Lucy Todd Marathon Final Thoughts

August 2, 2008

Lucy Todd Marathon Final Thoughts

I’m forever indebted to Lucy Todd not only for suggesting the ten films that she did, but also for reading and commenting on my blog regularly. I don’t think many people read my blog at this point, but I’m hoping that as it grows, more people might discover it in the future. The blog is linked from a few notable websites, and I have received comments from individuals that have not disclosed their identities, so maybe more people are reading than I think. Either way, Lucy’s involvement kept me going strong. As such, I’m sad that this marathon is over, though I hope Lucy keeps recommending films for me to watch. Who knows? Maybe I can do a Lucy Todd Marathon Number Two someday!

These ten films do contain some common characteristics, the strongest being their desire to make the viewer feel better after watching. More often than not, I did feel great once the movie ended because the film worked for me. Sometimes, though, I simply felt relieved that the movie was over—Saint Ralph and Children of Heaven. Even with those two clunkers (my humble opinion of course), I was glad that I saw every film that I did on this marathon. Both Saint Ralph and Children of Heaven had their hearts in the right place, which didn’t make me feel like my time was wasted.

On the other hand, I watched some wonderful films that I might not have even considered had it not been for Lucy’s recommendation—A Patch of Blue, What’s Up Doc, Butterflies Are Free, Happy Accidents. Other films that I enjoyed, such as To Sir with Love and The Station Agent, I probably would have eventually seen on my own at a future date. I’m extremely happy that this marathon brought these films to me sooner rather than later. Finally, Lucy gave me an excuse to revisit a beloved treasure that I haven’t seen in a long time—Billy Elliot.

Here are the ten films in order from best to worst.

1. To Sir, with Love
2. The Station Agent
3. Billy Elliot
4. What’s Up, Doc?
5. A Patch of Blue
6. Butterflies Are Free
7. Happy Accidents
8. The Color of Paradise
9. Children of Heaven
10. Saint Ralph

Here are the Lucy Todd Marathon Awards (I will pick a winner and two runners up in each category)

Best Actor- Sidney Poitier- To Sir, with Love

-Runners up- Jamie Bell- Billy Elliot and Peter Dinklage- The Station Agent

Best Actress- Goldie Hawn- Butterflies Are Free

-Runners up- Marissa Tomei- Happy Accidents and Barbra Streisand- What’s Up, Doc?

Best Supporting Actor- Bobby Cannavale- The Station Agent

-Runners up- Gary Lewis- Billy Elliot and Wallace Ford- A Patch of Blue

Best Supporting Actress- Eileen Heckart- Butterflies Are Free

-Runners up- Shelley Winters- A Patch of Blue and Julie Walters- Billy Elliot

Best Scene- Punching Braille- The Color of Paradise

-Runners Up- The Courtroom Scene- What’s Up, Doc? and The Final Dance- To Sir, with Love

Best Character- Billy Elliot- Billy Elliot

-Runners Up- Mohammad- The Color of Paradise and Finbar McBride- The Station Agent

Best Director- Peter Bogdanovich- What’s Up, Doc?

-Runners Up- Stephen Daldry- Billy Elliot and Majid Majidi- The Color of Paradise

Best Picture- To Sir, with Love

-Runners Up- The Station Agent and Billy Elliot

I’d love to have Lucy comment on this post by ranking the movies from the marathon in order from best to worst based on her preferences. Thanks again Lucy! Great recommendations!

Rope

August 2, 2008

Rope (1948) ****

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Rope is a tremendously fun movie to watch, but I can only imagine that it must have been somewhat unpleasant to make. Hitchcock decided to employ a cinematographic gimmick—the whole film was intended to be shot in one unbroken take. Therefore, there would be no close-ups, no reaction shots and no edits at all. Well, back in 1948, this idea wasn’t possible since the film used back then to shoot movies was only able to record ten minutes of footage. Determined and ingenious as Hitchcock was, he instead settled on the illusion of one unbroken take by zooming in on an object, usually the back of someone’s suit jacket, while attempting to seamlessly unify the whole film. When all was said and done, Hitchcock used eight rolls of film in order to make Rope look like it’s constructed with one eighty minute unbroken shot. I’d be petrified as an actor making this movie because any mistake or error could ruin a huge chunk of film.

A few things must be considered when judging the gimmick’s effectiveness. First of all, were the edits really seamless? No, not at all. It was clear that Hitchcock used his close ups for a purpose. These sequences weren’t subtle at all; even a dummy could figure out that Hitchcock was trying to do something even if he or she wasn’t able to pinpoint exactly what. Ironically, I actually believe that the distracting edits made the gimmick that much more powerful. How many people outside of critics and movie aficionados noticed the long unbroken take in the restaurant kitchen scene of Goodfellas or on the beach in Atonement? Probably some, but I bet more people than not totally missed it or at least didn’t recognize the impressive skill and meticulous planning required for scenes like those. In Rope, just about everyone becomes aware of Hitchcock’s ambition at work, and I think it makes the film that much more laudable to a broader audience.

Second, did the gimmick come off pretentious? Yeah, I do find myself concluding that it did come off a bit pompous, but the film’s humble setting and budget balance everything out overall. When Michael Bay, in one of his crappy movies, creates sequences of special effects that must have required tons of money as well as countless hours of effort, I often resent them because resources obviously weren’t used to improve the script. Here, Hitchcock and the charming cast of Rope work diligently to make the film extremely effective. Therefore, the audacity of the single camera sequence doesn’t ultimately hurt the film at all.

Finally, did the gimmick serve the narrative well? I believe that it absolutely did. Not only does the unbroken camera work add to the film’s suspense repeatedly, but it also allows us to understand certain characters’ thoughts because we are able to watch their reactions without looking away. It’s amazing how much dialogue in the film occurs off screen. As we look at James Stewart’s face while he’s contemplating what’s going on, we also hear the party continue. It’s amazing how small parties in other films always require their characters to say important things at all times. Why? Because if characters engage in mindless chit chat, as is often the case in real life parties, the audience would get bored quickly. Rope allows the party to drift into meaningless conversation because the viewers need to spend time watching a character react over a stretch of time. As such, Rope contains one of the most effective party scenes in movie history!

The plot comes from a 1920’s play by Patrick Hamilton loosely based on the true story of two young men who kill a man simply to see what it feels like and also to prove that they can commit the perfect crime. Turner Classic Movies rated Rope as a TV-14 film, which indicats that it might not be appropriate for children under 14. Interestingly enough, the only sequence that merits the rating occurs right at the very beginning, and within ten seconds, it’s over. Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Philip Morgan (Farley Granger) strangle their friend David Kently with a rope and hide his body in a chest in their living room. Brandon especially wants to prove that he’s intellectually superior by throwing a party where the food will be served on top of the chest that holds David’s corpse. Philip, deeply affected by the crime he just committed, reluctantly agrees to go along, though it’s obvious that Brandon’s the impetus behind both the crime and the party.

Brandon’s arrogance remains strong throughout the film as guests arrive with no one the wiser to the fact that a man who was supposed to be a guest at the party lies dead in the same room they are sitting in. One of the guests is a man named Rupert Cadell, a former prep school housemaster who used to be in charge of Brandon, Philip and David a few years earlier. Rupert is a philosopher with radical ideas about how murder can not only be justified, but actually welcomed when it involves a superior man of intellect doing away with an inferior individual. It’s this philosophy that motivated the two young men, especially Brandon, to murder David.

Rupert catches on very quickly that something is up when David’s no show becomes conspicuous, and when the boys’ reactions and peculiar behavior catch his attention. The final moments of the film place Rupert alone with the two boys as he gets closer and closer to uncovering the truth. The suspense hits a peak during this scene because we know that Brandon has a gun in his pocket. The final speech in the film brilliantly explores the nature of man and the difference between the harmlessness of radical theories compared to the ruthlessness of carrying them out. It’s obvious that from here on in, Rupert is going to rethink his philosophy, as he should have long ago.

The performances are quite uptight all around, except for Stewart who is breathtakingly brilliant as usual. There’s a 1920’s feel to the dialogue that remained consistent throughout, adding an element of nostalgic fun. A few aspects of Rope didn’t win me over, especially a supporting plot involving David’s girlfriend who is also Brandon’s and another guest’s ex. Her scenes focused on uncovering Brandon’s scheme to embarrass and torment her emotionally. This whole plot felt like it was added to fill time and to increase the number of guests at the party.

I also had a problem with Rupert’s look of disgusted surprise when he finally opens the chest. He claims that he doesn’t want it to be true, but it seemed to me like he was absolutely sure of their crime from pretty early on in the film. Therefore, his philosophical rant at the end, though fascinating, feels a bit inauthentic.

Still though, the cat and mouse interchange primarily between Brandon and Rupert is really wonderful to watch, and I was pleasantly surprised by genuine moments of suspense throughout. I’m glad that the single shot gimmick didn’t catch on all that much since it easily could have been a disaster in the hands of the wrong director. Hitchcock wanted to challenge himself as a filmmaker by making Rope, and I am all the more entertained because of it!

Shampoo

August 2, 2008

Shampoo (1975) ***

Directed by Hal Ashby

A hungry kid loose in a candy store easily gets sick. Isn’t that a great line? Well, it’s not mine. I stole it from the synopsis of Shampoo on imdb.com. The synopsis is credited to someone with the screen name “alfiehitchie.” The reason I was on the Internet Movie Database’s synopsis page for Hal Ashby’s 1975 comedy about the sexual revolution is that I had a hard time distinguishing between two female characters. Let me tell you, I was shocked when I found out that one of them is played by Julie Christie whom I recently watched alongside Warren Beatty in McCabe & Mrs. Miller. The reason I couldn’t tell Julie Christie’s character from Lee Grant’s character is because Warren Beatty’s character gives them both similar haircuts. Granted, I could tell that they were two different women, but the film’s structure, which pretty much consists of Beatty running between three women, made it hard to distinguish which actress was in which scene.

So, to extrapolate on that first line, Warren Beatty plays George Roundy, a gifted hairdresser that can’t help but sleep with the gorgeous women that patronize the salon he works at. You see, because he’s their hairdresser, they spill their guts to him, and because he listens, he’s able to gain their trust and affection. He’s willing and eager to sleep with as many women as possible, and because he’s gained their trust and affection, they’re willing to sleep with him as well. After all, we learn that’s the reason he attended beauty school in the first place.

Yet, he’s a conflicted man because he has ambitions to own his own salon in order to be his own boss. Unfortunately, he’s sleeping with the wife (Lee Grant), mistress (Julie Christie) and daughter (Carrie Fisher) of the one man (Jack Warden) that can finance his dreams. Add into this mess the fact that Goldie Hawn plays his steady girlfriend who truly loves George in her own bubbly, airheaded way.

By the way, the entire film is set on election night in 1968. Warren Beatty, who co-wrote the film with Robert Towne, is in real life a proud outspoken liberal. Minus Carrie Fisher as the daughter, who’s only in the film for one interesting scene, all of the women involved with George attend a Republican party for a congressional candidate who eventually chants wildly like a buffoon before reciting poetry about his grandmother’s garden door. Beatty obviously had a lot of fun going way over the top insulting conservatives.

I suppose Beatty felt like he should be fair in his ribbing, so all of the characters then end up at a Democratic party. Here we hear clichéd Beatles drug songs; there’s skinny dipping in the Jacuzzi; a black man with a huge afro is eager to offer guests weed. Well, nice try Warren Beatty, but I think the conservatives were hit harder because in my opinion, the chanting was a lot more biting and quite a bit funnier. Anyway, George ends up having sex with Julie Christie’s character and then he’s caught by Goldie Hawn’s character, at least I think so. I just watched the movie like fifteen minutes ago and to be honest with you, I can’t remember what happens to Lee Grant’s character. Anyway, George must face his wandering ways, and a random car crash of another hairdresser’s son forces George to propose to Julie Christie’s character. At least, I think that’s what happens.

The HUGE problem with Shampoo lies in the reality that the women in this movie are complete and total bores. Goldie Hawn’s character was distinctive because she looks a lot different from the other two and because her character is significantly younger and more bubble-headed. Yet, other than looking like Goldie Hawn, her character comes off completely bland, and Hawn’s performance definitely matches her character’s blandness. As for the other two, I couldn’t care less which one George chose, and to be honest, I couldn’t remember which one he chose at the end. Maybe I was lazy while watching the film, but a movie really ought to allow the viewer to be able to tell two women apart without any effort at all. Beatty and Towne simply did not adequately write their female characters with any finesse. All of the women in this film come off sadly pathetic.

Then there’s Warren. He’s bumbling between women almost frantically without taking a breath. Unfortunately, the entire film moves too quickly for me to be able to grasp on and embrace its characters and its storyline. Still, though, I liked Shampoo as a whole. The party scenes are very funny, the dialogue has quite of bit of intelligence, and though I wasn’t invested in any characters, including George, it was interesting to listen to what the movie was saying about men, women and sex. Shampoo has brilliant commentary on differences between the genders which makes it enjoyable and worth watching. Unfortunately, Beatty and Towne couldn’t adequately bring the characters within Shampoo to life.

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

August 1, 2008

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (2007) *****

Directed by Cristian Mungju

I am writing my review of the Romanian film 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days immediately after watching it. It’s almost as if I need to get this review on paper so that I can then purge the film from my mind. For months, I’ve been anticipating the night I finally gather up the nerve to watch this movie, and now that it’s come, I’ve got to say that it’s different than I expected in one sense, but in another, it’s everything I heard it was going to be. I remember reading its review in the Washington Post, and the reviewer cautioned strongly that this film is extreme in its portrayal of a young woman whose friend helps her attain an illegal abortion in Communist controlled Romania in 1987. A.O. Scott from The New York Times and Michael Phillips from The Chicago Tribune both declared this Cannes Film Festival Golden Palm Winner one of the best films of 2007. In their reviews though, they repeated over and over how difficult the movie is to watch. My pulse was racing and my nerves were frayed as the film began. Once the ending credits rolled, I felt a huge sense of relief lying on top of the disturbed emotions sitting inside me caused by this movie.

I feel as if I’m doing the film a disservice by typing my review without having focused it first since the film itself is unbelievably straightforward and well crafted. What surprised me about the movie most was the fact that there’s almost no gore at all. I expected the girl to be laying in bed with blood gushing out of her after reading what I had about the movie’s disturbing nature. That’s not at all the case. With the exception of the fetus which you do see towards the very end of the film, there’s nothing nauseating, unless of course the emotional terror these characters have to endure is enough to make you sick—and it just might be. Mungiu’s camerawork, which is absolutely brilliant, doesn’t aim to shock in quick, horrifying cuts. Instead, each scene is constructed using only one single camera employing minimal edits. Therefore, we don’t see clinical close ups and graphically exposed anatomical focus. We simply view what’s going on from a distance, and what’s going on is something we probably don’t want to see from any distance.

Anamaria Marinca gives the performance of a lifetime as Otilia, a loyal, strong-willed Romanian college student whose friend and roommate Gabita (Laura Vasilu) relies on her to help her attain an abortion, which is against the law in Communist Romania. Because of Gabita’s naivety and immaturity, Otilia must do more than just be with her during the abortion itself. She has to help get the necessary money, book the hotel, meet the abortionist, dispose of the fetus, and even offer herself sexually as payment because Gabita didn’t understand how much the abortion would cost.

The abortionist, called Mr. Bebe, played effectively sinister by Vlad Ivanov, brilliantly manipulates these young women. He seems kind at first, but then terrorizes the two of them because he knows that they desperately require his service. Sure, the abortion itself is unimaginably hard to have to go through, but being forced to have it done by this guy makes it pretty much unthinkably unjust.

At around the hour and fifteen minute mark, Otilia leaves Gabita alone (the procedure involves a tube which causes contractions, but these contractions could be delayed as much as two days) in order to attend a birthday dinner being held for her boyfriend’s mother whom she’s never met before. When she arrives, she’s introduced to his family and their friends, and all through dinner, most of which everyone spends discussing banalities before one of them criticizes Otilia for wanting to smoke in front of them, the camera simply steadies on her face. This scene lasts quite a few minutes, and it’s amazing to view Otilia in contrast to everyone else in the room, all of whom have a sense of superiority which only makes a horrible situation worse for her. This is followed by a conversation with her boyfriend in his room. Here Otilia tells him what is going on, and based on his reaction, she scolds him for not being able to understand her predicament. Despite his attempts to apologize for whatever she thinks he’s done, she can’t forgive him precisely because he will always be so far removed from any situation involving an abortion. In her mind, men have no place judging or feeling entitled to having a stake regarding this issue.

One of the most effective sequences involves Otilia searching for a place to dispose of the fetus. A handheld camera follows her on a long walk into an unknown part of town which requires her to explore dark allies and enter seedy buildings. We realize at this point that Otilia has done and experienced more than Gabita ever should have forced on her. The final scene occurs in the hotel restaurant where Gabita, who seems almost like she’s already put the whole thing behind her, wants to order off a menu. Otilia demands that the two of them never discuss this again. In their own ways, they have both been through hell, and only Otilia really comprehends the depravity of the situation.

I love movies, and even if they’re extremely dark, I love being entertained and challenged by great films. Yet, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is different. It’s absolutely impossible to be entertained by this movie. The subject matter and Mungju’s brutal realism do not allow for even the least bit of enjoyment on the part of the viewer. Still, though, the film’s spectacularly challenging, and as a work of art, it’s absolutely perfect in my opinion. This movie has made me question some of the fundamental reasons why I watch movies. Can I be challenged by a film without being entertained by it? I want to be clear, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is profoundly interesting and captivating. I simply didn’t have any fun watching it. My ultimate opinion regarding this movie is that, because Mungju doesn’t try to glorify Otilia or Gabita’s suffering in any way, and because it simply desires to present this realistic situation in an actual historical setting, then the movie serves a definite purpose. Therfore, I’m glad it was made, and I’m glad I saw it. Similar to the reviews I read before seeing this film, I strongly caution anyone who thinks he or she might want to check out 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days. It’s worth it for those who can handle it, and you very well might not be able to handle it. Please be careful.

The Top Ten Movies of July 2008 (and the four worst)

August 1, 2008

The Top Ten Movies of July 2008 (and the four worst)

I saw only nineteen films in July for a number of reasons. Mostly, I’m calming down a little bit. When I first got this blog on the ground, I was so excited to build it up, and now that it’s built up quite a bit, I’m not as obsessed with watching film after film and writing review after review. Still though, my goal from April 8, 2008 to April 8, 2009 is to have watched 365 movies. Because of the insane amount of films I watched in April and May, I’m still on track. My plan for August is to crank out at least one review a day, and if I miss a day, then I will force myself to write two reviews the next day. Anyway, here are the ten best films I saw in July.

10. A Patch of Blue- A dark film with a happy ending, this black and white gem from 1965 (a year when films were usually made in color) showcases philanthropy amongst the brutality of the life of a young blind woman. Shelley Winters and Sidney Poitier give amazing performances!

9. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly- The thing that’s stuck with me most about this film from last year is the reality that locked in syndrome could happen to any of us at any time. Life is a big game of chance and this film showcases a man who didn’t let his cruel fate destroy him.

8. What’s Up, Doc?- Many of the films on this top ten list are heavy and depressing. Life can be very difficult, and it’s for that very reason that films like What’s Up, Doc? are made. The last hour of this send up to classic Hollywood screwball comedies is one of the most joyous stretches of film you could ever see.

7. The Lavender Hill Mob- And here’s another film made to help you forget about your worries and your strife, to quote The Jungle Book. This off beat early heist film is absolutely hilarious, exemplifying a genre that tends to take itself very seriously (see my number one pic) and turning it upside down into a laugh out loud romp through England and Paris.

6. McCabe & Mrs. Miller- Speaking of films that are heavy and depressing, here’s one that’s ruthless in its grim view of the sadness of the world. The town in McCabe & Mrs. Miller is one that I would not want to live in. In fact, I think I’ve seen a version of my own hell. Altman’s 1971 downer is still absolutely brilliant and haunting.

5. Billy Elliot- This film’s unconventional portrait of dancing makes it very special, and Jamie Bell’s performance as the title character makes Billy one of the great movie characters of all time in my opinion. Though uneven, the elements that work are absolutely exhilarating. This is the only film in the top ten that I’ve seen many times before, and there’s a reason I have. It’s an unbelievably enjoyable movie.

4. Harold and Maude- Definitely not everyone’s cup of tea, but I totally dug the film’s achingly dark humor, Bud Cort’s unconventional protagonist and Ruth Gordon’s infectiously energetic and optimistic Maude. If fake suicide attempts have the potential to make you laugh, then consider checking out this movie. If not, then skip it. I loved it!

3. The Dark Knight- The most purely entertaining film I’ve seen in quite a while, The Dark Knight was a cinematic experience unlike many I’ve had before. I’m so glad I saw this in the movie theater. That’s the way to see it. If you have any interest in the film, don’t wait for it to come out on DVD! Since it’s made a bazillion dollars so far, you have quite a lot of time to see it in the theaters. It’s harrowing, but absolutely worth sitting through. Trust me!

2. They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?- Speaking of harrowing, Pollack’s early film isn’t an easy one to sit through. We pretty much see people humiliated and broken down for almost two hours. And the ending! Yet, I emotionally connected to this film in a way that made me feel devastated and exhilarated at the same time when it was over. With this film, I feel like I stumbled onto an amazing secret. I really treasure this movie!

1. Rififi- Here is the best movie I saw this month, and it’s a dark, sinister French thriller. Not only does it contain the best heist I believe you will ever see in a movie, it also presents us with despicable characters and then forces us to root for them in spite of their evil natures because good innocent characters are placed in serious danger. The characters involved in the heist are among the most villainous and awful I’ve ever witnessed. Because of all this, Rififi is an absolute masterpiece! This is one of the best films I’ve ever seen, and I sure as hell can guarantee that I won’t soon forget it.

There were only four films that I either didn’t like or came close to not liking. Interestingly enough, the number one worst film of the month has no chance of being in the top ten worst films I’ve seen all year. It’s not that terrible of a film. Even so, here are the four worst films I saw in July.

4. The Killing

3. Tootsie

2. The Italian Job

1. Scoop

A Patch of Blue

July 31, 2008

A Patch of Blue (1965) ****

Directed by Guy Green

A Patch of Blue wants to be many things all at once—a movie about a Good Samaritan, a movie about blindness, a movie about tolerance, a movie about domestic abuse. Because it’s trying to be all these things, it’s not a masterpiece. The elements involving domestic abuse are too melodramatic to be poignant, and its exploration into blindness doesn’t scratch beyond the surface. Interestingly, I’ve watched two films recently that deal with blindness much more thoroughly—Butterflies Are Free and The Color of Paradise. Despite its lack of ambition regarding this particular handicap, A Patch of Blue is a significantly better film than both Butterflies Are Free and The Color of Paradise. While watching the film for a second time today, I was really struck by how well Guy Green’s film engages with one of the simplest of subjects—man’s inherent goodness. A Patch of Blue works spectacularly well when viewing the ordinary virtuous actions of a Good Samaritan.

Elizabeth Hartman, who herself led an awfully tragic life before committing suicide in the 1980’s, plays Selina D’Arcy, a lower class blind eighteen year old with a seemingly sadistic mother and a drunk grandfather. Obviously, having a child with a handicap requires that extra care and love be given so that development into an independent adult is possible. Unfortunately, Selina’s mother Rose-Ann, played by Shelley Winters who won an Oscar for her performance, doesn’t have much love in her at all. So, Selina pretty much lives shut in to her small apartment cleaning, cooking and working a makeshift job stringing beads onto necklaces, all without having experienced a single day in a classroom learning about the world around her.

It’s clear at the very beginning that Selina doesn’t ask much of her mother or her grandfather, called Ole Pa, played by Wallace Ford. If she crosses the line with Rose-Ann, or if Rose-Ann is simply in a bad mood, then Selina gets slapped hard across the face. She risks these beatings when she begs to go to the park so that she can do her work outdoors. The man that brings her beads for the necklace has agreed to walk her to the park if Ole Pa will bring her home, though Pa usually doesn’t get around to walking home until well after dark and always with many drinks in him.

At the park, a caterpillar falls into the back of Selina’s shirt, and it’s at this point where she meets Gordon Ralfe (Sidney Poitier) who helps get the caterpillar out. He accidentally knocks over her beads and gets to know her a bit when they converse as he’s helping her gather them up. She asks him if she’s pretty, since Rose-Ann told her that her face was a mess the night before, and he says that besides a few scars around her eyes, she looks just fine. He decides to stop by again later that afternoon with a pair of sunglasses to hide the scars and some pineapple juice, which she takes a liking to.

Eventually, they become friends, which isn’t to everyone’s liking since he’s black. Still, though, he takes her to a deli for a corned beef sandwich, then they go to the market followed by a stop at his apartment. During these excursions, Gordon teaches Selina how to cross a street, use a telephone and find the ladies’ room in the park, which is important if she’s going to keep drinking pineapple juices. Gordon learns that Selina was raped by one of Rose-Ann’s boyfriends, and that added to the injustice of not allowing her to go to school prompts Gordon to explore the possibility of getting Selina into a special school for the blind.

Selina, on the other hand, falls in love quickly with Gordon. Though he has feelings for her as well, he knows that her situation in life makes her desperate for a way out. Gordon’s determined to provide that, but not as her lover. Rose-Ann’s nasty friend Sadie (Elisabeth Fraser) sees this interracial duo together on the street, which enrages Rose-Ann once Sadie points them out. Rose-Ann sees an easy way out of all her problems, including this most recent one with Selina. Rose-Ann and Sadie decide to open a whorehouse before they get too old and Selina can do the chores for them. Gordon finds this out at the same time Rose-Ann and Ole Pa see them together at the park. A very public battle ensues over who gets the opportunity to shape Selina’s life from here on out.

Both Shelley Winters and Wallace Ford play their pathetic, seedy characters with a sense of sad realism connected with their poverty and their looming sense of being failures in life. Their scenes were relentlessly grim and depressing, which made Gordon’s friendship wonderful by comparison. It could be argued that Gordon’s almost ridiculously nice, but I think he comes off that way only because of his contrast with Rose-Ann and Ole Pa’s repulsive actions. There are reasons why Rose-Ann is the way she is, though none of them can excuse the abuse she inflicts on Selina.

Hartman seemed to channel Dorothy Gale from The Wizard of Oz with her voice inflections. I’ve got to admit that the way she spoke irritated me to no end. Her performance as Selina is okay I suppose, though it’s nowhere close to the quality of the performances given by Winters, Ford or Poitier.

Sidney Poitier is one of the great actors of all time—that’s for sure! Besides To Sir, with Love, I believe that he gives his best performance that I’ve seen so far in A Patch of Blue. Again, he’s not a saint. He’s simply a good man that fate brought to this poor needy girl. I’d like to think that had I met Selina by the tree, I’d similarly try to help her out, though I’m not sure. Gordon isn’t an instrument of God or anything like that. He’s simply a good man who can’t turn his back on injustice when he sees it. That’s all the more impressive considering that as a black man in the 1960s, I’m sure he’s experienced injustice flung at him over and over.

A Patch of Blue presents, in a very melodramatic way, an optimistic paradigm with which to view the world. I’m tempted to call Ole Pa a slob, Rose-Ann a monster, Selina a sad sack and Gordon an angel, but doing so places each character out of my realm of being able to see myself in them. I’m sure there’s a bit of each of each of these characters in me, just as I’m sure there’s a bit of each of these characters in everyone. Hopefully, I’m not stifling my Gordon, and hopefully other people aren’t either.

McCabe & Mrs. Miller

July 31, 2008

McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971) ****1/2

Directed by Robert Altman

Picture in your mind first of all Warren Beatty, and then imagine him playing a character named McCabe. Keep imagining as I tell you that he single-handedly founded and helps to run an extremely successful business in a Pacific Northwest frontier town named Presbyterian Church. Imagine that he walks into bars, and when he does, the bartenders not only know who he is, but proclaim that he once killed a very dangerous man. Now imagine that McCabe spends his money gambling and buying rounds of drinks for everyone wherever he goes.

I’m guessing that you’re picturing a successful, smart, savvy, mysterious, intriguing and most of all impressive individual. Well, let me give you the scoop on McCabe. Yes, he helped Presbyterian Church to succeed and flourish—so much so that larger corporations are looking to buy all of his assets so they can continue settling the West. Unfortunately, what’s impressive about McCabe pretty much stops there. That legend that the bartenders tell simply isn’t true—McCabe never killed a man before. It’s likely that McCabe told the bartenders that lie himself. He’s gained quite a bit of wealth because of his successes, but he’s wasting it all away gambling and feigning importance.

Worst of all, the business, when he ran it alone, was a whorehouse consisting of three crazy, ugly women in a tent. The film begins first with McCabe playing cards badly, followed by his purchase of some girls to start his business. Unfortunately, almost immediately upon opening his business, one of his girls stabs a client repeatedly in a fit of insane rage. Hearing of his attempt to start his prostitution house, Mrs. Miller, played by the great Julie Christie, travels to find McCabe in order to take over operating the business since she’s had much experience in the past. McCabe, after some chest-beating and idiocy, agrees to let her run everything, including the books, allowing Mrs. Miller to share in half the profits.

The business becomes quite a success once she brings in her own employees, and as such, its reputation brings in a client from far away. This young, pleasant, horny drifter is played by Keith Carradine, and he couldn’t be more excited to have his turn with each of the women. Unfortunately, along also comes a major corporation looking to cash in on the mining deposits available in the town. Two scholarly business men try to negotiate with McCabe, who’s an arrogant dummy, and he rejects their offer demanding a ridiculously high payout. McCabe thinks he’s being smart.

His ego is placed in check when a man named Butler arrives, hired by the corporation to simply kill McCabe. He’s accompanied by two others, one a teenage boy. We see the ruthlessness of the trio through the boy’s murder of the drifter mentioned earlier. McCabe realizes, as he’s contemplating how not to die, that he’s fallen for Mrs. Miller, who also loves him back. The final act of McCabe & Mrs. Miller plays almost like an anti-High Noon. In High Noon, the main character waits for the killers to arrive. In this film, McCabe cowardly hides putting a minister and his church in serious danger. While the rest of the town works together to save the church, McCabe continues to think only about himself as he’s trying not be killed.

McCabe is such a pathetic man that it’s devastating to watch Mrs. Miller, a drug addict prostitute who obviously has the potential to be an impressive, amazing woman had she lived during a different time in a different place, fall in love with this man who can’t help but get himself killed. Towards the end of the film, we see Mrs. Miller lay in bed, high on opium as McCabe bleeds and freezes to death. At the end, her life begins to look like it’s going to become just as pathetic as his was.

Warren Beatty and Julie Christie both command their roles well, neither afraid of coming across unlikable. As a whole, the cinematography is pretty grimy, which matches the sleaziness we see on screen. Altman’s direction is top notch, though the snowfall at the end, which was done with special effects, is distractingly lame. I wonder if it might be possible to remove that effect from the film at this point and clean it up. I believe it would improve those final scenes.

This is the fourth Robert Altman film I’ve seen after Gosford Park, MASH and Nashville. Similar to those other films, McCabe & Mrs. Miller tackles dark and heavy subject matter. I’m beginning to think that I need to adjust my movie watching so that I can watch a happy movie after any future Altman film I see. McCabe & Mrs. Miller deals with issues of greed and sin, and it doesn’t hold back in its exploration into the dark side of the human condition. I can’t imagine ever really wanting to watch this movie again, but I think that I should at some point. We learn so much when we face our demons head on, as McCabe & Mrs. Miller encourages its viewers to do.

The Dark Knight

July 30, 2008

The Dark Knight (2008) *****

Directed by Christopher Nolan

The Dark Knight may very well be on its way to becoming the second biggest blockbuster in movie history just short of Titanic. It even has a chance of surpassing Titanic’s all-time box office achievement, but unless its weekly declines are astonishingly slow, its chance to be number one is slim. That being said, for me, seeing The Dark Knight was such an awesome experience that I’m reminded of Titanic from ten years ago—a film that I consider to be one of the three best movies ever made, and it still stands alone as the most entertaining film I’ve ever seen. The Dark Knight isn’t in the same league as Titanic in any way except for the thrills that it delivers. Never have I seen a film in my adult life that was so almost exhaustively riveting. I’m not sure if I’ve used the word riveting anywhere else in my reviews, but if I did, then I regret it. Riveting feels like it was destined to be withheld so that it can deservedly be ascribed to Christopher Nolan’s epic superhero masterpiece. The Dark Knight is the best superhero movie I’ve ever seen, and more than any other film ever, even Titanic, I believe that The Dark Knight lives up to its near mythic hype.

You might read that paragraph and think me a huge Batman geek. Quite the opposite is true. I’ve never seen Batman Begins, and I’ve only seen one other Batman movie in the theaters—the one with Jim Carrey, and I saw it only because someone I was friends with wanted to see it. I think Val Kilmer was in that one. I’m sure I’ve seen the 80’s version with Jack Nicholson as the Joker, but I don’t remember much about it. So, I really couldn’t care less that The Dark Knight was about to open. Granted, I was interested in the film because it was one of Heath Ledger’s last performances, and the buzz about Ledger as the Joker was quite impressive. So, I probably was thinking I’d eventually check it out, most likely on DVD.

But then the reviews started naming The Dark Knight as one of the year’s best films. Box office record after box office record were decimated, and the feedback surrounding Ledger as the Joker was way beyond anything I anticipated. Still, though, it took my favorite podcast, Filmspotting, doing a spoiler edition of The Dark Knight to get me to finally go out and see it. I need my Filmspotting, and I couldn’t go a whole week without listening.

Within the first fifteen minutes, I felt as if something invisible grabbed me hard by the throat and never did its grip release until the final credits. Seriously, I know that I can exaggerate, but I’ve never had the experience before of being so completely, well, RIVETED! The film’s tone is brutal, and its violence is surprisingly vicious for a PG-13 movie. There’s one scene involving a pencil that still has me creeped out, and yet, nothing graphic was shown. Another scene involves the Joker slicing the corners of the mouth of a character, and while the actual act wasn’t shown on screen, I felt unbelievably uncomfortable because the film let me fill in the blanks in my head. I assure you that my mental images are worse than anything they could have shown even if the film had been rated R.

From the very beginning, The Dark Knight pushed my comfort level to its very limit. I have read that some people have found the film’s tone to be sadistic and unpleasantly cruel. While I disagree, I certainly understand where those people are coming from. For me, I was unsettled just enough to allow me to recall the film as a whole with pleasure and satisfaction. You may want to keep in mind that for some, The Dark Knight has the potential to be a depressing cinematic experience. For most, though, it’s a nightmare of a good time!

Interestingly enough, one of the things I was thinking during the 150 minute plus running time was that Christopher Nolan didn’t make this movie for someone like me. I’m not really a popcorn movie watcher. I don’t want to go to the movies to be passive. Instead, I want a film to engage me and hopefully challenge me as well. Things blowing up, graphic bloodshed and copious amounts of exposed flesh aren’t enough to win me over. Also, I’m not at all a Batman fan, or for that matter, a superhero movie fan.

Director Christopher Nolan, who co-wrote the screenplay with his brother Jonathan, made The Dark Knight to please the film’s established fan base. There was a point in the movie where I would have been totally fine if the film ended. Actually, I really expected it to end just then, but instead there was another hour to go, which included surprise after surprise, climax after climax. Characters we thought were dead weren’t, and other characters we thought were good have a change of heart. Misdirection for misdirection’s sake can be very frustrating, but each and every time I was hit with a plot twist, the film delivered by allowing each narrative puzzle piece to serve its one unifying element regarding the battle of good versus evil.

The very end of the film wasn’t too surprising considering all of the twists that preceded it. Therefore, I actually found The Dark Knight’s conclusion to be its weakest aspect, though it was definitely satisfying. What really merits The Dark Knight its five star review are Nolan's direction, especially of the action sequences, and its superb cast which universally brought their A-game! Christian Bale does a fine job in an almost thankless role as Batman by way of Dean Martin, the straight man. Do I even need to talk about Heath Ledger? All I’ll say is that when they announce his name at the Oscars as the winner of Best Supporting Actor next February, I will definitely be applauding, even if I’m watching it by myself. What would really make my day Oscar-wise would be to have Aaron Eckhart also nominated as Best Supporting Actor. Ledger deserves to win, but Eckhart’s performance as Harvey Dent deserves serious recognition, and I think an Oscar nomination would do the trick nicely.

The Dark Knight isn’t a perfect film. The make-up job regarding a burned character is almost laugh out loud funny. An outside make-up artist should have been allowed in so that he or she could scream the words, “YOU’VE GONE WAY TOO FAR AND NOW IT LOOKS STUPID!” At times during the final few action scenes, I was relying a bit too much on sound effects to tell me that there’s fighting going on. A mixture of frenetic camera switches and dark lighting made some fights impossible to follow in detail. That being said, a film trying this hard to entertain absolutely earns the right to have its flaws forgiven.

Not since Titanic have I seen a movie so worth the money it costs to buy a ticket. I would have been satisfied with a running time of 90 minutes, but Nolan wasn’t thinking about me. He was thinking about those college kids dressed up like Batman at midnight on the morning of its premier. He wanted to make them proud, and judging by the fact that The Dark Knight is now the number one rated movie of all time on the Internet Movie Database, he succeeded and then some. To be honest, I almost feel like an outsider privileged to go along on an amazing ride which was created specifically to make die-hards happy!

Harold and Maude

July 28, 2008

Harold and Maude (1971) *****

Directed by Hal Ashby

Netflix has a star rating system displayed underneath all of the films available through their website. It took me a while to figure out that they personalize the number of stars based on a particular user’s ratings, queued films and genre preferences. They also personalize a list of recommended films similarly based on past information provided. For over a year, Netflix has recommended Harold and Maude to me over and over again—easily more than any other film. Based on my ratings and film watching history, Netflix displayed five complete stars underneath. I’ve never seen Netflix recommend a film that strongly to me. Also, I’ve come across in my cinema focused information gathering that Harold and Maude has one of the most fervent cult followings in the history of movies. Finally, the American Film Institute ranked this as the ninth best romantic comedy of all time. The film wasn’t nominated for any Oscars and it’s not part of any marathons or great movies lists that I follow. Still, though, I wanted to watch Harold and Maude immediately because first of all, I wanted to see what all of the hype is about, and second, I believed that I was really going to love it!

Love it I did! Harold and Maude, in some ways, was exactly what I thought it was going to be. Ruth Gordon plays seventy-nine year old Maude, and since it was Ruth Gordon, I could see her performance coming from a mile away. I’ve only ever seen Gordon once before, in an episode of Taxi in which she won an Emmy for Guest Actress in a Comedy Series. In that episode, she plays an old rich woman with so much spunk and zest for life that Judd Hirsch’s character couldn’t keep up with her. She ends up giving the taxi driver huge amounts of money just to drive her around in the middle of the night for companionship and conversation. That performance stuck in my mind because Gordon absolutely tackled that almost exhausting spunk required for her character. Knowing that Maude was similarly going to be an old woman with boundless energy and optimism, I figured I’d see pretty much the exact same performance that I saw on Taxi. I was totally correct.

I don’t mean that as an attack on her performance. If anything, what made her memorable in Taxi also made her sublime in Harold and Maude. Yet, there’s one scene in the film that stands on its own as a real departure from Gordon’s comfort zone. At one point, in her train-car/house, she begins to tear up reliving old memories not out of nostalgia but out of frustration. We see very subtle glimpses that Maude may be suffering from the beginning of Alzheimer’s or dementia, a fact that screenwriter Colin Higgins did intend. In this moment, Gordon exhibits vulnerability so heartbreaking that it makes you wonder whether her entire shtick in life exists merely to mask her pain and fear. We clearly see in this scene why Maude decides to do what she ultimately does at the end of the movie.

Though Gordon does receive top billing, Bud Cort as Harold inhabits a significantly greater amount of screen time. Harold is a young man in his early twenties who has an obsession with death so strong that he elaboratly stages his own suicides in order to receive attention from his mother. We learn later in the film that while Harold was in prep school, he caused an explosion in the chemistry lab which resulted in the police mistakenly telling Harold’s mom that he died. Her reaction was so severe and exhilarating for Harold that he attempts to harness those feelings of being loved over and over again. He’s not really interested in committing suicide precisely because then his suicide fantasies would end.

He attends funerals in his spare time and it’s during one of them that he meets Maude who similarly likes to crash funerals. She’s not so much morbidly interested in death as she is celebrating life’s cycle of death and birth. After offering Harold licorice in church, she tells him that she will be 80 on an upcoming Saturday. Then she mentions something about an appropriate time to die which foreshadows later plot points in the film. At the end I realized the significance of her words at this point, but I didn’t quite get it at the time.

Harold doesn’t have any friends mostly because he’s quite passive regarding social situations. That’s okay, though, because Maude is anything but passive. She takes him for a very swervy and fast drive in a car she stole and cajoles him into singing, playing the banjo, caressing a statue, smoking pot, drinking, liberating city trees in order to free them in the forest, etc. She’s so full of life that without necessarily meaning to she allows Harold’s focus to shift from death to vitality.

At the same time, Harold’s mother uses a computer dating service (an idea quite ahead of its time in 1971 as we now know) to set Harold up with eligible women. It’s here that we see Harold’s resistance to being oppressed or dictated to. Upon separate introductions with three girls, Harold lights himself on fire, hacks off his hand with a cleaver and stabs himself with a knife. As Harold continues to shun social norms, including a funny scene where his uncle attempts to recruit him into military service, it’s clear that Harold needs something or someone to jumpstart his passion for living.

It’s Maude who offers him freedom, and he accepts. Of course, with a young man this afflicted with serious psychological problems, it’s no surprise that Harold’s affection for Maude elevates to that next level. This is one of the only films I’ve ever seen that presents a sexual relationship between characters this far apart in age. Harold wants to marry Maude—at least that’s his plan.

Bud Cort, who looks like a mix between Kiefer Sutherland and the Artful Dodger from the musical Oliver!, does an absolutely amazing job exaggerating the character of Harold in a way that makes the film much more palatable. Had the characterization been subtler or more layered, then audiences might not have embraced his transformation as much as they did. Unfortunately, Cort’s life and career were far from easy. For a six year period following Harold and Maude he did not act in any films. In 1981, he was involved in a disfiguring car crash which bankrupted him because of the hospital and plastic surgery bills which resulted. It’s too bad, because I believe that Cort could have offered quite a bit to the film world had he become a superstar.

The best way to view Harold and Maude is as a fable encouraging people to live life with no inhibitions and unhappy restraints. The decision Maude makes at the end of the film is politically dicey terrain, and as such, I bet some people have rejected the film’s core message. That’s too bad because Harold and Maude isn’t passing judgment on her decision as much as it’s showing how wonderful life can be if we just embrace it more. Who can’t benefit from such wonderful advice? I was inspired without feeling preached at. I smiled quite a bit watching Harold and Maude’s pitch black humor. Absolutely, I can see why so many adore this film, and as such, I applaud Netflix for its spot-on recommendation. Then again, I keep getting Pink Flamingos suggested to me, but hey, nobody’s perfect.