The Station Agent

June 13, 2008

The Station Agent (2003) ****1/2

Directed by Thomas McCarthy

I watched The Station Agent because it was one of the ten films that my friend Lucy recommended that I watch. This is the third film I’ve reviewed from her choices, and I’m starting to understand a little bit about Lucy’s taste in movies. She seems to love relatively small non-mainstream movies about ordinary characters dealing with real life situations resulting in heart warming conclusions. Out of Lucy’s first two films, I liked Butterflies Are Free, but I hated Children of Heaven. If you take a look at the comments under my review for Children of Heaven, you will see that Lucy’s a bit worried that the marathon in her name has not gotten off to a great start. Well, Lucy, you can stop worrying because The Station Agent totally worked on me and made me much more excited to keep watching your suggestions. I’m not kidding when I say that everyone should watch this film. It’s a lovely little crowd pleaser. Also, since I’m from New Jersey, I’m happy to say that The Station Agent is the best New Jersey film I’ve ever seen. It’s not just set in Jersey, but it also contains Bobby Cannavale as Joe Oramus. Joe is the perfect example of what Jersey people often tend to be like—loud and overbearing but with hearts of gold.

The main character of the film is a dwarf named Fin played by Peter Dinklage. His performance is spectacular, which is important considering that his character goes through some pretty extreme changes in personality by the end of the film. He’s a quiet man because that is the way he has learned to deal with the deep anger he feels from a lifetime of being treated either as the butt of jokes or as a sideshow spectacle for people to glare at in wonder and awe. His entire life revolves around his passion for trains—he works at a model train store, his closest friend in life is an elderly train store owner, his social life pretty much exclusively consists of a monthly train chaser club in which members either look at pictures or watch movies of trains.

He decides to make a change in his life once his boss and friend dies. In the man’s will, Fin is left an abandoned train depot in Newfoundland, New Jersey. He packs up to begin what he assumes will be the same quiet solitary life in a new town. The depot isn’t much, but Fin makes it work for him. Little does he know that everyday right outside his depot, a roadside coffee trailer opens for business. Joe Oramus, filling in for his recovering father, runs the business and immediately and enthusiastically wants to make Fin his buddy. Fin curtly dismisses him, but Joe’s pretty determined and doesn’t always get the hint to leave him alone, or maybe he just chooses not to.

In a laugh out loud funny sequence, Olivia Harris (Patricia Clarkson) accidentally almost runs Fin off the road not once but twice, both times requiring him to jump head first in order to avoid being hit. Later that night, Olivia brings booze over to the train depot and spends the night with Fin, though they do not get sexually involved.

Joe does begin to slowly break down Fin's guard and in doing so, learns about his impressive knowledge and admiration for trains. The film takes its time and patiently brings Olivia, Joe and Fin together in friendship. Unfortunately, Olivia’s estranged husband's return forces a split in the trio.

Michelle Williams, ex-wife of the late Heath Ledger, plays a very young woman named Emily who likes Fin but has major problems of her own. She’s pregnant, and her boyfriend is a loser with violent tendencies. While trying to protect Emily, her boyfriend pushes Fin hard into a truck which escalates his anger big time, and later when he goes back to check in on Olivia, she is obviously emotionally wrecked from her husband’s appearance and throws Fin out of her life. This brings Fin dangerously close to behavior that may or may not result in his death when he passes out drunk on train tracks. You’ll have to see the film to find out how everything is resolved.

Fin, Olivia, Joe and even Emily are all really good people who are dealing with serious issues caused by those around them. Fin, Olivia and Joe find each other, but their fairy tale friendship is unfortunately bound to implode because of the baggage each of them carries. It’s necessary for one of the characters to hit rock bottom before starting over. Luckily, this person has two loving friends to help.

Writer/director Thomas McCarthy apparently wrote the film with Peter Dinklage in mind. The film does address his dwarfism over and over again, but treats it with quite a lot of respect without being naïve. It’s the sad truth that every single person that sees a dwarf or a midget unexpectedly reacts strongly. Even Joe, who could care less whether his friend is a dwarf or not, does eventually ask Fin whether or not he’s had sex and if it was with a full-sized woman. Though Joe’s question was tactless, it was a question that many people would wonder about while looking at a dwarf. Joe got the question out in the open so that when he’s looking at Fin, he’s not spending time wondering about him. He now has his answer.

Not everyone should be blamed for having a strong reaction to seeing a dwarf or a midget. I can’t recall too many times I’ve seen one in real life. Yet, I would definitely not laugh or whisper. Personally, I don’t think too many people would, and the film does portray what I’m sure would be rare responses like name calling a little too often. What was very refreshing, though, was that there wasn't a lot of self-deprecating humor said by Fin. In Butterflies Are Free, Don jokes about his blindness either as a defense mechanism or because he truly is comfortable in his disability. Fin’s character relies on seclusion in order to deal with the pain that living with dwarfism has caused him his whole life. To have his character spout off short people jokes would be completely inconsistent with who Fin is. McCarthy got that just right.

Also, The Station Agent doesn’t allow us to pity Fin, and similarly, it doesn’t allow Fin to ultimately pity himself. Olivia, Joe and Emily all struggle with serious issues in their life. If anything, Fin has found people he can relate to in a world where he has always felt like such an outsider. Right there is where the film’s universal appeal lies. We all struggle, and while most of us don’t have to be dwarves, all of us deal with serious pain from time to time. Rather than allowing our hurt to alienate us from others, The Station Agent shows that we can actually connect together in our brokenness. Our sadness can be softened because we can be sad together. Great film, Lucy!

The Third Man

June 13, 2008

The Third Man (1949) *****

Directed by Carol Reed

My favorite aspect of The Third Man is the zither music that plays throughout. Written and performed by Anton Karas, the music in this film is my favorite out of all the music in all the films I’ve ever seen. The twangy metallic vibrato notes add so much to each scene. More than the music of any film I can think of, the zither stands out and almost begs to be noticed every time it begins. If someone came up to me and told me that he was directing a murder mystery and wanted to use the zither, I probably would try and talk him out of it. Whoever conceived and finally approved of The Third Man’s music was an absolute genius.

This is the second time I’ve seen The Third Man. I first saw it when I was beginning to try and watch some of the greatest movies ever made. I thought it was impressive, but it felt to me like the filmmakers were trying a little too hard. That was probably a year ago. Now, I’ve seen dozens of films from around that era and this time I was struck by how uniquely stylized and ambitious Reed directed the movie. Most shots in the film are slanted in order to keep the entire plot off balance, which makes sense considering that a little over an hour into the film, a huge twist is revealed which drastically changes how we view the motivations and situations of every single character. I noticed that when things got really tense, the angle of the slanting increased, so we have all these shots that are crooked in varying degrees.

I don’t want to give away the surprise, because it’s really spectacular, so I will only vaguely describe the plot. Joseph Cotton, Valli, Orson Welles and Trevor Howard lead a first-rate cast in this mystery surrounding the death of a man named Harry Lime. A childhood friend of Lime’s named Holly Martins (Holly is a man by the way—yeah I’ve never heard of a man named Holly either) travels to Austria to visit him only to find out that Harry was hit by a car and died. The entire film takes place in Vienna right after World War II, so the city is split into Russian and German districts. This poses a problem for a Czech actress named Anna Schmidt who was Lime’s lover when he passed. She’s been posing as an Austrian using a passport that Harry had made for her. Holly comes across her and many other people while investigating Harry’s death since he is convinced Harry was murdered. A policeman named Major Halloway tries to tell Holly that Harry was a terrible man who hurt many people in his lifetime.

I’ll stop there with the plot which continues in an extremely satisfying and entertaining way. Graham Greene, who wrote the screenplay and the original book, presents a shocking revelation that has gone down as one of the great movie moments in history. In my opinion, The Third Man contains the very best first scene of a character. While the movie is also revered for its amazing chase scenes through the sewers in Vienna, I personally prefer the one carnival scene that has two main characters talk in a Ferris wheel. The second I heard the zither play during this scene, I understood that perhaps the music throughout the entire film was meant to be fully realized at the carnival, since one of the places I’ve heard a zither was at an amusement park. Therefore, maybe the music was meant to feel out of place in most scenes to keep the viewer off center, similar to the use of the slanted camera angles.

The very last moment of the film is one of its best. Anna begins quite far away, and walks down the road towards the camera. Another character is at the side of the road watching her. We wait to see if she will eventually go to him, as the character similarly waits for the same reason. After close to a solid minute of just walking, we are treated to our answer. Here is one of the many examples of the extremely creative and effective directing of Carol Reed.

I enjoyed the entertainment value of the plot as much as I enjoyed the intricate filmmaking. However, by the end of The Third Man, I did feel like the novelty of all the stylized details was wearing a little bit thin, but the plot on the other hand always kept me engaged. Roger Ebert has called this one of the ten best films ever made. I disagree wholeheartedly. While I don’t consider this one of the very best, The Third Man is still wonderful and a must see for anyone that loves great film. Heck, even if the storyline was terrible, I’d still recommend the film for its ingenious decision to include the unforgettably mesmerizing zither music.

The Haunting

June 13, 2008

The Haunting (1963) ***1/2

Directed by Robert Wise

I recently learned that in the fall, I will be teaching a film course at the high school I work at. While watching The Haunting, I thought to myself that this would be a great film to show the students in order to teach them about techniques filmmakers use to build suspense. At first, I thought I might show it when I discuss the horror film genre, but by the end I decided against it because I feel that as a horror film, The Haunting ultimately does not work. It's clear that this was intended as horror because of the silly opening narration and the almost campy graphics showing the film’s title at the beginning. Thus, Wise’s 1963 classic doesn’t succeed in its intended purpose. Still, though, it’s a very good film in many other ways. Actually, I’d say that The Haunting has moments of brilliance.

The great Julie Harris plays Eleanor Lance, a neurotic young woman who hates her life and feels that her purpose might just be to live in an allegedly haunted house called Hill House which she has been invited to by a man named Dr. Markway (Richard Johnson). Markway is performing experiments in order to prove the existence of ghosts. As Eleanor (called Nell throughout most of the film) drives to the house, we hear her internal monologue in some kind of whispery echo that annoyed me almost immediately. Her thoughts contain traces of desperate insecurity and self-loathing, but on the surface, she feels excited that she may ultimately find her life’s purpose at Hill House. Staying at the house along with Nell and Markway are young Luke (Russ Tamblyn), the future heir of Hill House and clairvoyant Theodora (Claire Bloom). That first night, Theodora (aka Theo) and Nell hear deep, reverberating pounding outside of their room. The remainder of the film interchanges scenes of fear and light banter among the guests, all while Nell seems more and more psychically connected to the spirits of the house.

The Haunting is an extremely suspenseful film, almost unbearably so at times. While I was watching, my heart was pounding big time, waiting for that loud musical cue followed by some gruesome image or sequence. I waited and waited over and over to be grossed out, and yet, it never came. More often than not, the suspense would lead nowhere which disappointed me since I wanted all of my anticipation to be given some kind of payoff. The death count in this film is shockingly low. Well, it was also low in Psycho too. Maybe a better way of saying it would be that the number of people still alive at the end of the film is shockingly high.

Maybe with the exception of some of the more experimental films of old Hollywood (like 1929’s Un Chien Andalou which shows up close a razor slicing a human eyeball), almost no film made before 1967 has the potential to make someone throw up. The seventies really pushed gore to the front and center with films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Last House on the Left, Dawn of the Dead and Halloween. Today’s Saw and Hostel influenced horror audience would probably be profoundly disappointed with The Haunting, unless maybe they were told what to expect. I didn’t really know exactly how gory The Haunting was going to be before I watched it. Even Psycho from 1960 has some significant bloodshed.

While The Haunting contains no gore at all, it is immensely suspenseful. As I begin to watch more classic horror films, I am becoming confused with the definition of whether or not a film is “scary.” Does scary equal suspenseful? Does scary equal suspenseful plus a disturbing payoff? Does scary equal grossed out? Does scary equal feeling unsettled well after the film ends? Well, if scary means suspenseful only, then The Haunting is definitely scary. But, I don’t buy that scary can exist without horrifying payoffs. I thought Jaws was extremely scary, and a big part of that involved the extremely disturbing nature of many scenes. The Haunting seems to want to be disturbing, but in my opinion, it’s not at all. I guess the end of the film wants viewers to be creeped out by the psychic connection of Nell to the house and what eventually results. Personally, I’ve never had a nightmare about houses with psychic abilities. I’ve seen death in film before. So what’s supposed to make us feel unsettled well after the movie is over? My final conclusion: The Haunting is not scary.

Ultimately, though, I really enjoyed the suspense in itself, despite my disappointment with the fact that the suspense led nowhere. Also, Wise’s direction is incredible. The cinematography in The Haunting is spectacular, which does add to the film’s eerie atmosphere. Unfortunately, the eeriness of the film, like the suspense, would have been much more effective had the film actually shown us some real horror.

I’ve got to admit that The Haunting was not what I was expecting, and it’s refreshing to have films surprise me. Even well into the film, I thought for sure that one by one the guests were going to be picked off Agatha Christie-style. Still, though, I was preparing myself for suspense and horror, and all I got was some really great suspense—so great in fact that I look forward to watching this film again with my students. I'll be sure to prepare them before hand so they won't be as disappointed as I was.

Tribute to Tim Russert

Even though this is a film review blog, and Russert was not a member of the film industry, I still want to put out there how much I really respected and loved this guy. Whenever I would see Tim Russert on The Today Show, I would always kind of lose my breath for a second because he was really the biggest name in the field of political journalism. Even though he was usually there only to comment on world affairs, I would often find his presence on The Today Show more impressive than superstar celebrities. Meet the Press always had a feel of being the best of all news shows on television. Considering that Russert did Meet the Press live every week, I'm amazed that I can't recall a single instance where he faltered or stumbled at all. I was overcome by the news of his death, and I feel that all the tributes that I've been watching for the past few hours have appropriately discussed his legacy as being one of our great American treasures. It's especially sad to lose the very best, and that's exactly what Tim Russert was. Rest in peace.

Afterthoughts Post 3

June 12, 2008

Afterthoughts Post 3

I haven’t done an Afterthoughts post since May 22^nd so I have a lot of films to choose from. Here are interesting tidbits I learned about some films after I watched them.

Patton- Believe it or not, George C. Scott never felt comfortable as a celebrity, and he never really embraced the Hollywood lifestyle. It seems that he’d rather watch a hockey game on TV then go to a studio party.

Adam’s Rib- When we hear the song Farewell, Amanda sung on the radio in the film, it’s actually Frank Sinatra’s voice we hear. Unfortunately, his recording of the song is lost and all that’s left of him singing this Cole Porter tune is what we hear in the film.

Out of Africa- Redford was originally planning to speak with a British accent but Pollack advised against it (maybe he couldn’t pull it off).

Logan’s Run- The scene in the pleasure room was originally longer containing more drug influenced imagery, but the censors cut it out of the film. Also, in the ice area, there was supposed to be a statue of the two main characters nude, but again the censors held up a red flag on that one.

Sunset Blvd- You might not realize that one of the old-timers playing cards with Swanson is Buster Keaton! Also, the clip that Norma watches of herself in her home theater is from a film directed by Erich von Stroheim, the actor who plays Max. That’s Gloria Swanson on screen when she was a huge silent movie actress.

Detour- This was the choice among all the “poverty row” pictures to be entered into the National Film Registry. Its star, Tom Neal, was notoriously arrested for assault and spent years in prison. Ann Savage is still alive and occasionally makes appearances at festivals or film noir conventions in connection with her role in Detour. Also, look carefully at what side of the road the characters drive on. Notice anything wrong?

A Place In the Sun- The original ending of the film was supposed to show Montgomery Clift in the electric chair, but the scene was cut and replaced with what we now see in the film.

Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead- The original script did not have Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke as brothers. Lumet decided to include that plot point to raise the stakes of their crime.

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters- Billy Mitchell actually went on a press tour in order to salvage his image, which was tainted by this film.

The Man Who Fell to Earth- This film was originally supposed to be a vehicle for Peter O’Toole. Also, Bowie was sick one day of shooting so Candy Clark stood in for him in one scene. She hides herself by strategically having the brim of her black hat cover her face.

The Fall- I was mistaken in thinking this is Tarsem’s first film. He’s been around for a bit, and his other best known film is 1999’s The Cell with Jennifer Lopez. Also, I kept calling him Tarsem Singh and referring to his as Singh throughout my review. He’s actually commonly known as just Tarsem. The Fall was filmed in around 18 different countries. Also, he supposedly used up all his money to help finalize the film. It’s doing well with art house crowds, so I’m sure he will make his money back.

The Killers- 1964’s version was originally supposed to be one of the first made for television movies, but it was too violent so it was given a theatrical release. Also, this was Ronald Reagan’s only villainous role, and he hated having to play it.

Broken Blossoms- Lillian Gish did not want to play her part in Broken Blossoms because at twenty-three, she felt like she was too old to play a teenager. Also Donald Crisp, who plays Gish’s father, was directed a film during the day so his scenes had to be shot at night.

Woyzeck- Filming began two or three days after Kinski and Herzog wrapped shooting Nosferatu. The entire shoot took only eighteen days.

Children of Heaven

June 12, 2008

Children of Heaven (1999) *1/2

Directed by Majid Majidi

Call me heartless, but Children of Heaven did not win me over with its forced charm and its incessant reliance on the crying faces of children to tug hard at our heartstrings. I hold films that feature children in lead roles to a slightly higher standard. A scene involving an adult in peril does nothing to our sense of dread and anxiety when compared to that same scene substituted with a child. Children automatically make the audience that much more emotionally connected to a plot, and often, I believe that filmmakers tend to exploit that fact as an excuse to be lazy.

The makers of Children of Heaven took very cute and expressive kids, put them places and had them do stuff. When it’s all over, they edited everything in an over-stylized manner and called it a film. But my question is, “What is the purpose of this film?” Children of Heaven doesn’t seem to want to teach us much about life in Iran. These children are poor, but they by no means live in abject poverty. Life is difficult for these children, but they live with seemingly good, loving parents. Often the characters luck into situations, which seems almost cruel since so many in Iran can’t even hope for the opportunities that these characters are given.

In a deplorable sequence, nine year-old Ali (Mir Farrokh Hashemian) and his father (Mohammad Amir Naji) bike ride to an upper class neighborhood and buzz on the intercoms asking around for gardening work. Everyone says no, that is until a little boy and his grandfather invite the two of them in. Ali gets to play and his father gets paid more money than he had imagined. So what’s that say about life in Iran? If your life is bad, just wait for that one break in life that’s going to come? The problem I have with this possibility is the sad reality that this is simply not true for well over ninety-nine percent of people living in poverty. We have opportunities in America that aren’t available in other parts of the world, like Iran. Therefore, the whole film felt like something set in Iran using Iranian actors but made for Americans who understand the American dream. Personally, I was offended by this use of poverty as a set piece.

The entire film revolves around a pair of shoes that Ali loses outside a grocery market. On the one hand, he does not want to be beaten by his father for losing the shoes, but on the other hand, he does not want to have to force his father to buy new ones since they have no extra money and their mother is ill. The shoes aren’t Ali’s, but instead they once belonged to his sister Zahra (Bahare Seddigi) who needs them to go to school. The two of them work out a plan so that she can run the shoes to Ali once her classes end which would give him just barely enough time to show up for his classes. He does show up late more than once for different legitimate reasons. Eventually, Ali learns that his school can enter a handful of students into a race. The third prize of the race is a brand new pair of sneakers. Ali decides to run the race in order to win third place and get the sneakers to give to his sister. Does he win third place? Well, let’s just say that if I gave you three guesses, I bet you’d figure out exactly what place he gets.

The lucky coincidences in the story feel disingenuous from the very beginning. Ali gets a pen from his teacher. His sister drops the pen only to get it back from the daughter of a blind man. This same daughter is now wearing the same shoes that once belonged to Zahra. She doesn’t try to get them back since her father is blind. The only thing worse than using children for cheap emotions is to use handicapped people for cheap emotions. Ali, after being late for the third time, is asked to leave the school, but one of his teachers talks to the principal who changes his mind and lets Ali stay. When Ali finds out about the race, he does not try out for it, but after learning the prize, begs his teacher to let him enter. The teacher finally gives in after timing Ali. Also, don’t forget about the gardening scene mentioned earlier. The final lucky scene is of the race itself, which is so overblown that I was glad that the end of the race was also going soon to bring about the end of this film.

Children of Heaven attempts to be an inspirational movie about hope. Life is Beautiful similarly attempts to show inspiration amongst the atrocities of the Holocaust. Many criticized that film for making light of the Holocaust. While I think Life is Beautiful is fantastic and actually respects the evil reality of that horrific event, Children of Heaven simply attempts to show how poor Iranians can lift themselves up by their bootstraps. The harsh realities of so many in the Middle East, especially today considering the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, should not be manipulated into window dressing so that cute children can make rich American audiences go, “awww!”

(Note: I just read the following on imdb.com.) In the English DVD version of the film, the epilogue is not translated. The epilogue explains that Ali eventually achieves the larger-scale success of having a racing career. (Of course he does! Grrrr!)

Butterflies Are Free

June 11, 2008

Butterflies Are Free (1972) ***1/2

Directed by Milton Katselas

Leonard Gershe wrote the screenplay for Butterflies Are Free which is an adaptation of the stage play he wrote of the same name. Maybe I should say “slight adaptation,” even though I’ve never seen nor read the play itself. Yet, the film completely feels like one of those plays that are set in one room with different doors for people to enter and exit throughout. There are not many cinematic elements that elevate it beyond a talky theatrical production. Even when scenes take place outside the apartment, and there are only three of them, they play as if they could have taken place in the apartment itself. Instead of shopping for clothes, I bet on stage Jill looks through Don’s closet or calls a friend over to give him a wardrobe makeover. Instead of going out to eat, I bet on stage Mrs. Baker simply continues her conversation with Jill in the apartment. Butterflies Are Free is not, therefore, great cinema. Thankfully, it’s a very good play, and two members of the cast give first-rate performances, so it’s definitely worth seeing.

Recently deceased Edward Albert plays Don Baker, a blind young man that finally moves out of his childhood home in order to live independently. His quirky next door neighbor Jill Tanner (Goldie Hawn) first believes he’s a peeping tom when she sees him facing the window that she is undressing in front of. They soon meet and after awhile, she finally learns he is blind. Of course, she’s awkward at first, not knowing how to be sensitive, but Don is comfortable with his handicap and so he’s very patient with her. She’s amazed by how well he functions, and how he has adapted to his new environment.

Eventually, they do get together romantically, and the next morning, both are surprised when Don’s mother (Eileen Heckart) enters the apartment while the two of them are just in their underwear. She’s checking up on her son, which he resents. This scene with the three of them in the apartment comes off very shallow at first. Mrs. Baker seems almost like a caricature of that overbearing nagging mother. Of course, she disapproves of Jill, but not just for the reasons we initially think. In the past, Don fell in love with a girl that eventually left him. Presumably, Mrs. Baker was there for Don during this difficult time, and she doesn’t want to see him hurt again by this nineteen year old hippie actress that was married for only six days.

Don and Jill agree to meet for dinner that night, so when Don goes out shopping for food, Mrs. Baker approaches Jill about having lunch together. Mrs. Baker warns Jill that Don will fall in love with her and asks her whether she is ready to be the wife of a blind man. She’s just in it for the fun, so this does scare her into agreeing to live with a sleazy theater director which in turn would require her to move out of her apartment next to Don’s.

Jill doesn’t show up until late that night. When she finally shows up, she mentions her decision to move away. Mrs. Baker saw this coming, but when in Don’s devastation he wants to return home, she realizes that she needs to let him go. Mrs. Baker leaves him alone, and soon after, Jill returns to say goodbye. Don forces her to look at herself and how “blind” she is to her own emotions. This accurate insight affects Jill strongly when she leaves. The end of the film shows whether or not Jill decides to move out or stay with Don to face her fears and embrace his love.

Edward Albert, whose career became hot after this film only to sizzle out soon after, has moments of sincere emotional angst as Don. Also, he does play the character’s blindness very convincingly. Yet, his voice bothered me quite a bit. It seems like he began that role after months or even years of intensive diction training. Every single line is given in that Shakespearian voice with round tones and endings clearly attached to words. Henry Higgins would be proud. Unfortunately, this ultimately made him sound more like the narrator of a book on tape than a real person speaking authentic dialogue.

That’s okay, though, because the performances by the two leading ladies more than make up for the flaws in his performance. I’ve always heard that Kate Hudson looks so much like her mother Goldie Hawn did at her age. Now I see it. Hawn is absolutely brilliant as Jill. She brings a sense of love and excitement to her character which makes us completely understand why Don finds her so appealing. Later in the film where her character has to be a bit more serious, she proves that she can be real just as well as she can be perky and fun. I’m sad that she did not receive an Oscar nomination for this role.

Eileen Heckart not only received an Oscar nomination for playing Mrs. Baker, but she took home the award for Best Supporting Actress. I don’t know much about her besides seeing her in a few episodes of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, but she is absolutely marvelous playing what has to be the most difficult character in the film to portray. This woman must come off smart, but unlikable at first. Yet, she can’t be too hateful because her character grows in tolerance and understanding by the end. Heckart’s delivery of some pretty harsh insults about Jill have just the right tone of sarcasm without coming off bitchy.

The title, “Butterflies Are Free,” comes from a song that Don wrote which we hear throughout. Edward Albert probably should have skipped a few diction classes in order to work on his singing voice, because the song sounds pretty awful. Though Gershe’s play may not have been the best source material for a film, I’m glad that Katsalas’ film exists. I really did come to care about these three people, and spending time with them was quite entertaining. I believe one of the film’s goals is to show how people can be blind to many things even if they can see. Okay, nice, but this stagy film’s greatest appeal lies in its two superb female performances.

Jeremiah Johnson

June 11, 2008

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) ****1/2

Directed by Sydney Pollack

I’m really glad that I decided to do a Sydney Pollack directing marathon in order to experience the greatness that I’ve heard about the man. Had I not chosen to do the marathon, I probably would never have seen Jeremiah Johnson. This violent western plays like a swift kick in the chin. For the first two-thirds of the film, we are presented with the most beautiful storyline, but then things change almost too quickly. There was a part of me that was hoping that Jeremiah was just dreaming what he saw upon returning from the state government’s journey. Jeremiah Johnson truly goes through some really intense experiences, which makes the transformation of his character from beginning to end completely believable.

Robert Redford, giving his best performance that I’ve seen, plays the title character, a soldier that wants to become a mountain man in order to live a life of solitude so that he can find himself. Lucky for him, he befriends an odd but experienced mountain man named Bear Claw (Will Geer) who gives him some much needed advice and words of wisdom. The film begins almost as a collection of vignettes which leads him from Bear Claw, to a crazy woman, to an Indian Tribe, to marriage, to a government mission that needs his help, to explosive revenge against Indian killers, back to Bear Claw and finally back to the house of the crazy woman he visited many years earlier. By the end, he has become a legend and a man of deep respect among people all throughout the mountains.

The crazy woman mentioned above presumably loses her sanity because she finds all but one of her young children dead and scalped by the sadistic Blackfeet Indians. Jeremiah helps her bury the children, and in doing so, discovers a boy cowering in the house. The boy, named Caleb by Jeremiah, never speaks, probably because he witnessed the murders. The crazy woman gives the boy to Jeremiah, who reluctantly agrees, therefore, giving up his life of solitude.

Next, Jeremiah, the boy and Bear Claw are taken in by the friendly Indians who believe Jeremiah to be a god. As such, the Chief gives his daughter over to Jeremiah to be his wife. Bear Claw explains that he better accept or else they will all be killed. He does, so now his journey, after Bear Claw leaves, is accompanied by a mute boy and an Indian woman that doesn’t speak much English. This unconventional family begins to grow close as Jeremiah’s wife named Swan (Delle Bolton) comes to understand that he is a good and noble man. The boy, still not willing to speak, though at one point it seems like he tries, admires Jeremiah and finally feels safe.

All that gets flipped upside down when delegates from the state government dragoon Jeremiah to lead them to an Indian tent village in order to rescue employees that have been taken prisoner. Jeremiah doesn’t want to since it’s a long and dangerous journey, but he does agree and gets them there safely. Unfortunately, when he returns, he finds the most unimaginable horror inside his home affecting these two people he has come to love deeply.

Now, Jeremiah, in a mad rage, seeks his revenge on the Crow Indians with whom he was once on very friendly terms. The scenes of revenge are brutal even by today’s standards. As I watched each physical blow and each new death, I was filled with sadness because I knew that none of this violence would bring his family back to him. These are powerful but disturbing scenes to watch.

Surprisingly, the film does not end with the conclusion of his revenge, as I expected it to. Instead, Jeremiah returns to Bear Claw and receives validation that he is a true mountain man. Returning to the crazy woman’s home, Jeremiah sees a young man that wants to be a settler in the wild. The young man looks at Jeremiah in awe since the name Jeremiah Johnson is the stuff of legend. Unfortunately, old wounds are opened when Jeremiah discovers that this man is hiding his family in deplorable conditions in fear of the Indians.

Sydney Pollack directs much of Jeremiah Johnson gorgeously, with some really beautiful landscape and nature images. I still have a problem, though, with some of his choices as a director. Some transition shots were awkward, and the editing of the entire film isn’t as crisp as it could be. Also, we get these stupid songs played in the background that may have been written for the movie since they’re all about a man named Jeremiah Johnson. Also, there was one or two times where Jeremiah, Swan and Caleb looked like they were ready to pose for an Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue.

That being said, this dark western does offer a fascinating meditation on the West during the late nineteenth century. Also, we discover that Jeremiah actually needed the company of others rather than solitude to truly understand who he is and what his life should be. The film is based on the real life story of a mountain man named Trapper John Johnson. Patience is required at the beginning of the film in order for the viewer not to become bored by its slow pace. The effort is worth it though, and I’d even recommend that you enjoy the film’s down time because by the end, you will witness a man explode in rage. I promise that you will leave Jeremiah Johnson disturbed and unsettled.

The Way We Were

June 9, 2008

The Way We Were (1973) ****1/2

Directed by Sydney Pollack

The Way We Were is about an extremely politically active woman that has to choose between her love and her advocacy work since the man she loves does not share her absolutist viewpoints. The first hour and a half of The Way We Were revolves around a couple and how politics affects their relationship. The last half hour takes a strong political stance regarding McCarthyism and the injustice of the FBI’s witch hunt for Hollywood communists. The Way We Were probably would have been just as commercially successful had it stuck to the romance and stayed out of taking an explicit political stance on an issue. Luckily, Pollack’s tender love story becomes that much richer because of the head on its shoulders. The film could have been all heart. Its intelligence and political savvy work just as well as the romance, which is saying something since the film’s love story works brilliantly.

Screenwriter Arthur Laurents has the perfect characters set in just the right time in history. Barbra Streisand plays Katie Morosky, an outspoken ultra-liberal political activist. The film starts in the 1920’s with Katie speaking at rallies where she is often booed because she is a member of the Young Communist Society. Robert Redford plays Hubbell Gardner, a popular, politically apathetic frat boy that becomes very attracted to Katie because of her gumption.

The film jumps forward around ten years where Katie and Arthur see each other at a restaurant for the first time since college. Hubbel (oh how I wish I could go back in time and convince Laurents not to name Redford’s character Hubbel), extremely drunk, ends up sleeping at Katie’s house, and during that time, they embrace nude in bed. Of course, Katie’s the only one conscious at the time, so it’s really all her doing. The next morning, Hubbel panics and leaves quickly despite the fact that Katie has cooked him a huge breakfast.

Eventually, Hubbel moves in with Katie out of convenience. The day he’s about to move in, she has bought food to cook him a huge dinner. He wants to go out, but she pleads and he stays. The two of them get to know each other all over again and eventually fall in love. Their relationship is going great until President Franklin Roosevelt dies in office. Obviously Katie being a liberal is crushed by the news. Hubbel tries to cheer her up by taking her to a party with many of his old friends from college. They begin making jokes about Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt, which forces Katie to make a huge scene. This embarrasses Hubbel to the point where he decides to break up with her.

She calls him later that night and begs him to come over. They decide to give the relationship a second chance, and quickly after, Katie gets pregnant. Hubbel is a novelist who has recently received the news that Hollywood wants to adapt his book and he gets to be producer. The two of them move to Los Angeles, and things become a huge problem when the studio wants to change and censor many aspects of the movie. No one wants to do anything that could provoke someone to say that he or she is a communist—no one except Karen that is. Now Hubbel is being hurt by politics, and instead of standing up and fighting, he simply desires to give in.

Karen refuses to back down, which causes Hubbel to tell her that she is overbearing and that their relationship won’t work. The Katie that we know from earlier in the film would have tried to change herself to keep him, but this time, his cowardice in the face of injustice is not acceptable for her. She does beg him to stay with her until the baby is born. He agrees, and then leaves her. The two encounter each other many years later. Will they get back together? Well, I’m not going to tell you that, but I will say that I was extremely satisfied with the decisions that were made during this final scene?

Sure, The Way We Were is schmaltzy! I won’t deny that, but it’s also unbelievably entertaining. Yet, I definitely think that its appeal is far from universal. The film demands that you give it time in order to really get to know these characters and see how they succeed and fail at solving their conflicts. Also, this is a romance, and it’s not a realistic one at that. If you’re looking for a love story that you might be able to identify with or if you’re not looking for a romance at all, then stay far away from The Way We Were!

Redford again comes off stiff, but he is quite charming in the role. At first, I had a problem with the hard fact that Streisand physically would most likely be out of Redford’s league. Yet, you can absolutely imagine anyone falling in love with Streisand’s Katie. Babs is at her energetic best here. I don’t believe anyone could have played a character this tough yet vulnerable as well as Streisand. I didn’t like Sally Field in Absence of Malice because she was too bland and cold. Streisand would have been great in that film because she has the ability to make every scene she is in pulse with an electric flair all while we sympathize and root for her. I really can understand why so many people worship her. She’s not right for most roles (see my review for The Prince of Tides), but no one can play loud, independent female characters with strong personalities better than she can.

Though I loved The Way We Were, I still am not convinced that Pollack is that talented as a director. The worst scenes in the movie are montages of Redford and Streisand enjoying each other’s company in many different settings all while music is playing in the background. Had Pollack removed those montages from this movie, I’d probably have given it five stars. Also, I did have a problem with the fact that neither Streisand nor Redford looked at all like they were college age at the beginning of the film. At a college dance, Redford looks more like a chaperone rather than a college student.

These quibbles aside, The Way We Were is going to be a film that you’re either going to love or hate. Streisand’s performance alone is so strong and abrasive that you will either completely buy into it, or rush to press the mute button on the television’s remote control. This romance challenges us to ask ourselves, “What are those beliefs that are so important and fundamental that we wouldn’t keep silent about them or change them for anyone?” Also, I think The Way We Were is quite an empowering film for women. Katie, though at times thinks she can’t live without Hubbard, actually does even better without him since she can be true to herself and what she believes in. You go Babs!

Woyzeck

June 8, 2008

Woyzeck (1979) ****

Directed by Werner Herzog

Woyzeck is a haunting and mesmerizing film that I won’t soon forget. On the cover of the box, we see the always fascinating Klaus Kinski about to plunge a knife into a woman’s chest. Throughout this entire film, and similarly throughout the other two Herzog/Kinski collaborations I’ve seen (Aguirre: The Wrath of God and Fitzcarraldo), Klaus Kinski portrays his characters’ foray into madness with just a little bit too much reality. No one can play nutty like this guy. Personally, if I were that woman, I wouldn’t trust that Kinski knows that he’s not supposed to really kill me. That woman on that cover is either really brave or unimaginably stupid. I’d put my money on the second choice!

Woyzeck is based on a stage play by Georg Buchner, and it’s very obvious listening to the construction of the dialogue that we have an adaptation from theater. You’d expect to see this play done in a black box theater by actors that are maybe in heavy white makeup wearing all black. Herzog sets the film in a small German town, where everything seems a little too closed in adding to the tension that Kinski’s character is going to crack any second.

The sequence during the opening credits is fantastic. We see Kinski, with an expression on his face that only he could pull off so convincingly, marching and doing pushups all while a commanding officer off screen torments him. Kinski plays Friedrich Woyzeck, a soldier that’s about to turn forty with a young wife and an infant son. Between his commanding officers, the town psychiatrist and even his cheating wide, Woyzeck lives in an almost disconnected reality of despair and hopelessness.

In the first scene, we hear Woyzeck explain that there’s no hope for people like him either in this world or the next. We understand how he might have come to that conclusion when we meet the doctor that lives next door to Woyzeck. This doctor manipulates Woyzeck’s diet and health in order to see what conclusions he can come to that will better science. In a painfully uncomfortable scene, the doctor throws a cat from a third story window into Woyzeck’s arms without telling him. He has a minor panic attack after this (and I almost had one too!).

In one sense, you can’t really blame his wife for cheating on him since he’s not sane enough to give her affection. As a matter of fact, every time he returns home, he runs back out again because he can’t stand being alone with her. When Woyzeck finds out about her affair, and also when he is told that he is clinically insane, the trigger is pulled and Woyzeck takes his revenge out on his wife, which accounts for the image on the front of the box. While he’s stabbing her slowly—there’s literally two minutes between each stab—the soundtrack blares with dramatic instrumental music, adding to the truly disturbing nature of that scene.

I swear that I thought the film was going to end with the death of his wife. Instead, the final ten minutes of the film has Woyzeck realize that he could be punished severely for this, so he finds the knife in the middle of the night near the lying corpse and throws it into the creek. What about people who go swimming, he says. So, he goes in after the knife and throws it into deeper waters. What about people who go diving, he says. So he retrieves it, and we leave that scene imagining that Woyzeck may never leave that creek.

Kinski is a one of a kind that was born to play a role like this. He can play the most bizarre characters as if they are second nature to him. Just watching him to see what acting choices he makes is like watching a game played with absolutely no rules. In the hands of any other actor, the character of Woyzeck may have gotten lost within the theatrical dialogue and the explosive death scene. Instead, I was struck by Kinski’s performance more than any other aspect of this provocative and unique film.

In Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo, Herzog explores his deep seated fear of nature’s cruel power. Woyzeck doesn’t tackle that subject directly, but it does force us to ponder how much power our external influences have over us. Herzog is a man with many issues that seems to find therapeutic relief in expressing these fears directly within the films he makes. Woyzeck presents a great example of a new wave narrative structure, which for many may simply come off as confusing and weird. Werner Herzog and Klaus Kinski are oddballs, and Woyzeck seems to be their way of telling us exactly who is to blame for their internal imbalance—the cruelty of the outside world.

Absence of Malice

June 8, 2008

Absence of Malice (1981) ***1/2

Directed by Sydney Pollack

Recently deceased Pollack is one of the great film directors of all time—at least that’s what I’ve read over and over. Unfortunately, the only three films that he’s directed that I’ve seen are Tootsie, The Firm and most recently Out of Africa. Tootsie takes my prize for the most overrated film in history. Out of Africa was a huge disappointment. I enjoyed The Firm but it’s not really a very memorable movie. Therefore, after he died, I really felt that I need to catch up on some of his other classic films, such as Jeremiah Johnson, They Shoot Horses Don’t They, The Way We Were, Three Days of the Condor and Absence of Malice.

Imagine either Woodward or Bernstein in All The President’s Men having an affair with Deep Throat, and you’ve come close to Absence of Malice, a newspaper drama that explores ethics—both the journalistic and human kinds. Sally Field, plucky and tough, plays Megan Carter, an extremely talented and ambitious workaholic reporter who prints a flimsy story that a man named Michael Gallagher (Paul Newman) is the focus of the investigation into a murder. The story is leaked to her by a prosecutor with the hopes that Gallagher, the son of a long deceased mafia boss, will hand over information in order to get protection by the police. Megan pursues the story, even to the point of putting herself in seeming danger by accompanying Gallagher on his boat away from people.

Megan learns that Michael’s unstable childhood friend Teresa Perrone (Melinda Dillon) holds the key to his vindication. Michael was with Teresa in Atlanta the day of the murder. Unfortunately, Teresa, who works at a Catholic school and surrounds herself by Catholics, went to Atlanta to have an abortion. She pleads with Megan not to print the story, but Megan does anyway. Her intention is to report the truth, and therefore legally, she and the paper are not liable for damages because of absence of malicious intent—hence the title of the film. Lives are ruined, relationships are ruined and integrity pretty much gets thrown out the window. The climax of the entire film involves Assistant U.S. Attorney General James Wells, played marvelously by Wilford Brimley, getting to the bottom of what’s been going on by questioning all of the main players in Megan’s story including Michael and Megan themselves.

Absence of Malice plays like a better than average John Grisham novel. While All the President’s Men was an unconventional thriller, Absence of Malice would be best described as a mystery-drama. There’s almost no suspense in the entire movie. The only scene with any real exhilaration is the one with Brimley, yet that business is over after ten or fifteen minutes. Most of the film involves either Megan struggling with right and wrong, or Megan struggling with her feelings for Michael. Megan is not willing to break the law, unlike other characters in the movie. The problem is that what’s legal isn’t always decent. Her desire to get the story is strong, as it must be for a woman in what at the time would have been a man’s job, so strong in fact that she inflicts emotional pain on innocent people and ruins what may be a great romantic relationship.

The supporting cast including Bob Balaban, Barry Primus, Don Hood and Arnie Ross all add real quality to the film by portraying the men that are players in Megan’s story. Yet, none of these men seems to be struggling with right and wrong. Their ethics (or lack thereof) are set in stone, while Megan deals with her conscience through this story. Melinda Dillon, in her Oscar nominated performance as Teresa, leaves quite a lasting impression on the viewer. Her scene with Megan is sad, desperate and extremely powerful all due to her talent as an actress.

Paul Newman, right on the cusp of looking more like the Paul Newman of today than the Paul Newman during his Butch Cassidy years, also received an Oscar nomination for his performance. He’s wisely understated, which makes a scene where he starts lashing out at Megan that much more startling by contrast. This isn’t one of his great performances, but it’s definitely solid.

Sally Field feels a little too mannered here. Without a doubt, she’s a talented actress, but she comes off cold because she is obviously playing the character to be cold. She lacks the subtlety of Neumann’s performance, while at the same time, she lacks the charisma to carry the film and even to pull off her character’s inner struggle successfully.

Absence of Malice is a fine film, though I still feel that I have yet to see Pollack at his revered best as a director. Without a doubt, he made a good film here. Though, films that are just good do not earn a man the respect that Pollack has received over the years. I’ll check out some more of his films soon, because I’m starting to think that the man, similar to his film Tootsie, may also be grossly overrated. I hate to kick dirt on a man’s grave, so hopefully watching more of his films will prove me wrong.