The Umbrellas of Cherbourg

May 10, 2008

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) ****1/2

Directed by Jacques Demy

There’s a surprising intelligence to the French musical The Umbrellas of Cherbourg that didn’t really present itself until the very last scene of the film. Demy and others working on this film seem to sense that musicals are best when painting topics in huge, sweeping and melodramatic strokes. At the beginning of the film, we see the young love struck mechanic, Guy (Nino Castelnuovo) mention that he loves movies more than opera. The songs get on his nerves. Well, here’s a film that seems to have just as much, if not more, in common with operas than musicals—and yet, the music got on my nerves!

Musicals break into song throughout mostly to enhance the emotional tone of the film rather than the storyline. Do we really learn anything new in any of the songs in The Sound of Music or West Side Story? No, but we do understand how the characters feel through their songs (Something’s Coming, Climb Every Mountain, etc.). The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is completely sung—not a word is spoken. There are absolutely no memorable songs simply because there are absolutely no individual songs. We hear a few melodies repeating themselves over and over with new dialogue. There’s no refrain or chorus in any songs. None are sung by more than one person. The music itself is very pretty, but very different than standard musicals. The music would fit better into a music box than a Broadway show.

Musicals really only work when we get situations that are larger than life. The Umbrellas of Cherborg tells a little story which would be completely overshadowed by big production numbers. The film uses the singing in the film in simple and straightforward ways, which allows it to work with the story. So is the singing really necessary? I’d argue yes since it makes the movie almost dreamlike. We get rare glimpses of the ethereal including a sequence where the couple in love floats down a street rather than walking. The whole film feels like we are floating through it.

Love is of course very emotional and dramatic. The world simply feels different when you are in love. The film captures this beautifully. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is really the first musical that I’ve seen to use music to make a film more intimate rather than more extravagant.

While I appreciate the purpose of the music, I was put off by it at times. I don’t speak French so to me it unfortunately sounded like sounds sung to melody. Also, I felt there was a lack of sophistication in the music direction. All of the notes are written so that both men and women could sing them in their own register. This means that the man doesn’t have to jump up an octave to sing the same notes as the woman. The woman can sing an octave higher than the man and still be able to hit the notes with no problem. This is good in theory, except that the songs were simply on the high side for the women, which made them come off a little screechy and unpleasant. Unfortunately, most of the singing in the movie is by women (the four female actresses--Catherine Deneuve, Anne Vernon, Ellen Farmer and Mirelle Perrey) all with similar sounding voices and all with the tendency to sound grating after a while. At one point, I lowered the volume a bit to avoid getting a headache. I couldn’t imagine watching this movie in a theater with surround sound. I cringe thinking about it.

Besides this qualm, the film is really beautiful and I love that the ending wasn’t exactly what we expected. It is not a fairy tale ending and yet, both lovers are presumably just fine. Also, the movie is worth seeing for the breathtaking use of color! This is one of the most visually stunning movies I’ve ever seen. Whatever brand of paint was used in The Umbrellas of Cherbourg should mention this film in their advertising!

Young @ Heart

May 10, 2008

Young @ Heart (2008) ***1/2

Directed by Stephen Walker

There’s an image of such sad irony in Young @ Heart (why the @ sign?). We see a character front and center on an advertising poster for a show entitled Alive and Well. Well, no, actually he’s not. But boy, he definitely was before and so many still are! This film pulls our emotions all over the place, and yet, I left this film extremely uplifted and inspired, and yes, I have to admit, my cheeks were a little wet.

The documentary focuses on a group of septa- and octogenarians (and also a woman named Eileen who is 92) in Northampton, Massachusetts that perform locally and also internationally as a singing group called Young at Heart. You’d expect that they’d be singing about nothing finer in Carolina in the morning, but their gimmick is that they sing songs by such artists as Sonic Youth, the Clash and Coldplay. Granted, it’s not like these people actually listen to this type of music for fun. Whenever choral director Bob Cilman (a man who may be a bit megalomaniacal but still must be applauded for the joy he gives to these people) introduces a new song, it is usually met with eye rolls and tissues shoved in ears. Yet, with hard work and practice, these songs not only grow on these old folks, but become transformed by them. There are some fun performances in the film, but no two stand out more than performances of Sinead O’Conner’s Nothing Compares 2 U and Coldplay’s Fix You.

Therein lies what doesn’t work in this film. Those two songs I mentioned are ballads dedicated to deceased members of the group. Those songs have heart and sincerity. Most of the up tempo songs seem like they really have no depth because they don’t mean anything to these people. On a music performance level, the film isn’t extremely strong. At first we laugh at these old people singing young people music. By the end of the film, we are amazed at their talent and dedication. At no point though do we feel that they really “like” this kind of music. So the gimmick is kind of shallow. Because of this, “music videos” showing the singers goofing around simply do not work at all. I’m actually angry at the fact that Stephen Walker included them.

What works exceptionally well is the dedication these people have to performance itself—and through performance the dedication they have to life! We absolutely fall in love with some. The devastation comes when vitality is taken away from individuals in the choir—some of whom actually want to stay on earth long enough to be a part of that next performance. When they die, the group mourns and so do we. It seems almost unimaginable belonging to an organization where death is a regular occurrence. If one of my colleagues at work died, I believe that some of us would have to stop for a bit because of the pain of the loss. Yet, Young at Heart, the group, cannot stop since their act lives on. One member jokingly says that if she collapses on stage, she wants them to carry her off and finish the show. I absolutely bet that, even though we laugh at this, she’s absolutely serious.

Here is an organization that gives people a reason to live. I fear that people will give the film the credit that the choral group itself deserves. The film isn’t improving and prolonging their lives. Young @ Heart isn’t great, but Young at Heart is!

The Andromeda Strain

May 10, 2008

The Andromeda Strain (1971) ****

Directed by Robert Wise

The terror of a film like The Andromeda Strain depends a lot on the fears of society at the time. I can only imagine that in 1971, issues like nuclear proliferation must have really terrified people in quiet and consistent ways. Everyday held the possibility that in an instant, nuclear explosion could take your life without you even realizing it. We can relate to this fear today, but that fear exists in a different enemy—terrorism—yet with a similar form. I don’t want to imagine it, but what if a terrorist drops a suitcase bomb in Manhattan containing a virus that could spread so quickly, we couldn’t even control its destruction?

The Andromeda Strain is supposed to make us feel uneasy, and it succeeds. It also succeeds in entertaining and making us think at the same time. It still holds up well. Even the antiquated computers in the film still have the ability to impress (with maybe the exception of the simulated man climbing the ladder). The performances are all played on a single emotional level which works exceptionally well so that when the stakes are raised at the end, it hits hard. For most of the scenes aboard the Wildfire, the classified lab, we feel that everyone is safe. When danger enters, it enters loudly and the suspense begins quickly and intensely. The action and the suspense work well, and as such, the film is a lot of fun.

The very best scene in the film, though, occurs before they enter the Wildfire. It occurs in Piedmont, a small town in the southwest whose inhabitants all seem to have died in mid-stride. When investigators die as well, top government contracted scientists explore and find out first of all, that the victims’ blood seems to have turned to powder and second of all, there are two survivors—an old man and a baby. What possibly do these two have in common? The answer to this question is the key since it could give them the missing pieces needed to create an antidote and possibly save the lives of countless individuals. The mood is frightening, and Wise doesn’t hold back on the disturbing images—everything from dead cats, to dead children, to bizarre suicides, to a dead smiling nude woman. Whatever this is, I wanted it to be stopped!

It’s well-made science fiction. Sure, it could be accused of being a bit slow—do we really need twenty plus minutes watching the scientists going through numerous processes of decontamination? Yet, I think the film works even better because it is over two hours. We are able to settle into the film and get to know these characters so that when they are in jeopardy, we are invested in the results. Had The Andromeda Strain not been so well executed, the length of the film would have made things worse. The Andromeda Strain is not perfect—at times the camera tricks come off arrogant—but it truly is a delightful film. I was thoroughly entertained, so there you go.

The French Connection

May 8, 2008

The French Connection (1971) *****

Directed by William Friedkin

Popeye Jones disturbed the crap out of me… and therein lies the absolute genius of The French Connection, a movie I watched close to ten years ago and didn’t really enjoy all that much on first viewing. For some reason, I remember not being able to follow the story. I’m embarrassed to say that since the plot is extremely straightforward. There were some characters at the very end of the film that I couldn’t quite place within the crime, but the crime itself is simple—a French drug smuggler uses a French celebrity to smuggle over 100 pounds of pure cocaine very well hidden in a car. The supporting characters in the crime are really not all that important. We really don’t get to know anyone in this film very well except for Popeye Doyle (Gene Hackman), and thank goodness for this. Popeye is infinitely more interesting because he’s not clearly bad. He’s definitely not good though. Everyone else in the film is pretty much good or evil. The contrast of the Popeye character to the other characters in the film allows us to disturbingly understand the danger he poses to society and himself.

Sure, cocaine is pretty awful and lives could be ruined by it. Then again, so is a cop willing to put countless lives in danger and even kill innocent people in order to get his man and win his pursuit. Popeye is unstable, and we see events that really push him over the top. We first get a sense of Popeye’s pending insanity with a really fascinating sequence which has Popeye ask a criminal if he ever picks his toes in Poughkeepsie. Why does he ask this? There’s no direct reason—it’s not like we have any story about Popeye or someone he knows actually in Poughkeepsie. Perhaps because Popeye in his own delusional fantastical existence straddles the rail between reality and insanity.

Two iconic scenes in the film absolutely took my breath away and made me almost giddy because of how impressed I was by Friedkin’s directing and staging. The latter scene, its most famous, has Popeye pursue a train by driving at full speed down an extremely crowded street putting countless people’s lives in jeopardy. I think it’s quite possible that someone did in fact get hurt in this chase. After all, cars crash into his and he drives quickly away. Maybe he killed someone. Maybe Popeye didn’t even realize it. Maybe Popeye didn’t care.

Film students should be made to study the car chase scene carefully. It is a perfect example of suspense, exhilaration, obsession and mania. It is also a great scene of acting. Gene Hackman is absolutely pitch-perfect as Popeye. A choice could have been made to “act” the insanity. Instead, Hackman plays the character with a type of gritty realism which can actually lead us to not appreciate the complexity of the acting itself. The character is flawed and intense. Sure, everyone’s flawed and all of us are intense about at least some things. Hackman doesn’t use his rare scenes of dialogue and narrative focus to show Popeye’s potential for terror. Instead, he simply lets Doyle’s actions throw us completely out of our comfort zones and truly disturb us. Hackman gives one of film history’s truly great performances as Popeye Doyle.

The other amazing scene, which may very well become one of my favorite film scenes of all time, involves a hilarious and brilliant cat and mouse chase onto a subway car. Doyle has been pursuing the French smuggler Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey) from a distance. Charnier outfoxes Doyle by constantly entering and exiting the subway car while it isn’t moving thus forcing Doyle to do the same thing and blow his cover. When Charnier wins this little battle and waves at Popeye from within the moving car, I was just thinking to myself, “Now this scene is one to remember!”

The film really is unlike any other I can think of. It is shot mostly with a handheld camera in an almost documentary-like realism. Further, Popeye really becomes one of the great anti-heroes, right up there with Travis Bickle, Jake LaMotta and Ethan Edwards. Credit must also be given to the late Roy Schieder. His role as Popeye’s partner Buddy Russo is really meant to contrast Doyle’s nature and behavior. Buddy is far from perfect, but he is definitely safe to have on the streets. Schieder never once tries to take focus for himself. He plays the second banana like a true second banana and not like an egotistic thespian.

The French Connection was a real treat to watch. At 104 minutes, it’s a quick watch and an absolutely exhilarating one! Be ready though to be unsettled by the fact that there are Popeye Doyles out there in professions which make us want to hide under the covers!

The Big Sleep

May 7, 2008

The Big Sleep (1946) ***1/2

Directed by Howard Hawks

The Big Sleep is a mess of a story which is redeemed by the talent that went into the film, both on the screen and behind it. As a matter of fact, the talent doesn’t just redeem it. It actually makes it a lot of fun to watch.

I’m not exactly sure of the genre of films like this one. I wouldn’t use gangster because there aren’t any gangs. I wouldn’t use film noir because the dialogue isn’t quite that over the top. Might it be appropriate to call this a private investigator film? Perhaps a mystery? Perhaps a crime story?

Whatever you call it, I think it’s very hard to make movies like The Big Sleep really satisfy its audience. When everyone’s deceiving everyone, then the fun in trying to figure out “who done it” has the tendency to turn into frustration and resentment for the manipulation we are put through.

The basic plot in The Big Sleep involves private dick Philip Marlowe (Humphrey Bogart) taking a job offer from an old millionaire to find out who is writing checks to his daughter Carmine who seems to have a little problem staying sober. Her older sister Vivian (Lauren Bacall) involves herself in the situation, flirting with and perhaps misleading Marlowe. The investigation ensues involving murder, blackmail and corruption.

Unfortunately, I can’t really talk about the investigation itself—not because I don’t want to give anything away, but simply because it was too hard to follow completely. It seems that we are introduced to a new character every 15 minutes or so. For the most part, we haven’t met these characters before they become the focus of the investigation. Personally, I gave up trying to care about each new character. There were simply too many of them (Eddie Mars, the bookstore clerk, Mona Mars, Lash Canino, Joe Brody, Harry Jones, etc.), and I didn’t always know what they had to do with the crime.

Oh well, putting the convoluted plot to the side, the film is an absolute must see simply for Bogart and Bacall. Bogart is at the very top of his coolness and charm here. This may be the second best performance I’ve seen him give after Treasure of the Sierra Madre. That’s really something considering that I’ve seen Casablanca, The African Queen and The Maltese Falcon. Bacall is just stunning and classy on screen. The camera really does love her. She oozes mystery and perhaps danger.

The dialogue, by William Faulkner and Leigh Brackett, is extremely satisfying. My favorite line in the film, spoken by Marlowe after Carmine tries to seduce him, says, “She tried to sit on my lap while I was standing up.” Gotta love lines like that!

I can imagine that plots with twist after twist can be a lot of fun. They simply run the risk of having one too many twists. Had less talented actors or a less talented director in Howard Hawks executed this project, it most likely would have been a huge disappointment. Yet, The Big Sleep is an iconic film which deserves praise not because of its story, but because of the skill of those that worked on it.

To Kill a Mockingbird

May 5, 2008

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) ****

Directed by Robert Mulligan

Recently, in my review of Truffaut’s The 400 Blows, I mentioned that the film did not get the portrayal of a child correct. Most films I see with children do not convince me that these children could actually talk and be the way they are in these films. To Kill a Mockingbird is therefore a real treat. Jem and Scout are amazingly fully realized and totally convincing characters, especially Scout. This is one complex girl. She’s extremely uncomfortable in a dress and feels right at home during a fight. She’s sensitive and still quite naïve. She’s smart and gifted, yet she does not understand how special her father truly is. With regards to her father, it’s unfair to fault her for her ignorance, since her brother, four years older than she, similarly learns throughout the movie what a hero their dad is.

The American Film Institute placed Atticus Finch as the number one movie hero of all time, above both James Bond and Indiana Jones. Do I agree? Probably not, but do I vehemently disagree? Not at all. I would no doubt place Atticus right there in my top five. I had mentioned that Sen from Spirited Away is the most honorable character in the history of film. I still hold that belief. Yet, I think Atticus Finch is a candidate for the most noble and courageous character of all time. His accomplishments are impressive, but his humility and character really define his greatness.

The most famous sequence in the film, the courthouse scene, is the most unsatisfying. First of all, there were many things that were allowed in this court that would never be allowed in a court of law. At one point, while questioning the father, Mr. Ewell, Atticus also asks Tom Robinson a question about his arm. You just can’t do that. Unfortunately, everyone overacts during this painfully long sequence, including Gregory Peck who seems like he’s in a completely different (and inferior) movie when he’s in the courthouse. Also, the closing argument from Finch is just plain silly and confusing. Would you really use a word like “temerity” in a trial in the deep south where people on the jury most likely don’t have more than a tenth grade education at best?

Other than this scene, To Kill a Mockingbird is not only great, but exceptionally touching. Harper Lee’s book is simply a bunch of parables about the south and about hope within a cruel world. Jem is at that age where he begins to judge his father’s masculinity (and his own in relation). Atticus does not shelter Jem and Scout from the injustices of the world. Yet, he is always there to explain things. Scout says that he’s better at this than anything else. Little does she know at the beginning of the film that he’s equally brilliant in many other areas.

This is a movie about character and courage—the courage to do what is right and the character necessary to give everyone a chance. You may get hurt or even killed unjustly, but you can hold your head up high. Jem and Scout, with regards to their father, have nothing to be ashamed of. Seems like they are growing up to be adults who can be very proud of themselves as well—thanks in large part to the great hero Atticus Finch.

Juno

May 4, 2008

Juno (2007) *****

Directed by Jason Reitman

So, I just checked Juno out again on DVD and what do I think? Well, it’s an absolute gem of a movie, and yet, it’s simply not as funny as I remember it in the theater. I’m wondering if this is one of those “better to see it with a laughing crowd” kinds of films. I laughed out loud only about three or four times this viewing. I smiled almost throughout and chuckled quite a bit. Yes, I’ve seen it before so a lot of the comedy wasn’t surprising and therefore, I had less of those moments of, “Did she really just say that?”

Unfortunately, I do think I am going to have to move Juno down on my 100 greatest movies list. As a matter of fact, I am going to take it off my list. Don’t get me wrong--I still love it dearly. This will most likely be a film that I will revisit over and over again, but I don’t think it deserves as high praise as I’ve given it. First of all, the first twenty minutes really are pretty bad. They are redeemed when viewed within Diablo Cody’s plan—aggressively introduce us to the tone and dialogue, then pull back a little, then contrast the tone with the vulnerabilities of the characters. Even though I see where the beginning of the film was going, it cannot be denied that Rainn Wilson’s entire characterization of the store clerk and Ellen Page’s opening lines are scathingly whimsy and unconvincing. Later in the film, a line like, “torn from the ground up,” works because we’ve come to like and understand the characters and more importantly, these lines aren’t coming at us almost incessantly like they are at the beginning.

That being said, the film is still as good as I remember, if not even better, with regards to its heart and sentimentality. Juno is a brilliantly realized character given an amazing performance by Ellen Page. This time around, I was really impressed by the development of her relationship with Bleeker, played so well by Michael Cera who seems to be able to milk the comedy out of every line without looking like he’s trying at all. When Juno says, “You’re like the coolest person and you don’t even try to be,” and Bleeker says, “I try really hard actually,” I transported this whole idea to Cera’s performance. It seems so humble, brilliant and effortless, and I can only imagine that a performance this good must have taken quite a bit of effort. If it did come easy to Cera, then great, but I’d love to see what else this kid can do.

My affection for this film remains very strong. I’m just worried a little bit that Diablo Cody may only have so many tricks up her sleeve. Juno had a real danger of becoming smarmy, cynical and unlikable. Watching some of the deleted scenes, I was kind of put off. Some of them are really awful. Also, watching the screen tests on the DVD, you could see that the script had to be edited for content to get a PG-13 rating. Some of the dialogue during the screen tests was kind of ugly. I’m wondering if Cody can write dialogue of a different sort with any real skill. Hey, if she’s got what it takes, then fantastic! If not, well I guess that’s okay, because Juno was an amazing movie! Some people can’t even write one great movie.