggy mountains looming ominously high above are beautiful on a basic and a symbolic level. In fact many scenes here are so beautiful they surpass even any modern day BBC doco you're likely to see. The scenes of rafting down the river then the seafaring shots late in the film for example. These make wonderful viewing and these shots were not what I was expecting to see in a 1920s horror film.
With this film Murnau also proves himself a master of both modern and old school technique. What must have been cutting edge special effects are fused with a masterful use of shadow and silhouette. The best thing about the use of special effects in this film is that they do actually enhance the experience of watching it. A lesson many modern filmmakers could learn a lot from. The wagon racing along at incredible speed, the castle gates opening by themselves and the apparition of Orlock walking straight through a closed door enhance the atmosphere of the film greatly. And they look incredibly cool – my personal favourite sees Orlock loading his carriage high with coffins at great speed, climbing in the top one and then using his Jedi mind power to pick up the coffin lid from the ground and place it on top of him. Battling with some of these special effects shots for the film's most iconic, is one that relies on a simpler technology. Toward the end of the film Orlock mounts the stairs to the room where Emily is. Instead of seeing him we see his giant, shadow puppet- esque silhouette with the use of shadow emphasises the long fingers and face of the villain. This is a wonderful image as Orlock creeps to what he thinks will be his triumph but what is in fact his demise.
The film is somewhat slow going for a modern audience. But the enjoyment comes from witnessing the technical mastery and nuance rather than being bombarded with plot and scared by scenes meant to shock. Indeed the horror in this film comes from Schreck's performance and the dread felt so keenly by Hutter along with the fear of what will become of his beloved. And rats. If you have a phobia of rodents you will find parts of this shit scary as well. This is a pioneering and wonderful film. As someone who is an avowed non-fan of horror, and who has seen very little silent cinema I can recommend this even if you're in the same boat. Schreck's performance is an iconic one and the cinematography and special effects make this well worth a look-see.
Nosferatu due to its copyright status is available on Youtube for free. The quality of this one is really quite good. Take a look:
My myriad of readers will no doubt be reassured to know that I am still alive. Having left a number of massive uni essays til the last moment (as is the way of the uni student) I have been so caught up in the issues of Jain religious identity and representations of technology in Bret Easton Ellis's Less Than Zero & Richard Yates' Revolutionary Road that I haven't had the chance to view many films let alone write about them. Also recent leisure time has been dominated by trips to Melbourne for Socceroos games and reading some of the awesome new books I scored for my birthday. Anyways I decided enough was enough and it was time to get back into it at least momentarily. So I took a little time out from the English essay (that I couldn't really afford) and checked out a movie I have watched and loved before, Orson Welles' The Stranger (1946).
Orson Welles is best known generally for making what is often called the greatest film ever Citizen Kane (1941). The Stranger is not conceived on as grand a scale. What it is though is fantastically enjoyable to watch. As I put the DVD on this afternoon, I was really excited to be watching this film again, remembering how much I had enjoyed it the first time I saw it. Usually when I watch a film I liked a second time there is trepidation that it won't hold up to a second viewing, but I had no such qualms with this one. If you were to assign a genre to this film I guess it is somewhat of a detective film, with the plot essentially involving the tracking of a heinous criminal. It sees a war criminal being intentionally set free, in the hope that he will lead authorities (without his knowledge) to his dastardly Nazi commander Franz Kindler. The focus in on Wilson, the man charged with the responsibility of uncovering and unmasking Kindler in the small American town he has taken refuge in under a new identity. The plot reaches its tense climax atop a clock tower late at night after Wilson has befriended many of the town's residents and discovered which one is really the fiendish Kindler. I will leave the plot description at that instead of going on my usual spoiler-laden rampage, because I would guess a lot of people would not have seen this film, and I don't want to give it all away. But aplogies if a few more spoilers slip in later on.
Most of the action takes place in a small town in the United States. We know it is a small town in the United States cause it has a diner with a nosy know-it-all owner, a tendency for either autumn leaves or snowflakes to be falling, people on bikes dinging their bells in a friendly manner and a clock tower which becomes a focus for much of the action. The scenes in the clock tower were for me very reminiscent of Vertigo (1958) and I wonder if Hitchcock didn't take at least a little inspiration from the high camera angles and dizzying depiction of height that Wells manages here. The town is brilliantly created and provides a sense of community and place for the film to fit into. Just as important to the success of this film is a range of really interesting characters conveyed by some excellent performances. Orson Welles, rocking an excellent moustache, has fashioned a truly memorably villain in his role as Rankin/Kindler. He is chillingly smug when outlining his fervent belief that there will be another Nazi uprising to the escaped Shayne. He then coldheartedly chokes Shayne to death whilst he is attempting to get him to repent from his sins in what is a scene of pretty brutal violence. The way in which he is able to delude the town's residents, especially the young men he teaches, into thinking he is an ace guy makes his true nature all the more chilling. Indeed the performances in this film are almost universally good. Konrad Meinike in his small role as the escaped war criminal turned evangelist Shayne renders an incredibly sinister character. The innocent but brave Noah is expertly crafted by Richard Long and the tender relationship depicted between him and his sister in danger Mary played by Loretta Young is lovely. But the standout performance is undoubtedly Edward G Robinson as the investigator Wilson. According to the notes I made whilst watching the film, Robinson is “the fucking dude.” To add a little nuance to these sentiments (which I stand by wholeheartedly), Robinson's performance is an incredible one and he portrays a very smart and incredibly likable character. Not exactly an archetypal hero (Robinson is a short, squat man), Wilson wins over the townsfolk with his charm and nature just as Robinson's performance won me over as a viewer.
Despite the film well over 60 years old, it has aged remarkably well. A lot of this is due to the themes it explores. Some of which – how to deal with war criminals, how valid a defense is “I was only following orders – can be applied to conflicts which have continued to rage since the film's release. Other more specific to WWII retain their resonance because of just how despicable the war was, most especially the holocaust which is often referred to in this film. This point is rammed home, when in an attempt to make Mary see sense, Wilson and her father show her some graphic footage from the concentration camps. I, like most others have seen similar holocaust images before. However they never fail to stop and make one think and make one want to weep. There is a wonderful scene of chatter around the dinner table with dialogue such as “No German in his right mind can still have a taste for war.” This scene encapsulates both of these points, obviously they are talking about WWII, but change a couple of country and villian names, and it could be a discussion happening in a pub right now. The other reason this film this film has aged so well is because it was made by Orson Welles so it looks absolutely amazing. The black and white photography is ultra crisp, this is one of those films you suspect would not look as good in colour. There is some wonderful use of shadow early in the film, prominently when portraying our war criminal on the run. In contrast the bright and sunny outdoor scenes such as Wilson and Noah's fishing expedition are radiant and inviting.
I love this film. I am so glad it held up to another viewing for me. On a basic level it is an enjoyable romp of a chase film, but one which addresses some of what were undoubtedly the key concerns of an immediate post WWII world. Throw in two wonderful central performances from Wells and Robinson and you get a big winner. Here it is:
