They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

July 5, 2008

They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? (1969) *****

Directed by Sydney Pollack

When I was in college, I woke up early one Sunday morning and began to read a short novel by Stephen King which I think was called, “The Race.” Once I started reading, I couldn’t put it down and finished it two hours later. He wrote it under the pseudonym Richard Bachman which he used when he was either still in college or right out of college. The premise of the story revolves around a future America where communism has taken over. Once a year, the entire country looks forward to this major race which begins in Maine and proceeds south. Older teenage boys qualify to become participants, and if they make it to compete, they are seen as celebrities in their hometown. The prize for winning the race is a life where you and your family will be extremely wealthy for the rest of your days. It’s not about greed for these contestants though since the entire country is suffering from massive poverty and hardship, so this race is for most them the only way to a better life.

Since it’s a Stephen King story, there has to be a macabre twist. Those who do not win the race are shot dead. Also, there’s no official finish line. The boys simply start walking and if they fall over from exhaustion or fail to maintain the minimum speed limit of five miles per hour, they receive a series of three warnings. After the third warning, they are shot dead right there on the track. They get no breaks, not even to go to the bathroom. They simply must go with everyone watching. The yearly race often finishes somewhere in Massachusetts, and the winner every year is usually walking on wasted away bloodied stumps where his feet once existed.

Chilling, huh? Yep, that story has really stayed with me over the years, and I always thought something like it would make for a powerful movie. Little did I know that King pretty much stole his idea from Sydney Pollack’s They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? The film, set in the depression, showcases a dance marathon which offers a prize of $1500 to the winning couple. They have ten minute breaks every once in a while and a few hours to sleep and shower every night. Couples are given food and medical attention while they compete, and the whole time they are on the dance floor, the public pays for the opportunity to watch and root them on.

We learn from an old sailor and marathon veteran named Harry Kline, played by the great Red Buttons, that marathons can last as long as 1600 hours—that’s over two months! One of the fascinating elements of the film lies in the fact that the establishment, led by the marathon’s emcee Rocky (Gig Young), really doesn’t see anything morally wrong with what it is doing. After all, these desperate people get to eat for a period of time, and the winner does go home with money. They even encourage the audience to throw pennies towards their favorite couples which gives the dancers a bit of pocket change. More importantly, though, the marathon provides great entertainment to those with a little money to spare.

The entertainment value of the marathon is the key in the film. Rocky at one point steals one of the glamorous dresses of a dancer named Alice LeBlanc (Susannah York) without telling her. He later explains that the people in the audience come to the marathon in order to feel better about themselves when they compare their situations to those of the dancers. He states that Alice’s expensive dresses might make the audience feel inferior.

The most chilling aspect of the marathon is the derby. At times throughout the marathon, the dancers are required to run around the dance floor for ten minutes, and the three couples that finish last are disqualified. The humiliation and exhaustion the runners ensue is difficult to watch, and it’s during these scenes that the title of the movie really makes sense.

I’ve gone many paragraphs without even mentioning Jane Fonda and Michael Sarrazin. Their characters, named Gloria and Robert, couldn’t be more different. Gloria has learned to deal with the world by becoming cold, tough and very cynical. Of course she wants the money as badly as anyone else, but she resents the establishment for adding to the misery that life doles out. Robert, on the other hand, is a mild-mannered drifter whose distant personality has kept him naïve to the darker elements of the world. They end up being dance partners because of certain circumstances, and throughout their time together, they do grow to care for each other, though no romance ensues between them.

So many heartbreaking and enraging things happen during the marathon—too many to list here. Gloria learns something terrible about the marathon by the end of the film which pushes her over the edge. She’s tough as nails until this scene where we see her breakdown and cry. Her cynicism leads to total and complete despair, and the only one that can help her by the end is Robert.

The ending of the film is very disturbing, but extremely satisfying. The performances throughout are amazing, especially Fonda’s. I haven’t seen her in many films, but this two time Oscar winner is considered one of the very best actresses of her generation. I definitely now understand why. There’s a haunting scene in a shower room that takes place between Susannah York and Gig Young, which single-handedly probably earned both supporting acting Oscar nominations. Young won the Oscar for this movie.

I’ve been saying as I’ve watched some of the films directed by Sydney Pollack that I couldn’t understand all the fuss that people make over this guy. There were glaring problems with many of his films that to me looked like he ought to be the one to blame. They Shoot Horses, though, is a first-class example of great direction. The way the marathon is shot totally works, and the fact that Pollack wasn’t afraid to put these harrowing uncomfortable scenes front and center makes me truly understand and appreciate Pollack’s skill as a director.

I’ve got to admit that I enjoy dark films because I love the way my feelings powerfully connect with them. I certainly didn’t feel happy after this movie ended, but I sure did respond with unsettled raw emotions. “The Race” has haunted me for the last ten years, and now I know that They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? will haunt me for the next ten years. This was a tough one to sit through, but I’m absolutely glad that I did. No one really talks about this film anymore, which makes me even happier that I saw it. It’s a real buried treasure! At this point, it’s my number one buried treasure!

Nosferatu the Vampyre

July 4, 2008

Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) ***1/2

Directed by Werner Herzog

If you gave me a choice between spending the night in Count Dracula’s castle or Klaus Kinski’s mansion, I’d probably risk it at Dracula’s. This is the fourth film I’ve seen featuring Klaus Kinski, and the more I watch him on screen, the more I’m awed by his one of a kind talent. At the same time, the dude creeps me out big time, and Herzog brilliantly channels Kinski’s creepiness allowing him to play Count Dracula by way of a remake of 1922’s silent horror classic Nosferatu. Kinski has just the right amount of fun (okay may a little more than just the right amount) straddling the line between camp and creepy. His character with the iconic white makeup, the pointy ears, the thin elongated face and the dull fangs is so completely identified with the legendary Max Schreck from the 1922 Murnau film that Kinski really had no choice but to at least match Schreck’s eerie presence and melodramatic gestures. No one else should ever dare to attempt the Nosferatu character again because that individual must now live up to two of the most iconic movie weirdos in Schreck and Kinski.

Herzog did not set out to make a standard horror film. There’s little gore, and even more surprising, there are almost no “boo” moments where something leaps on screen in order to make the audience jump in their seats. Yet, Nosferatu the Vampyre definitely deserves to be called a horror film. It’s not shocking, but it is disturbing. Herzog, as I imagined he would, uses lingering cinematography and patient scene transitions in order to construct an atmosphere of quiet dread. Sometimes the atmosphere results in suspense, but more often than not, the mood of the film evokes the horror rather then the fear of blood and guts.

From my understanding, when F.W. Murnau made his silent classic, he couldn’t get the rights to the book Dracula, so he decided to rename the character Nosferatu but yet keep the exact same plot. Most probably think of Bela Lugosi’s dark haired, pale skinned, cape wearing, handsome Dracula from Tod Browning’s 1931 film, but Max Schreck’s 1922 Nosferatu was bald, pale and grotesque. Kinski inhabits Schreck’s look which makes sense considering this is a sometimes shot by shot remake of the 1922 classic.

The plot is legendary. Bruno Ganz plays Jonathan Harker who goes on a journey to meet with Count Dracula in Transylvania in order to sell him some local property. He’s sent there by his employer named Renfield (Ronald Topor) who laughs in this movie in a way that you will simply never forget. On the way to Transylvania, Jonathan stays with some missionaries and gypsies, all of whom warn him about the evils of Count Dracula’s castle. Jonathan ignores their superstitions and does finally reach the castle. That first night, Jonathan immediately senses something very strange about the Count especially when he can’t help but suck the blood that is coming out of a wound on Jonathan’s finger.

During the day, Jonathan is able to explore the castle since the Count sleeps (in a coffin by the way) when the sun is out. Eventually, the Count bites Jonathan one night, which sends a psychic wave to Jonathan’s wife Lucy back home. She is played by the beautiful Isabelle Adjani.

Meanwhile, the Count smuggles his coffin with other coffins which once contained dead bodies onto a ship set sail for Jonathan’s hometown. Little do the townspeople know that the numerous rats inside the coffin are all carrying the black plague. Almost immediately, the residents of the town begin to go insane and die. The idea is that once the town is seized by the plague, then Count Dracula will have enough blood to feast on for a long time. Ultimately, though, Dracula wants Lucy’s blood, and Jonathan can’t protect her anymore since he has just about finished turning into a vampire himself.

This is definitely an odd film, and many of the eccentricities work well in adding to its dreary tone. One element that I believe went too far in trying to be unconventional was the film’s pacing. The camera lingers on gorgeous images and sequences often for pockets of time that contain no dialogue at all. This is typical for Herzog, but unfortunately, when the scene would change, often times as much as a year or two would go by. Four years pass by the end of the movie, and with so many meandering scenes, it felt disjointed. I’d compare it to the end of a fast roller coaster ride. The car slows down to a halt but then usually jerks once or twice before the lap bar is released allowing the riders to get off. The time progression in Nosferatu similarly felt jerky.

Still, though, Herzog does deliver some gorgeous imagery. Also, the way the actors almost mimic the performances from 1922 is amazing considering that the older film had no talking and this one did. They even know how to make the melodramatic gestures and glances of the silent film era feel appropriate. Of course, Kinski must be the one to get the most credit for this since he raises the level of melodrama high enough to allow his co-stars to feed off of it.

Nosferatu the Vampyre is a horror film for the art house crowd. There are no real jolts or screams, and you don’t have to worry about losing your lunch watching this movie. The film works because Herzog sets a mood and tells a story through that dark, gloomy atmosphere which does unsettle quite effectively. Luckily, we also have the ultra-weird Klaus Kinski doing his very best to raise the level of sheer entertainment. I’m really beginning to see how Kinski and Herzog brought out the best in each other, despite the fact that their legendary relationship was filled with conflict and mutual loathing.

Smiles of a Summer Night

July 4, 2008

Smiles of a Summer Night (1955) ***1/2

Directed by Ingmar Bergman

During the opening credits of Smiles of a Summer Night, we are told that we are about to see a romantic comedy by Ingmar Bergman. I was excited to see that since the other five Bergman films that I’ve seen (Shame, Fanny and Alexander, Winter Light, Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal) have all dealt mainly with issues of abandonment, insecurity and doubt. I was interested to see what a man like Bergman, with all his personal issues, might call romantic comedy. I was betting that Smiles of a Summer Night was NOT going to be a typical formulaic romantic comedy.

Boy, was I right! The film begins innocent enough as we get to know lawyer Fredrik Egerman (Gunner Bjornstrand), his young wife Anne (Ulla Jacobsson) and his son from a previous marriage, Henrik (Bjorn Bjelvenstam), who is thinking about going into ministry. Fredrik buys tickets for Anne and him to see an old mistress of his named Desiree Armfeldt (Eva Dahlbeck) perform on stage. Deciding to take a nap before going to see the play, Fredrik and Anne begin to get intimate but that ceases once Fredrik begins calling out Desiree’s name.

At the theater, Desiree sees Fredrik in the audience and speaks her character’s sexual dialogue right to him all while Anne gets more and more upset. She wants to leave early, and when they come home, Fredrik learns that Henrik has just lost his virginity to their young maid, Petra (Harriet Andersson). Once Anne is put to bed, Fredrik sneaks out to meet Desiree at the theater, and once the two of them reach her house, Fredrik learns that Desiree has a young son named Fredrik. The older Fredrik frantically asks Desiree why her son has his name.

The plot keeps twisting as Desiree’s lover unexpectedly finds the two of them together. He is a married soldier named Count Carl Magnus Malcolm (Jarl Kulle). The soldier is not a man to be messed with, and he’s not pleased with Fredrik’s presence at her house, so he curtly tells him to leave immediately. During Fredrik’s conversation with Desiree we learn that after two years, Fredrik and Anne have yet to consummate their marriage, mostly because Fredrik feels that Anne is still afraid of him. He wants them to make love because it’s her choice and not out of duty or fear.

The next morning, we see Carl talking with his wife Charlotte (Margit Carlqvist). It’s obvious that she doesn’t mind his cheating ways since he’s willing to recount all of the details of the previous night to her. They decide to play a game with the Egermans. Charlotte and Anne are old friends, so she goes to visit to let Anne know about Fredrik’s meeting the previous night with Desiree. Anne is obviously bothered by this, probably because this news matched with her lack of a marital sex life makes her feel unappealing.

Everything reaches a new level of folly when they all decide to gather together at Desiree’s mother’s house. At dinner, a wager is made between Charlotte and Carl that Charlotte can seduce Fredrik before the night is through. What makes this all the more interesting is that Fredrik and Anne, as well as Desiree, are all in the room when the wager is made. Disgusted by everyone’s sinful ways and by his own sexual weaknesses, Henrik attempts suicide, but circumstances allow him a new love interest from within this group. The two remaining men decide to settle all of this with some Russian roulette.

Bergman aspires to show sex as merely a game that shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Some characters allow their sexual escapades to darken and complicate their lives while others embrace its whimsical fun. Sex is treated like a silly playground game, and the good sports are the ones that don’t cry when they lose. Two characters not sitting at that dinner table show a perfect example of the way sex should be viewed according to Bergman. Again, this film showcases Bergman’s rebellion from his religious upbringing. At least this time, it’s much less grim and easier to swallow.

The problem with Smiles of a Summer Night is twofold, and I wish I could come up with more profound flaws. First of all, the movie simply isn’t very funny. It’s always clever and often pleasant, but unfortunately I can count the number of times I actually laughed on one hand. Also, I hate to say it, but the movie’s pretty slow and even boring at times. The first 70 minutes of this 118 minute movie are all exposition before these characters at the aforementioned dinner table decide to play the game that carries through to the end of the movie. The last half an hour flies by because it is interesting and entertaining, but making it to that point required quite a bit of effort and seat shifting not to simply give up and turn the movie off.

Ultimately, I’m glad I saw Smiles of a Summer Night, and I find the many layers that Bergman offers to all of his films extremely satisfying. This isn’t one of Bergman’s best, and I’d be surprised to find out that many of his highest quality films are attempts at comedy. Bergman must be praised for his courage to put his insecurities and struggles with sex on screen for the world to see in all its glory. Smiles of a Summer Night feels to me like an appropriate title for what I just watched. Laughs of a Summer Night on the other hand would be much less accurate.

Rififi

July 4, 2008

Rififi (1955) *****

Directed by Jules Dassin

I can’t imagine that a better heist film has ever been made, and it will take a real feat of filmmaking to top it in the future. Rififi doesn’t just contain an extremely satisfying heist, but it also works extremely well as an edge of the seat thriller! The Lavender Hill Mob surprised me because it was a heist film with a grand sense of humor. Rififi completely floored me because it is a heist film that isn’t simply trying to entertain. I’d be hard-pressed to call Rififi a good time at the movies. For sure, it’s not a light movie. Instead, Rififi is a pitch black psychological thriller that forces the viewer to root for characters on screen mainly because the thought of what would happen if they do not succeed is enough to curdle your blood.

This disturbing French masterpiece directed by the great Jules Dassin spends its first hour establishing characters and executing the crime itself. We meet Tony le Stephanois, portrayed by Jean Servais, a thug who was just released from jail after serving five years. Tony is obviously quite sick, though we never learn his illness. Confused about what exactly he will do for the rest of his life, he visits his brother Jo, his sister-in-law Louise and their five year old son. The only time we see Tony’s humanity occurs when he’s interacting with his young nephew.

Jo and his friend Mario try to convince Tony to help them pull a heist to steal a few pieces of jewelry out of a window display. At first, Tony isn’t interested—that is until he revisits his old stomping ground, a nightclub called L ’Age d ’Or. It’s here that he hears a nightclub singer sing a song called “Rififi” about a man that’s no good when he comes back into the life of the woman he once loved. This entices Tony to visit his ex-girlfriend Mado, who is now dating the nightclub owner, a thug named Louis Grutter.

Mado is far from happy to see Tony, probably because she’s scared to death of him and for good reason. He steals her jewels and forces her to strip nude before beating her a handful of times with a belt. Any hope Tony has of turning a new leaf is now shattered. In his mind, he will be a monster until the day he dies.

Tony accepts Jo and Mario’s offer, and with the help of Mario’s Italian friend Cesar, played by Jules Dassin himself, they concoct a plan to steal from the safe rather than the window display of the jewelry store. Quite a bit of planning must go into the heist since the store is rigged with alarms and the police constantly canvas that area at night. For about thirty minutes while they execute their crime successfully, there is no dialogue at all, though quite a bit of communication occurs through gestures and even pantomime. When I became aware of the lack of speaking, I tried to guess exactly when they would begin talking again. I predicted that the moment they had the jewels safely away from the store, someone would start talking, and you know what? I was right on the money!

While in The Lavender Hill Mob, the cops pursue the criminals, in Rififi, Grutter and his two brothers (one of whom is a heavy drug addict) decide to pursue Tony and his gang after Cesar stupidly gives an item of stolen jewelry to the nightclub singer mentioned earlier which he has developed quite an attraction to. This one dumb mistake results in murder, and worse off, kidnapping.

The final half hour of the film utilizes one of my pet peeves—a child in danger. Here, though, the heightened emotional response we offer the film because it’s a kid and not an adult is used not to manipulate, but instead to make us care for Tony, which otherwise isn’t easy to do. We’ve seen Tony abuse a woman, refuse to trade money for the boy, and even kill one of his friends. Had he not tried to search for the boy, I probably wouldn’t care if Tony lived or died. The child humanizes the character temporarily, and when we see a dangerous car ride at the end of the movie, we root for the boy to be brought home safely. I won’t give away the ending, but once the boy is removed from Tony’s responsibility, I went right back to not caring whether he lives or dies. It’s absolutely brilliant how this movie used a second character in order to make me care temporarily for the first character.

Dassin’s direction is stellar, giving us camera edits and angles which not only add to the tension, but also bring a crisp, gorgeous aesthetic to the black and white photography. The patience of the heist itself makes for an absolutely fascinating sequence, and the film’s disturbing final act doesn’t shy away from being almost uncomfortably brutal in tone. Even in the “Rififi” song number, Dassin puts forward much effort to maintain the film’s high visual quality.

So far in the Filmspotting Classic Heist Marathon, I have yet to see a standard heist movie. The Lavender Hill Mob is heist-comedy while Rififi is heist-dark thriller. Rififi disturbed me while also presenting top notch acting, writing and directing. The Internet Movie Database (imdb.com) states that a remake bearing the same name is set to open in 2009. Rififi was grim enough that I’m not sure I want to subject myself to seeing an R-rated ultra-violent version of the film I just saw. I hope the remake is as good as the original, but I’m betting that the original will be much better. Why be so pessimistic? Well, maybe because Rififi is better than ninety-five percent of movies that I’ve seen. Dassin’s 1955 version has the odds on its side.

The Lavender Hill Mob

July 3, 2008

The Lavender Hill Mob (1951) ****1/2

Directed by Charles Crichton

Filmspotting’s latest marathon consists of classic heist films, so over the next couple of weeks I will be watching The Lavender Hill Mob, The Killing, Rififi, The Thomas Crown Affair, The Getaway, The Italian Job and Le Cercle Rouge. When I heard them reveal this marathon, I was pretty indifferent. I’ve seen the remake of The Italian Job and enjoyed it immensely. Yet, I can’t say that I’ve seen too many heist films, so The Lavender Hill Mob definitely sets the tone for the remaining films in the marathon.

I figure that heist films will be clever and exciting. I’m imagining quite a bit of tension and action. The Lavender Hill Mob does not disappoint in these ways, but what really makes the film a wonderful surprise is its over the top humor. I laughed more than once and smiled almost continuously. The Lavender Hill Mob is quite a charming film, and as such, I am now pretty excited to continue following the marathon. Maybe the other six films may contain pleasant surprises as well.

The great Alec Guinness is absolutely spectacular as Henry Holland, a stuck in a rut banker with a lifelong dream of living a lush life as a very wealthy man. The film begins in South America where everyone is won over by Henry and his generosity. He’s throwing around his money like rice at a wedding. Speaking to his tablemate, he mentions that he acquired enough wealth to allow him one year to live the life he’s always wanted. How he acquired so much money sets up the plot for the remainder of the film.

We hear Henry’s boss saying that Henry has no chance of a promotion, and at the same time, Henry feels that his life is getting away from him. He just has to be wealthy, and so he concocts a scheme with the help of a souvenir manufacturer named Alfred Pendlebury, played by the great Stanley Holloway of My Fair Lady fame. The idea is that they will steal a truck containing bullion (bricks of gold), melt the gold and pour it into a mold which would result in gold statues of the Eiffel Tower, which they can then sell and live off the profits.

Since they can’t do it alone, they devise a plan to lure accomplices to their factory at night. On a crowded subway, they shout to each other that there’s a lot of money in the safe in their factory that someone could steal. When two men fall for the trap, Henry and Pendlebury explain the situation and convince the two men to join them and become The Lavender Hill Mob.

The heist does have a few glitches, but ultimately it’s a success. The remainder of the movie involves two storylines—one where Henry and Pendlebury do everything they can not to bring suspicion on themselves and get caught, and another where a girl mistakenly buys one of the gold Eiffel Towers which the two men aggressively try to get back from her. Especially the scenes involving the chase after the Eiffel Tower move completely into screwball comedy. There’s one excellent sequence involving the two men climbing down from the Eiffel Tower on a spiral staircase. The background spins one way while the men run in the opposite direction, giving us a dizzying first hand perspective.

Later on, there’s a great car chase sequence which must have been absolutely exhilarating in 1951. Had that scene been shot today, it would have been over-directed with loud music and camera angle edits every two-thirds of a second. Interestingly enough, the film is presently being remade and is scheduled at this time for a 2009 release. I’d bet money that the chase scene is going to look like something out of a Michael Bay movie like Transformers or Armageddon.

The Lavender Hill Mob doesn’t take itself seriously, which is refreshing. Simply watch Henry make shadow puppets on the wall while waiting for the two crooks to rob their safe. On the other hand, the movie delivers laughs and thrills which makes it quite endearing. I’m thrilled that I got the chance to watch it, considering the fact that I probably would not have chosen to view it had it not been on a Filmspotting marathon. The intricacies of pulling off a heist almost beg to be parodied, and as such, I believe that every single filmmaker that wants to make a serious and complicated heist picture ought to be required to watch The Lavender Hill Mob first. Then, maybe, more films in the genre would lighten up in order to deliver laughs alongside thrills.

The Top Ten Movies of June 2008 (and the five worst)

July 3, 2008

The Top Ten Movies of June 2008 (and the five worst)

Not counting Spirited Away, which I saw for the second time recently and thus isn’t qualified for this month’s top ten list, I saw 33 movies in June. That’s 18 less films than I watched in May, but I think I’ll chalk this month’s comparatively low number to vacation, health issues and a class I took for a week. That being said, my goal is to watch at least 365 movies a year, so with 33 in June, I’m on my way to easily reaching that goal.

I’m starting my countdown with a tie for tenth place. I simply couldn’t make up my mind which belongs on the list so I included both.

10. The Station Agent- This is a lovely, humble and most of all, inspiring look into lonely characters that eventually learn to rely on each other to deal with the struggles of life.

The Crying Game- I was still shocked when the secret was revealed—not because I didn’t see it coming, but because I didn’t think it would be revealed in the way it is. Again, this is a top notch thriller, and I do hope that despite its uncomfortable subject matter, people do give this film a chance.

9. Three Days of the Condor- Speaking of top notch thrillers, here is the best Sydney Pollack film I’ve seen so far. Three Days of the Condor is pure entertainment. The film’s darker aspects also work well, and as such, the film is a hard one to shake off.

8. The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters- Not only is this documentary hilarious, it’s also engrossing and really well made. Who would have guessed that the maniacally competitive world of classic gaming would make for such great subject matter for a documentary?

7. The Thin Man- If I ever run into Nick and Nora Charles, I’d love to buy them a drink, and I’m sure they’d love to accept. These two make up what may be my favorite married couple in the history of film.

6. To Sir, with Love- See this movie if for nothing else Sidney Poitier’s amazing performance. Also, see it for its mood and atmosphere, both of which are spot on. Though I don’t consider myself an expert in much, I do consider myself one with regards to teaching. Therefore, in my expert opinion, To Sir, with Love is a wonderful achievement.

5. A Place in the Sun- I loved how this movie surprised me halfway. I thought A Place in the Sun might be a light character study or romance, but instead, it became a dark crime story dealing with issues of personal responsibility as well as basic decency. This one is a must see!

4. The Third Man- Carol Reed’s masterpiece of filmmaking is overly stylized, that’s for sure, but it’s also absolutely engrossing and inventive. Orsen Welles’ appearance on screen made for one of the great character entrances in all film. Oh yeah, can’t forget the zither music!

3. Broken Blossoms- D. W. Griffith’s most sincere film out of the three that I’ve seen. Yes, it’s too bad he hired a white actor to play a Chinese man, but the performance itself showcases the honor and dignity of the Chinese, so in my mind, it’s okay. The love story is beautiful—all the more so because of the addition of Lillian Gish as the abused girl.

2. Terms of Endearment- It’s not just a chick flick people! Debra Winger gives one of the best female performances in film history in my opinion, and the pace of the film really does justice to the beautiful relationship between mother and daughter. I fell in love with these characters, and as such, I also fell in love with this movie.

1. Gandhi- To me, Gandhi was so good that it was hard to think of it as a studio film. Ben Kingsley totally becomes Gandhi. Visually stunning, this epic is a film that I believe Gandhi himself would be proud of and flattered by. This is one of the best films I’ve ever seen showcasing the human condition in its glory and its imperfection. In a small way, the movie Gandhi changed me, and I’m grateful that it did.

And the bottom five:

5. The Man Who Fell to Earth

4. Winter Light

3. Be Kind Rewind

2. Children of Heaven

1. Saint Ralph

Be Kind Rewind

June 30, 2008

Be Kind Rewind (2008) **

Directed by Michel Gondry

Was Michel Gondry, the director of such visionary projects as The Science of Sleep and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, trying to get me in on his little joke? Be Kind Rewind is a total train wreck regarding both its plot and its direction. So, is this irony perhaps? After all, Be Kind Rewind is about a group of people that try to make their own versions of classic films. Their results are comically bad; so is the film as a whole supposed to mirror its own plot? Was Be Kind Rewind purposefully trying to be mediocre at best? Well, if so, good one Michel Gondry… I guess. I don’t know if I’m being a downer here, but I personally enjoy talented directors putting their very best effort into making a good movie. I’m not saying Gondry was lazy. On the contrary, I believe that Gondry worked extremely hard to make a substandard film about making substandard films. How whimsical, and yet, what a huge waste!

The premise of Be Kind Rewind is actually brilliant, which makes its execution that much more disappointing. For reasons that you’ve got to see for yourself, Jack Black’s Jerry becomes magnetized and as such, when he walks into the VHS rental store which is being run by Mos Def’s Mike, he erases all of the tapes in the store. Mike is watching the store while its owner Elroy Fletcher (Danny Glover) goes away in order to research how to make his store better. If changes aren’t made to bring the building housing the store under control, then it will be repossessed and destroyed.

Mike and Jerry, along with a friend they found at a dry cleaners named Alma (Melonie Diaz), decide to remake films such as Ghostbusters, RoboCop and Rush Hour 2 with a handheld camera and makeshift sets and props. These videos, which are eventually called “sweded,” become huge hits with people around the neighborhood. This prompts them to make more and more movies as they rake money in for the store. When Elroy returns, he’s outraged at first, but then becomes won over.

Unfortunately, the video store is sued for copyright infringement, so in order to save the store, Jerry and Mike decide to shoot a movie based on the life of Elroy’s hero, a jazz musician named Fats Waller. All of the locals and patrons of the video store become characters in the film. Be Kind Rewind ends with a public screening of the Fats Waller movie.

I bought this film on pay-per-view because I thought it might be a hilarious satire of mainstream movies. Unfortunately, that’s really only about half the film. The numerous side plots made the entire film feel fragmented and tonally inconsistent. At one moment, we’re supposed to laugh at the filmmaking, and another, we are supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The sentimentality totally didn’t work for me at all. I’ll admit that the movies Mike and Jerry made were interesting to look at, but I only laughed once, and that was during the very first film they made, Ghostbusters. None of the jokes bombed, and the film as a whole has a quiet sweetness that makes it impossible to hate. There’s just too much going on and very little of it succeeds.

I wish this film had been funnier. Also, Gondry seems a bit too enamored with Jack Black’s improvisations. The camera seems to just let him go on comedic rants. Mos Def is completely bland in his role, and his attempts at comedic improv result in almost no laughs at all. The acting as a whole is noticeably bad, but again, I wonder if this was Gondry’s plan all along. I absolutely can’t wait to see the next film Michel Gondry makes. Be Kind Rewind was a box office bomb, so hopefully he’s learned to sideline the whimsy for a while. I sincerely hope he will return to making high quality movies. I’ll chalk Be Kind Rewind up to a forgivable risk gone horribly wrong by a great director.

To Sir, with Love

June 30, 2008

To Sir, with Love (1967) *****

Directed by James Clavell

Everyone’s a critic. Never is this cliché truer when it comes to something that everyone has been through—like high school. I’m sure that many may be turned off by To Sir, with Love because they believe that the film does not accurately portray a high school classroom, and that no teenagers talk the way these kids do. To clarify, I’m sure that people also weigh into their criticisms the fact that the film is set in the 1960s in a lower class British secondary school. So sure, kids in the film will talk different and school may be conducted in a way Americans aren’t used to. Still, though, I know that the point can be made that NO TEENAGERS ANYWHERE have EVER spoken like the teenagers in the movie. Also, most of the actors playing the students are obviously over eighteen. Some of the criticism may be justified, but the majority of them are simply unfair to Clavell’s To Sir, with Love, and I want to stand up and defend one of the most engrossing and entertaining films I’ve ever seen!

The plot: Sidney Poitier, an African who spent a lot of time in America, plays Mr. Thackeray, the new teacher at a very rowdy and rambunctious lower class British high school. The only reason he agreed to take the post was because he hadn’t been able to find an engineering position which is what his training is in. The first day of school, he is warned by the other members of the faculty how awful the students can be. One especially cynical teacher tells him to get out while he can. The headmaster of the school does not believe in heavy discipline. His philosophy is that these kids get yelled at enough at home, so school can be their one chance to step away from their broken home situations.

The first day of class, Mr. Thackeray tries to test some to see their skills in reading and is appalled by the lack of basic learning skills of many of the students. He’s also challenged by some of the more disrespectful students, and while it’s clearly not easy, Thackeray successfully keeps his cool. Unfortunately, he can’t hold in his disgust and anger forever. He does finally lose his temper big time when he finds an object in the front of the classroom (the object is never shown, but I’m sure that we are supposed to believe that it is some kind of tampon or sanitary napkin). Thackeray screams at the girls, calling all of them sluts.

Angry at himself for losing his temper, which he swore he would never do, he comes to the realization that the students will continue acting like children unless he begins to treat them like adults. He’s hoping that his respect will affect their self-respect and their respect for others. His plan works on everyone except for a rebellious student named Denham (Christian Roberts).

The remainder of the film, with the exception of a few field trips and shots of Thackeray at home, uses scenes in the classroom and the school to showcase the struggles many of the students are dealing with in their lives. We see everything from a dying mother, to a meek student bullied by a teacher, to a student that has a crush on Thackeray, etc. No scenes in the movie feel melodramatic, except maybe the dance at the end. By this point though, I was completely invested in these characters, and thus, I was willing to go along with the sentimentality of the final moments.

I do agree that no teenagers really talk the way these students talked, but personally, I’m totally okay with that. How many movies have been made about lawyers or doctors? Do lawyers and doctors really talk and act in the way they do in film? I think nitpicking the film’s authenticity of dialogue is completely against exactly what films like this one are trying to accomplish. Again, I think people tend to be hard on classroom movies because everyone’s sat for many years as a kid in a classroom, and like I said before, everyone’s a critic.

People must also realize that the film really does show the teacher’s point of view for most of the movie. Though everyone’s been a student, not everyone’s been a teacher. I am a teacher, and I’ve got to say that the film’s portrayal of the fears and vulnerabilities of a new teacher is spot on. I’ve said to my high school students before that if they really wanted to, they could always overpower me easily and throw me out a window. Or they could all simply refuse to do what I say. I was being comical, but I really did think about things like that before I stepped foot into a classroom filled with teenagers.

To Sir, with Love gets the mood of high school teaching exactly right! Most of the students I teach are quite wealthy, so the struggles that I have to go through are much less profound than Thackeray’s. That being said, classroom discipline, gaining respect and setting boundaries are all issues that every single teacher faces—not only in their first year, but every single September when a new batch of students arrive.

The film’s lack of actual teaching is noticeable. All the students and the teacher do is talk to each other, but in a film which is simply trying to show the difference that one teacher can make in the lives of his students, I think it’s forgivable. Poitier was absolutely magnificent in this role. 1967 was a big year for Poitier. He made Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, In the Heat of the Night and To Sir, with Love that year. I’ve seen all three, and in my opinion, his performance in To Sir, with Love totally outdoes his wonderful performances in the other two films.

I really enjoyed the song, “To Sir, with Love,” performed by the famous singer Lulu who plays one of the students. The opening line is a little corny, but also quite sweet. “How can you thank someone who has taken you from crayons to perfume?” To Sir, with Love gets the essence of teaching exactly right, and while the film is sentimental, it’s also very smart in many ways. The film doesn’t ignore Thackeray’s race, but it doesn’t dwell on it either. Also, the decision on who was to bring the present to Thackeray at the dance was brilliant. Here is a cast member that never talked throughout the film, but whenever the camera would catch her, I was totally struck by how unhappy and meek she looked in comparison to the other students in the class. Yet, at the end, we see her smiling face close up giving Thackeray the present. Here’s a character that seems like she doesn’t smile much, and to make her look happy and confident by the end of the movie really hit home for me exactly what Thackeray accomplished. Every teacher wants to better the lives of their students. To Sir, with Love gave me the motivation as a teacher to set higher goals in the classroom. Thackeray is a great role model for me, and To Sir, with Love is a great example of filmmaking that permeates with authenticity and inspiration!