Cobra Verde

July 23, 2008

Cobra Verde (1987) ***1/2

Directed by Werner Herzog

There’s not enough plot in Cobra Verde to make a movie with a solid narrative structure. As such, Herzog’s Cobra Verde feels meandering because it relies too heavily on sequences of simple observation. In these sequences, we observe slave labor, nature, superstitious ritual, female combat training and torture as punishment to name a few examples. Similar to Aguirre: The Wrath of God, Fitzcarraldo, Nosferatu and to a lesser extent Woyzeck, Herzog desires perhaps to show these provocative images in order to connect viewers with the film’s plot. Maybe, though, it’s the other way around with the narratives serving the visual poetry. Either way, all five of Herzog’s films mentioned so far all have Klaus Kinski successfully standing out above or at least alongside these uniquely structured examples of the modern German New Wave. Sometimes, when Herzog moves his films along too slowly for my taste, I am able to grasp onto Kinski’s perfect over the top performances in order to stay engaged. Kinski was 61 at the time of Cobra Verde’s release, and while he looks amazingly strong and healthy in the film itself, his performance here is the least interesting out of the five I’ve seen him give in Herzog’s films. Had he given more, I might have been able to really embrace Cobra Verde. Instead, I was only able to respect its successes from the outside looking in.

At the beginning of the film, we see feared outlaw Cobra Verde enter a town, and by his mere presence, everyone runs away in fear. It’s through this panic that we learn that Cobra Verde is known as a ruthless evil man willing and eager to kill anyone and everyone that crosses him. Of course, this is all blown out of proportion which is made clear during a beautiful scene between Cobra Verde, whose real name is Francisco Manoel da Silva, and a physically handicapped barkeeper named Euclides.

From the very beginning, Cobra Verde comes across as a very complicated and lonely man, despite his two-dimensional reputation. Yet, this guy isn’t going to be all warm and fuzzy. He’s hired by a plantation owner to oversee slaves, and it’s here that Kinski impregnates all three of the owner’s young mulatto daughters. This enrages the plantation owner, and rather than kill Cobra Verde (which I’m still unclear as to why he didn’t just kill him), the owner sends him on a suicide mission to Africa to collect slaves from a village run by a sadistic king known to kill any white man who enters his land. Cobra Verde accepts the offer most likely for two reasons. First of all, they offer to pay him a great deal of money if he’s successful, and second, he has nothing better to do.

He journeys to Africa to find the natives clinging ignorantly to superstitions, many of which were brought to them by a Christian missionary. Cobra Verde at first is welcomed and revered because he has weapons to trade, and second, as a white man, they think him a supernatural being. The thing is, their belief is that the devil is a white man as well. Just as Cobra Verde gathers up men to be slaves, he is captured by the king, humiliated and tortured. He’s set to die the next day, but instead, he’s rescued during the night.

Since the men have already been sent to be slaves, Cobra Verde trains the women to be soldiers in order to overthrow the king. It’s these sequences of the women training that are the most memorable as well as the most bizarre images in the film. They succeed in overthrowing the king, and as such, Cobra Verde is made the new king. He’s there for many years before his power is quickly taken away from him. Returning to Europe, he realizes the crime he committed by enslaving the natives.

Herzog is known to cast non-actor locals as extras in his films. In Cobra Verde, there has to be over five hundred extras in the film, many of them required to act in over the top ways in order to emphasize the simplicity and superstition of the uneducated African natives of the time. It’s during these scenes that I started feeling a bit uncomfortable because of the fact that Herzog seemed to move dangerously close towards exploiting these people. For instance, during the female combat scene, all of the women are nude from the waist up. Yes, that’s historically accurate and for all I know, the locals Herzog hired may dress that way regularly. Still, this film has a larger than life element that doesn’t make it reliable history. Therefore, I’m not sure that covering these women up would have been all that distracting.

Cobra Verde wants to show the evils of slavery, and for that I applaud it. I also admire its beautiful imagery as well as its provocative execution. I’ve really enjoyed watching these five Herzog/Kinski films as part of a Filmspotting marathon. The first film I watched was Aguirre: The Wrath of God and its unique style made the film hard to judge. Now that I’m familiar with Herzog’s direction, and now that I know what to expect, I am going to revisit that film to see if I can appreciate it more. Cobra Verde is exactly what I thought it was going to be in terms of style and direction. However, I was disappointed by how little I was able to engage with the film. Still, though, Cobra Verde is better than just about anything playing at your average first run movie theater. Yet, it can’t be argued that this movie is odd—so much so that I recommend watching at least two or three other Herzog films before tackling Cobra Verde. I don’t want its strangeness to turn people off to other Herzog movies.

Past Tribute Films

Because I don't want to fall behind with my reviews, I won't write reviews of tribute films. That being said, especially if a film is great, I might include it on a future marathon to review.

Robert Mulligan (1925-2008)
1. Fear Strikes Out (1957) **
2. Up the Down Staircase (1967) **
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) **** (see review)

Ron Silver (1946-2009)
1. Enemies: A Love Story (1989) ****1/2
2. Reversal of Fortune (1990) *****

Natasha Richardson (1963-2009)
1. Nell (1994) *1/2

Betsy Blair (1923-2009)
1. Marty (1955) *****

Bea Arthur (1922-2009)
1. Lovers and Other Strangers (1970) **1/2
2. Mame (1974) ***
3. History of the World: Part I (1981) **

Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009)
1. Cannonball Run (1981) ***1/2
2. The Burning Bed (1984) ***
3. The Apostle (1997) ****1/2
Logan's Run (1976) **** (see review)

Frank McCourt (1930-2009)
1. Angela's Ashes (1999) **1/2

Budd Schulberg (1914-2009)
1. On the Waterfront (1954) ****1/2

Dom DeLuise (1933-2009)
1. The Muppet Movie (1979) ***1/2
2. History of the World: Part I (1981) **
3. Cannonball Run (1981) ***1/2
Blazing Saddles (1974) ****1/2

Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
1. The Wiz (1978) *1/2

John Hughes (1950-2009)
1. National Lampoon's Vacation (1983) ***1/2
2. Planes, Trains & Automobiles (1987) ***1/2
The Breakfast Club (1985) ****1/2
Weird Science (1985) **1/2
Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) ****1/2
Home Alone (1990) ***1/2
Beethoven (1992) ***
Home Alone 2: Lost In New York (1992) **1/2
Dennis the Menace (1993) *1/2

Jane Randolph (1915-2009)
1. Cat People (1942) ****
2. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) **

The Italian Job (1969)

July 22, 2008

The Italian Job (1969) **1/2

Directed by Peter Collinson

Sure, The Italian Job is a heist film, and yes, it’s a chase film. Both are obvious genres to describe this 1969 movie, even for the most uninformed filmgoer. What might not be obvious to the average Joe is the fact that this movie also pays tribute to iconic playwright Noel Coward. You might argue that I’m stretching the film’s intentions mentioning Coward, but I disagree because I’m sure I am correct. I’m sure because Noel Coward himself appears in The Italian Job as influential, stuffy prisoner Mr. Bridger. Therefore, the dialogue throughout the movie should be accurately described as Noel Coward-esque. I use the “esque” because Coward himself didn’t write the screenplay—Troy Kennedy-Martin did, though I wouldn’t be surprised if he eagerly sought Coward’s input.

So, what does it mean to call dialogue Noel Coward-esque? First of all, the humor must come across extremely British. Second, it’s got to be lowbrow and even irreverent without becoming obscene and tasteless. It’s pretty much intelligent bathroom humor with an air of superiority minus a heavy reliance on excrement jokes. Benny Hill, who also appears in this film as Professor Simon Peach, is a classic example of someone whose comedy was greatly influenced by Coward. In The Italian Job, Professor Peach, because he’s an expert on computers and is thus needed for the heist, is let out of his mental institution. When we first meet him, we learn quickly that he has a thing for “big” women. Michael Caine’s Charlie Croker convinces him to come along by saying that the women in Italy are enormous. Later on, we see Professor Peach all too eagerly pushing on a heavy woman’s rear end with a huge smile on his face to help her up onto an elevated train car. He even licks his lips before offering his assistance. All of these lines in these scenes, similar to all of the lines in the film, are given with a heavy cockney British accent.

That right there is Noel Coward-esque humor. This brand of wit is not everyone’s cup of tea, including mine. Lowbrow humor is fine with me, but it’s not at all my comedic preference. I’d rather watch a film which raises its standards instead of lowering them. Of course, it’s possible for a movie to contain pedestrian humor and still succeed as high quality entertainment. Though not British, I think The Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup is an absolute masterpiece. Sure their humor is trite, but it’s obvious that all involved worked very hard to keep the tone of the film similar throughout. No scenes lagged in Duck Soup at all, which was refreshing. Most of the envelope pushing comedies of today, such as Superbad for example, are not consistently funny. I laughed a lot during Superbad because much of its comedy was absolutely hilarious! Yet, there were scenes that were trying to be funny that didn’t make me laugh at all. Very few comedies are consistent unless they are terrible, but that would make them consistently unfunny.

The Italian Job is not consistently funny at all, and whole sequences of blatantly obvious attempts at humor just laid there dead as I watched. Take for example a moment when three female stenographers walk up to a man on the telephone having a private conversation with Charlie. The women continue to shorthand his side of the call, and all fix their glasses at the same time. I guess that was supposed to be funny, but on a scale of one to ten on my laugh-o-meter, I’d give it a two. Another example takes place during the film’s LONG car chase. One of the thieves reaches his hand out of a speeding getaway car to grab a chicken leg from a woman’s plate and says he’s ravished. Hardy har har!

Yet, a few jokes are laugh out loud successes. I loved the fact that the scene where all of the characters in the heist first meet each other to hear the final plan takes place in what looks like a corporate boardroom. As I mentioned earlier, when Benny Hill talks about big women, I laughed very loudly. Also, there’s a wonderful sequence involving the getaway car drivers practicing some of the maneuvers planned for the heist. They keep making mistakes, each time ruining the expensive cars they are driving over and over again. Finally, the last moment of the film, which comes very abruptly, has Michael Caine delivering a line in an ironically humorous way. Had he said it seriously or even sadly, then that final moment could have been heartbreaking, similar to the final moment of Kubrick’s The Killing. On The Italian Job’s Internet Movie Database webpage, there’s a thread on the film’s discussion board debating whether its ending is the worst in film history. Personally, I was surprised by it, and believe it to be the perfect way to have concluded this movie.

The worst element of The Italian Job is the forty-five minute plus execution of the heist itself. It felt like it was never going to end. I will admit that the car chase sequence is well staged and executed, but I will not deny the reality that I was bored stiff. There are too many characters involved, most of whom are indistinguishable from each other. Michael Caine’s performance as Charlie lacked charisma, so I really didn’t come to root for his success. Therefore, I had no emotional investment in the outcome of the heist. Forty-five minutes of watching cars drive really fast got old very quickly, making time feel like it was going by very slowly. Also, throughout the chase, there’s little dialogue. Instead, we sporadically hear one-line Noel Coward-esque jokes throughout. Some worked, and many didn’t; all of these jokes during the chase totally killed the momentum of the action itself, even the jokes that were funny.

I saw this film’s 2003 remake with Mark Wahlberg and Charlize Theron in the movie theater, and it’s amazing how little I remember about that movie. If I’m not mistaken, I might have been a bit sick when I saw it. I think I remember something about a traffic jam in the remake. Also, I remember Theron cracking the combination to a safe (there’s no safe in the original version). I enjoyed the remake quite a bit when I first saw it, so I’d be totally up for seeing it again and comparing the two. Nowhere in my memory, though, do I recall a similar sense of humor between the two films, and the plot similarities seem equally dissimilar in my mind. I think the 2003 version was more serious, which was a good way to approach the material in my opinion. I’m not sure that Coward’s humor could ever successfully work well in an elaborate heist film. Still though, Noel Coward, who died in 1973, deserves to be revered and celebrated, even if his humor isn’t universally adaptable to all kinds of movies.

Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper

I am devastated to hear that the review show which first began 33 years ago by Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert and has since lived on with Richard Roeper will no longer continue with Ebert or Roeper's involvement. I'm confused by what I've read so far. Both Roeper and Ebert separately have mentioned that they are in the process of developing a future project which according to Roeper "honors the standards established by Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert more than 30 years ago."

So what does this mean? I'm not sure exactly, but it seems that Richard Roeper will begin a new show. I doubt Roger Ebert will ever return to television because of his health issues, but Roeper's proven over the years to be a force of nature in front of the camera reviewing films every week. It's been amazing to watch Roeper for the past two years paired up with many different co-hosts filling in for Roger Ebert. No matter who he was matched up with, he always maintained the same high level of quality and humor, even when the guest critics were embarrassingly bad (Fred Willard, John Mellencamp and Mario van Peebles are the first to come to mind).

New York Times film critic A.O. Scott became a semi-regular until February of 2008 when Chicago Tribune film critic Michael Phillips filled the seat full-time. These two highly respected critics had the same biting humor as Roeper, which made the back and forth banter a lot of fun to watch. Especially with Phillips, Roeper has really been able to let his personality shine, continuing to make At the Movies the show I looked forward to each week more than any other by far.

I started watching Siskel and Ebert weekly when I was 12! Since then, with rare exception, I've never missed an episode. When I learned of Gene Siskel's death in 2000, I was really affected. Ironically enough, I didn't like Richard Roeper at first. He seemed like he always needed to get the last word in when discussing films with Ebert. Then, he started to grow on me quite a bit, and as I've revisited many past film reviews on atthemoviestv.com I've come to believe that Roeper is better than Siskel ever was on television. Further, it came across that Ebert and Roeper actually liked each other, which didn't always seem true watching Siskel and Ebert.

So, here's hoping that Roeper will find a new show, and here's also hoping that Ebert will be involved behind the scenes as well. Maybe now, Ebert will allow his trademark "thumbs up" to be used on Roeper's new show. Of course, in a period of transition like this one, there's always the risk that things won't work out. That's my biggest fear. I'd love to be able to watch Richard Roeper every week for the next twenty or thirty years. If Michael Phillips joins Roeper on his new show, then great! If not, I'll be fine as long as I have my fill of weekly Richard Roeper reviews!

I'll keep updating my blog with any new information. Roeper's last episode of At the Movies will take place on the weekend of Aug. 16th.

Billy Elliot

July 19, 2008

Billy Elliot (2000) ****1/2

Directed by Stephen Daldry

This has to be around the seventh time I’ve seen Billy Elliot, but it’s the first time that I’ve returned to it in at least four years. I used to have a pretty good number of VHS tapes, most of which I bought from Blockbuster when the price went down to 6.99 or better yet 4.99. When I bought a newer DVD player a few years ago, I decided to throw out my VCR (primarily because I didn’t have enough electrical sockets). Alongside my VCR, I also chucked all of my VHS tapes as well. Since then, I haven’t watched some films that I used to revisit regularly. For example, I used to watch The Truman Show at least three times a year, and now, I haven’t seen it for four years either. Rarely do I include films that I love that I haven’t seen for a while on my Netflix queue. I’m too busy watching films I’ve never seen before. What a delight it was to watch Billy Elliot again! It used to be on my 100 Greatest Films list when I first compiled it. Since then, I’ve watched fifty films that earned a place on the list bumping Billy Elliot and many others off. Still though, I’ve always thought it a wonderful film, and watching it again, I still very much love this movie.

Newcomer at the time Jamie Bell plays eleven year old Billy Elliot, an intense boy from a poor area of Northern England who still mourns the death of his mother while helping to take care of his Alzheimer’s stricken grandmother (Jean Haywood). Billy’s father Jackie (Gary Lewis) and his older brother Tony (Jamie Draven) are both preoccupied by the strike of the miner’s union. The strike goes on for a long time, stretching finances in the Elliot household very thin and causing Jackie and Tony to be emotionally on edge because of their frustration.

Billy is given money weekly to take boxing lessons at the local boys club. It’s obvious to both the audience and Billy himself early on that he’s no good at it. His life begins to change when he starts to join a ballet class taking place in a different area of the same club. Billy struggles quite a bit at first, but he quickly comes to feel like it might be for him. The ballet instructor named Mrs. Wilkinson, played by Julie Walters who received a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination for this role, sees unlimited potential and passion in Billy. Unfortunately, things hit a standstill when Jackie finds out where Billy has been instead of boxing. He refuses to allow Billy to dance anymore.

Mrs. Wilkinson, who is also the mother of a girl named Debbie that fancies Billy, agrees to teach Billy privately without his father knowing. Eventually, she sells Billy on the idea of auditioning for the Royal School of Ballet in London. On the day of the audition, Billy doesn’t show up because his brother Tony has landed himself in jail because of the strike. Mrs. Wilkinson angrily confronts Billy in front of his family, and it’s here that things go very badly. Not only is he forbidden to dance by his family, but he’s also alienated his teacher as well.

The film takes an obvious turn one night in the boxing ring of the boys club. This changes everything for Billy, giving him the opportunity and the support he needs to make it to an audition in London. I’ll simply say that Billy’s audition had its fair share of kinks, the worst of which involved Billy punching another boy. Has he negated his chances of admission?

Stephen Daldry, whose only two directorial feature length films (Billy Elliot and The Hours) garnered him Best Director Oscar nominations, edits the film beautifully, especially during Billy’s aggressively emotional dance sequences. I believe that had Billy not found ballet, he may have turned to a life of crime in the future. There’s a lot bubbling inside this kid, probably from his mother’s death and his family’s coldness towards him. It’s through improvisational dancing that Billy lets his emotions out, and if anyone needs to vent emotions, it’s this kid! These sequences don’t feel choreographed at all, and I wonder if Jamie Bell did simply spontaneously dance long enough for a sufficient amount of moments to be edited together into a complete scene.

Jamie Bell, now 22, has since become a successful mainstream Hollywood actor, appearing in movies such as Undertow, The Chumscrubber, King Kong and Jumper. I’m surprised that he made the transition into future acting roles so successfully considering this kid’s unique dancing ability. If I’m not mistaken, an open casting call was utilized in order to sift through many boys to find the right one, and Jamie Bell was it. Interestingly enough, I’m pretty sure Bell hasn’t danced in any movie since Billy Elliot. He appeared in Nicholas Nickleby, a film I really enjoyed, shortly after this film. I bet he was cast in that film because the role required him to walk for long periods of time in hunchback which had to involve some physical grace. At that time, I bet people didn’t know what to do with him. Perhaps, casting directors remembered the fact that Bell didn’t only dance well in Billy Elliot, but he also acted impeccably. Many were upset when he didn’t receive a Best Actor Oscar nomination, and after watching his performance again, I agree with those who were upset.

For much of the film, I was a bit bothered by the subplot involving the miner’s strike, feeling that it was unnecessary. Later on, the strike and Billy’s dancing intersect directly, forcing Billy’s father to consider giving up his principles for his son. That made for a breathtakingly beautiful scene which made all of the previous scenes of the strike worthwhile. Some of the other subplots, on the other hand, came off odd to me. One involves a friend and classmate of Billy’s who is obviously gay and has a crush on Billy. At one point, he answers Billy’s knock at the door wearing a dress, only later to put lipstick on himself and Billy. Another subplot involves Debbie’s sexual advances towards Billy. Both subplots creeped me out a bit since they involved young kids dealing with issues that would seem more appropriate a few years down the line. However, these two subplots emphasized Billy’s ambiguous sexual orientation quickly, and I think the film did need to address this in order to feel authentic. By the end of the film, we don’t know whether Billy is straight or gay, and thankfully, we also see that either way, it doesn’t really matter.

The relationship between Billy and Mrs. Wilkinson is brilliantly realized. The obvious path screenplay writer Lee Hall could have traveled would characterize her as Billy’s savior and surrogate mother. Instead, there’s serious enough turmoil that we don’t see the two of them hug when they have to say goodbye to each other, which I think worked refreshingly well.

Billy Elliot succeeds as a film about toleration and love. It also showcases the greatness of ballet as an art form. As such, I wish the film had a slightly diminished homosexual agenda. If a boy wants to be a ballet dancer, then homophobic parents have no reason to stand in his way—that is unless they believe that homosexuality and ballet are necessarily linked. The film doesn’t argue clear enough that they are not. Sure, many male ballet dancers are gay, maybe even a majority. Still, not all of them are and becoming a ballet dancer will not make a person a homosexual. I think Billy Elliot missed an opportunity to make this point very clear, which may have given some young men new found support from their parents won over by this film.

Still, though, Billy Elliot is an exhilarating and poignant look into this boy’s difficult world, made more so by his passion for dancing. Next time I’m at Wal-Mart, I’m going to look at the six dollar section of DVD’s to see if Billy Elliot’s for sale at that price. Here’s hoping that a new technology won’t force me to throw away my DVD of this film as well!