I pride myself on never saying bad or negative things when it comes to talking about films (well, except for studio releases that offend my sensibility). Too many people put hard work and effort into the making of a film, for me to sit back and disparage their work is criminal. Now, besides being a film major from USC, I have a second degree in history. And one thing I learned as history major was to research and get my facts straight before writing anything. So when I watch a film like THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL (Justin Chadwick, 2008) it is often hard for me to stay ambivalent when it comes to watching the film. Cinematically the film really doesn't stand out as noteworthy, the acting is good but you wouldn't expect anything less from a stellar cast. So your left judging the narrative, and although the film is based upon a historical fiction that was wildly popular, it is hard, so hard not to rant about the film.
When all is said and done, the film is basically a historical fiction. Historically it complete garbage, but for entertainment purposes, it works. And if it sparks an interest in historical matters relating to the Tudor dynasty, and people actually do a little REAL research on the actual historical evidence, than this film is marvelous. The problem lies in that most are too lazy to do real research, most will Wiki the topic or, my god, take this film at value for historic merit. And to me, this is dangerous. This lack of effort on the part of audiences takes historic weight away from the events as they really occurred, and this is a crime.
Ultimately though, this is a film meant to entertain. And this it does. The performances by the entire cast are really good. Henry VIII (Eric Bana) is sublimely portrayed and to say Mary (Scarlett Johannson) is amazing never gives her justice. The true star though is Anne (Natalie Portman), our reigning Best Actress. She portrays Anne with guile and charm, a tenderness and frailty that belies her ability. She truly is one of the best actresses working today.
I did find one contemporary comparison and that would be that court resembles, to me, the power structures that plague our country today. Full of people that do not care about others, continually do everything possible to get ahead regardless of whom they hurt or destroy and connive and backstabbing and climb their way to the very top. I guess one could say it is human nature. Decent film, just please go actually read up on the Tudors.
Monday, October 24, 2011
INSIDIOUS (James Wan, Haunted Films, 2010)
The definition of the word insidious is "proceeding in a gradual subtle way, but with harmful effects". In the film INSIDIOUS (James Wan, Haunted Films, 2010), the narrative plays out in the same manner. The only problem is that the film starts so strongly and works so effectively that by the time the third act is reached, the narrative has nothing left and therefore doesn't hold up to it's beginning. So the film strictly follows its namesake, yet the harm done is to the film itself. Narrative content aside, there is some amazing work done within the film, particularly in sound design, cinematography and composition and to me, the single most amazing detail is the production of the film itself. The producers of this film should be recognized in some way for what they accomplished because it is stellar work.
As mentioned, the narrative starts strongly and works exceedingly well with not much going on. Watching the film I almost feel like maybe Wan instructed his actors to play everything subdued and subtle, allowing for his sound design and shot composition to have their effect. And this subtle direction proves to me that a film need not be jammed start to finish with action but rather if you let the imagery do the work, and if you craft your imagery with care and thought, the film will work on numerous levels. The problem lies in the ability to properly keep this subtly going, and by the time the source of horror is revealed, it is almost comical comparatively. Here's the thing though, maybe this is what the filmmaker intended. The point in the film which really started to lose me was the introduction of the psychic mediums. The characters of Specs (Leigh Wannell) and Tucker (Angus Sampson) and their witty banter threw me out of a marvelous tension filled film. They were just a bit too comical. But I must concede that this might have been the writer (Wannell) and directors (Wan) intent.
Now, if their intent was to use sound design effectively enough to create horror without the use of gory imagery then they did so spectacularly. The sound design in this film is used to great effect; it is creepy, tension filled and keeps you in chills throughout. Horror films made today tend to overlook the fact that what is not seen is more powerful and scarier than what is seen and this film proves it. Throughout the film (well, up to the third act) sound is used remarkably and there is no need for ridiculous imagery, although some is used (effectively so). In fact the film is reminiscent to me of one of the great directors as far as the use of sound design is concerned, William Friedkin. Its almost as if the sound becomes another character within the films narrative.
But the best part of this film is the job the producers accomplished. Research afterwards led me to discover the film's budget was $1.5 million and that it has made $90+ million to date. This shows me that a producer can realize some quite simple things, put them to practice and make a tremendous film, one that makes money. Take a simple yet effective story, keep your costs down with a budget that is NOT overly reliant on ridiculous effects, use a minimalist style in regards to cinematography and shot composition and you have a great film. And the way the end of the narrative plays out they have already set things up quite nicely for a sequel. Which will be about a third as good but quite possibly will make twice as much (and which I won't see). That said, check this film out, it is rather good!
As mentioned, the narrative starts strongly and works exceedingly well with not much going on. Watching the film I almost feel like maybe Wan instructed his actors to play everything subdued and subtle, allowing for his sound design and shot composition to have their effect. And this subtle direction proves to me that a film need not be jammed start to finish with action but rather if you let the imagery do the work, and if you craft your imagery with care and thought, the film will work on numerous levels. The problem lies in the ability to properly keep this subtly going, and by the time the source of horror is revealed, it is almost comical comparatively. Here's the thing though, maybe this is what the filmmaker intended. The point in the film which really started to lose me was the introduction of the psychic mediums. The characters of Specs (Leigh Wannell) and Tucker (Angus Sampson) and their witty banter threw me out of a marvelous tension filled film. They were just a bit too comical. But I must concede that this might have been the writer (Wannell) and directors (Wan) intent.
Now, if their intent was to use sound design effectively enough to create horror without the use of gory imagery then they did so spectacularly. The sound design in this film is used to great effect; it is creepy, tension filled and keeps you in chills throughout. Horror films made today tend to overlook the fact that what is not seen is more powerful and scarier than what is seen and this film proves it. Throughout the film (well, up to the third act) sound is used remarkably and there is no need for ridiculous imagery, although some is used (effectively so). In fact the film is reminiscent to me of one of the great directors as far as the use of sound design is concerned, William Friedkin. Its almost as if the sound becomes another character within the films narrative.
But the best part of this film is the job the producers accomplished. Research afterwards led me to discover the film's budget was $1.5 million and that it has made $90+ million to date. This shows me that a producer can realize some quite simple things, put them to practice and make a tremendous film, one that makes money. Take a simple yet effective story, keep your costs down with a budget that is NOT overly reliant on ridiculous effects, use a minimalist style in regards to cinematography and shot composition and you have a great film. And the way the end of the narrative plays out they have already set things up quite nicely for a sequel. Which will be about a third as good but quite possibly will make twice as much (and which I won't see). That said, check this film out, it is rather good!
Friday, October 14, 2011
THE LION KING (Roger Allers, Disney, 1994)
Before I get universally castigated for what I'm about to write, let me just say that my viewing this week of THE LION KING (Roger Allers, Disney, 1994) was indeed the first time I have ever seen the film. I am not a fan of animated movies, nor do I particularly care for Disney films. When the film was first released I had no desire to see it, and honestly, had it not been listed on AFI's Top Ten Animated films list I more than likely still would never have seen it.
The narrative to this film is pedestrian at best, basically being an amalgam of bible stories, Greek mythology, fairy tales, fables, legends and Shakespeare. This technique of pastiching everything together, very postmodern, is fine with me. I think that the hype that accompanied the film prior to my seeing it made me expect so much more. One of the most common elements of postmodern films is the use of pastiche, combining previously used source material and reinventing it as your own. For a film with such acclaim I expected more of a striking narrative, something substantial. Finally, as Disney stories go, I didn't feel this film came close to other Disney incarnations,
Of course the soundtrack to the film is outstanding, and I seem to recall a time when Elton John was seemingly doing every song for Disney. The only thing about the film I truly despised was the conversion to 3D. This trend is utterly pointless. It adds nothing to a films value, if anything it often detracts because the obligatory 3D shots often seem forced and completely unnecessary to the plot of the film. THE LION KING was no exception here, and just as in on of 2011's worst films, THOR, I watched the second half of the film without the glasses. When will the trend towards 3D releases end? Not soon enough!
The narrative to this film is pedestrian at best, basically being an amalgam of bible stories, Greek mythology, fairy tales, fables, legends and Shakespeare. This technique of pastiching everything together, very postmodern, is fine with me. I think that the hype that accompanied the film prior to my seeing it made me expect so much more. One of the most common elements of postmodern films is the use of pastiche, combining previously used source material and reinventing it as your own. For a film with such acclaim I expected more of a striking narrative, something substantial. Finally, as Disney stories go, I didn't feel this film came close to other Disney incarnations,
Of course the soundtrack to the film is outstanding, and I seem to recall a time when Elton John was seemingly doing every song for Disney. The only thing about the film I truly despised was the conversion to 3D. This trend is utterly pointless. It adds nothing to a films value, if anything it often detracts because the obligatory 3D shots often seem forced and completely unnecessary to the plot of the film. THE LION KING was no exception here, and just as in on of 2011's worst films, THOR, I watched the second half of the film without the glasses. When will the trend towards 3D releases end? Not soon enough!
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
MESRINE: KILLER INSTINCT and PUBLIC ENEMY #1 (Jean-Francois Richet, 2008)
To me it is a crime that American audiences choose to endure the never ending glut of garbage that Hollywood studios release. Endless comic book films, talking pets, endless variations on switching bodies, anything directed by Adam Sandler's friend, all of these movies are usually pretty horrible. So when I come across a treat like MESRINE: KILLER INSTINCT and PUBLIC ENEMY #1 (Jean-Francois Richet, Music Box Films, 2008) I am not only thrilled to see quality films but dismayed because so many will never see such tremendous work. And if you like gangster films believe me, you'll love every pulse pounding second in the life of Jacques Mesrine.
Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel) is everything that society fears and abhors. Vincent Cassel gives every ounce of his ability to this role and makes it work on every level. Mesrine was most definitely psychotic and delusional and Cassel finds every nuance to be found. At times charming and seductive, these moments can quickly give way to psychotic rages and impotent pleas by our protagonist defending his choice of lifestyle. The narrative makes us believe that this life was forced upon Mesrine, that through brutally harsh conduct in the military and a lingering resentment to country for cowardly behavior during the war that he has no choice and be the man France needs. Cassel hits all of these notes, meekly avoiding harming Algerian terrorists before brutally murdering one to castigating his father for the failure of France. He fully becomes the embodiment of a Frenchmen as he seduces beauty after beauty, no woman really ever resists his charm. A truly great performance is required in this role and Cassel provides it!
From the opening sequence of the film the overall direction is outstanding. Richet's choice to split screen his action, but then to split screen the same action over multiple shots is amazing (hard to explain, but imagine watching the same scene three different ways all at the same time, brilliant!). His decision to open the film with the killing of his protagonist also throws traditional gangster genre conventions out the window, yet when he returns to his conclusion at the end of the films it is fresh and convincing, altogether new. Various motifs are used throughout the film with tremendous effect. The use of mirrors is particularly telling, as seeing Mesrine in mirrors serves to show his fractured mind as well as his often fractured relationships. Richet has obviously watched his Truffaut films, a director who was a master at this sort of thing.
Richet also takes time in crafting other elements of technical worth throughout this film. The production design throughout the film is outstanding. They hit marks through the sixties and seventies in costuming, set design and props. Where did they find all the old cars is something I kept thinking as I watched. Richet also utilizes a great score throughout, one that sinks itself into your subconscious and lingers. Only after finishing part one did I realize how much the score was actively playing in my mind. The score also completely added impact to the narrative, heightening tension all the way.
If I had any problem with the films it would be with the narrative, particularly in the second installment. In Killer Instinct the narrative is more traditional, focusing on family and the rise of Mesrine to psychotic gangster. Public Enemy #1 takes different tack,and this is where it may falter just a bit. The narrative for the second part of the film is non stop, it never takes a break. Now this could be a way to heighten the fracturing of Mesrine's mind, as he completely loses all touch with reality in the second film. It's just to me, the non stop action doesn't give the audience time to breathe, to relax and revel in what we are seeing. Slowing it down a little would help, for me at least.
Finally, again, the amazingly gorgeous and stunning Ludivine Sagnier plays a small role as Mesrine's final lover. Dear Hollywood producers, can we get this great actress some work? Seriously! Do yourself a favor, Netflix this two parter today. But be forewarned, make sure you have time to watch both at one sitting because after watching one you'll never NOT be able to watch the second!
Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel) is everything that society fears and abhors. Vincent Cassel gives every ounce of his ability to this role and makes it work on every level. Mesrine was most definitely psychotic and delusional and Cassel finds every nuance to be found. At times charming and seductive, these moments can quickly give way to psychotic rages and impotent pleas by our protagonist defending his choice of lifestyle. The narrative makes us believe that this life was forced upon Mesrine, that through brutally harsh conduct in the military and a lingering resentment to country for cowardly behavior during the war that he has no choice and be the man France needs. Cassel hits all of these notes, meekly avoiding harming Algerian terrorists before brutally murdering one to castigating his father for the failure of France. He fully becomes the embodiment of a Frenchmen as he seduces beauty after beauty, no woman really ever resists his charm. A truly great performance is required in this role and Cassel provides it!
From the opening sequence of the film the overall direction is outstanding. Richet's choice to split screen his action, but then to split screen the same action over multiple shots is amazing (hard to explain, but imagine watching the same scene three different ways all at the same time, brilliant!). His decision to open the film with the killing of his protagonist also throws traditional gangster genre conventions out the window, yet when he returns to his conclusion at the end of the films it is fresh and convincing, altogether new. Various motifs are used throughout the film with tremendous effect. The use of mirrors is particularly telling, as seeing Mesrine in mirrors serves to show his fractured mind as well as his often fractured relationships. Richet has obviously watched his Truffaut films, a director who was a master at this sort of thing.
Richet also takes time in crafting other elements of technical worth throughout this film. The production design throughout the film is outstanding. They hit marks through the sixties and seventies in costuming, set design and props. Where did they find all the old cars is something I kept thinking as I watched. Richet also utilizes a great score throughout, one that sinks itself into your subconscious and lingers. Only after finishing part one did I realize how much the score was actively playing in my mind. The score also completely added impact to the narrative, heightening tension all the way.
If I had any problem with the films it would be with the narrative, particularly in the second installment. In Killer Instinct the narrative is more traditional, focusing on family and the rise of Mesrine to psychotic gangster. Public Enemy #1 takes different tack,and this is where it may falter just a bit. The narrative for the second part of the film is non stop, it never takes a break. Now this could be a way to heighten the fracturing of Mesrine's mind, as he completely loses all touch with reality in the second film. It's just to me, the non stop action doesn't give the audience time to breathe, to relax and revel in what we are seeing. Slowing it down a little would help, for me at least.
Finally, again, the amazingly gorgeous and stunning Ludivine Sagnier plays a small role as Mesrine's final lover. Dear Hollywood producers, can we get this great actress some work? Seriously! Do yourself a favor, Netflix this two parter today. But be forewarned, make sure you have time to watch both at one sitting because after watching one you'll never NOT be able to watch the second!
THE LINCOLN LAWYER (Brad Furman, Lionsgate, 2011)
From the moment The Lincoln Lawyer (Brad Furman, Lionsgate, 2011) opens, you immediately sense that you will be watching a throwback to the seventies and to great thrillers like The French Connection (William Friedkin, 1972). The films opening tells you all you need to know about the narratives protagonist. He works out of his Lincoln, he has a driver because like any good protagonist he is flawed (alcoholic), he knows his way around the streets as well as the inner workings of our flawed judicial system. While this opening is playing out we hear Ain't no Love in the Heart of the City by Bobby Bland which further associates the film to the seventies. This selection of opening song is amazing, a perfect fit, and sets the tone of the film right away.
This isn't the only song that is remarkable in this film. The entire soundtrack is a veritable who's who of eighties rap music, with songs by Eric B. And Rakim, Gang Starr and Erick Sermon. There is a versatility to the soundtrack as well, as it also incorporates the use of deadmau5 and Kaskade. The soundtrack helps serve the narrative by inflecting mood to the audience at various points throughout the film and it does this rather effectively.
Other effective cinematic techniques used by Furman include a stellar use of camera and cinematography. Furman and cinematographer Lukas Ettlin craft tremendous shots throughout the narrative. One of the things I notice most when watching a film is seeing when a director and cinematographer work together to show me a film shot in a new way, or in a way not often seen. Throughout this film Furman and Ettlin surprised and astonished me with great work.
Also displaying great work is one Matthew McConnaughey. McConnaughey, much like Keanu Reeves often gets derided for his ability to act. I cannot emphasize this enough but I feel this knock is complete garbage. Both actors know what works for them and they then set out to do it rather well. I'd much rather see both in roles they excel at than for an actor who most assuredly needs to stick to what he does best but often tries to stretch to other genres. And this role fits McConnaughey. He has an ability to charm the hell out of his audiences all while maintaining a certain snarkiness, an attitude that says "you know what, I am better than you and I'm gonna show you". That attitude is on full display in this role.
What isn't on full display in this film is a director trying to accomplish too much in regards to genre constraints and narrative. The film does not try to be what it isn't and there is a definitive lack of self importance which is rather refreshing. Many films today take themselves too seriously. Furman also leaves the film within the constraints of a legal thriller. He doesn't try that very common postmodern technique of hybridizing genres and this allows the film to flow nicely and end timely. I love seeing directors like Furman and Matthew Vaughn (X-Men First Class, Kick Ass, Layer Cake) work because they have such fresh vision and are not encumbered by expectation. And this shows in their work.
The Lincoln Lawyer is pure entertainment. It knows it's place, stays there and gives us one hell of a show. One of my favorite films this year!
This isn't the only song that is remarkable in this film. The entire soundtrack is a veritable who's who of eighties rap music, with songs by Eric B. And Rakim, Gang Starr and Erick Sermon. There is a versatility to the soundtrack as well, as it also incorporates the use of deadmau5 and Kaskade. The soundtrack helps serve the narrative by inflecting mood to the audience at various points throughout the film and it does this rather effectively.
Other effective cinematic techniques used by Furman include a stellar use of camera and cinematography. Furman and cinematographer Lukas Ettlin craft tremendous shots throughout the narrative. One of the things I notice most when watching a film is seeing when a director and cinematographer work together to show me a film shot in a new way, or in a way not often seen. Throughout this film Furman and Ettlin surprised and astonished me with great work.
Also displaying great work is one Matthew McConnaughey. McConnaughey, much like Keanu Reeves often gets derided for his ability to act. I cannot emphasize this enough but I feel this knock is complete garbage. Both actors know what works for them and they then set out to do it rather well. I'd much rather see both in roles they excel at than for an actor who most assuredly needs to stick to what he does best but often tries to stretch to other genres. And this role fits McConnaughey. He has an ability to charm the hell out of his audiences all while maintaining a certain snarkiness, an attitude that says "you know what, I am better than you and I'm gonna show you". That attitude is on full display in this role.
What isn't on full display in this film is a director trying to accomplish too much in regards to genre constraints and narrative. The film does not try to be what it isn't and there is a definitive lack of self importance which is rather refreshing. Many films today take themselves too seriously. Furman also leaves the film within the constraints of a legal thriller. He doesn't try that very common postmodern technique of hybridizing genres and this allows the film to flow nicely and end timely. I love seeing directors like Furman and Matthew Vaughn (X-Men First Class, Kick Ass, Layer Cake) work because they have such fresh vision and are not encumbered by expectation. And this shows in their work.
The Lincoln Lawyer is pure entertainment. It knows it's place, stays there and gives us one hell of a show. One of my favorite films this year!
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER (Francois Truffaut, Cocinor, 1960)
There exists a sublime quality to the films of the French New Wave that allows these films to be layered and complex yet when viewing them you see them as simple and straightforward. SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER (Francois Truffaut, Cocinor, 1960) is a definitive example of just such a film. The film has so much going on within its text as to be almost impossible to decipher everything yet when you break the film down you are left simply with a film dealing with love and loss. The film is a great juxtaposition of tonal shifts, thematic dealings with sexuality and sexual roles in society, it is autobiographical to it's auteur like many of his films and ultimately is a blueprint for postmodern films many years prior to the concept of postmodern films was to take root. Putting so much into a film often makes it confusing to it's audience and this film is no exception. It is a film which requires multiple viewings but with each viewing the film becomes more full and rich and so much more satisfactory.
Watching it multiple times leaves the many diversions in tone easily displayed for the viewer. At the very start of the film the audience sees a darkened street with a man being chased. The immediate thought is that you are being introduced into a traditional gangster film. The score and pace are frenetic and quick. Yet seemingly out of nowhere this man Chico (Albert Remy) runs into a light post and the tone immediately shifts. Helped by a stranger, the two men peacefully go into a discourse on women and love. This shift in tone allows the viewer to get a glimpse of the entire film which will shift elusively throughout between this seemingly important crime story and the real focus of the narrative, love and loss. Just a quickly as Chico runs into the light post his new friend is gone and back we go to the frenetic pace as Chico runs to a local bar. It is at this bar that we are introduced to our protagonist Charlie (Charles Aznavour).
Much like Antoine (Jean Pierre Leaud) in The 400 Blows (Truffaut, 1959) the character of Charlie in this film is an extension of Truffaut himself. Charlie we learn, is really Edouard, and he has a checkered past as a successful classical pianist. When he was working as such, his wife Theresa (Nicole Berger) throws herself from their apartment, guilty over her role in Edouard's rise to success and fame. Also adding to their problems is Edouard's (Truffaut) trouble in dealing with his fame and success as a talented and celebrated artist. Obviously Truffaut never had anything as traumatic as this occur but to be able to self analyze yourself within your work takes not only great ability but tremendous courage. This self analysis is evident throughout Truffaut's work, much like his ability to deal with sexuality in so many ways.
And here is what the film is entirely about, sexuality and the roles we play in defining that sexuality. Throughout the film we see numerous images of male fascination with a woman's sexuality. In the bar as crowds dance, the camera lingers on the feminine form again and again. During the kidnapping sequence, the kidnappers discuss their beliefs on woman, crude though they may be, these men give us a bare bones look at the basest form of male desire. To them, woman "want it" so therefore they deserve to "get it".
Charlie/Edouard himself cannot deal with women on any level. His two real relationships within the film both end tragically, and he could have prevented both deaths had he been able to deal with those relationships on an advanced level. A poignant moment in the film is when Charlie walks Lena (Marie Dubois) home from work on their first evening together. Through voice over, we hear Charlie's internal struggle with just how to act. Should he hold her hand, what does he say? These questions raised in his mind show that Charlie cannot be more than an adolescent when it comes dealing with the women he loves. The scene becomes even more poignant later in the film as Lena tells Charlie how much she desired that he would have just grabbed and held her hand.
Charlie's desire between loves is sated by his relationship with the prostitute that lives next door to him, Clarisse (Michele Mercier). This relationship gives us two simple things to digest as a viewer. First, it pushes the point home that Charlie cannot maturely deal with an adult relationship. To him, woman are objects, there only to satisfy desire. But can you blame him? Every time he attempts a real relationship he is utterly out of his depth and of course they end badly. This analyzation of relationships is striking if you compare them to contemporary problems within relationships.
The second thing we see as viewers is a different tone (much like the entire film) when it comes to sexual attitudes between Americans and those of Europeans. Their exists a frankness, an openness to sexual attitudes for Europeans. It is evident both in this film and The 400 Blows. The casual feel to Charlie's relationship to Clarisse, the cavalier attitude towards woman displayed by the men. American films to this day cannot deal with sexuality in the same manner, and it has been fifty years since this film was released. The film is ahead of itself compared to the American films the French New Wave directors revered and emulated.
This emulation of American films by men such as Truffaut is a potent forerunner to what would later be recognized as traits of postmodern films. Postmodern films operate using a wide array of techniques among them a pastiche of many previous films and genres, a self reflexive quality which resides within the film and the ultimate tribute, a direct homage to the films they loved. Truffaut brilliantly pastiched together different genres within this film, crafting a melodrama with a gangster film. He places elements of a noir styled film next to comic moments. The film becomes self reflexive at various moments, particularly when Charlie covers Clarisse's naked breasts because"that's they way they do it in the movies". And the film is Truffaut's tribute to the many B level American films he loved so much.
As I slowly work my way through Truffaut's work, I get more fascinated with the depths to which his films reside themselves in. I highly recommend this film, as long as you know to watch the film knowing the film will leave you guessing. And asking more questions after each viewing.
Watching it multiple times leaves the many diversions in tone easily displayed for the viewer. At the very start of the film the audience sees a darkened street with a man being chased. The immediate thought is that you are being introduced into a traditional gangster film. The score and pace are frenetic and quick. Yet seemingly out of nowhere this man Chico (Albert Remy) runs into a light post and the tone immediately shifts. Helped by a stranger, the two men peacefully go into a discourse on women and love. This shift in tone allows the viewer to get a glimpse of the entire film which will shift elusively throughout between this seemingly important crime story and the real focus of the narrative, love and loss. Just a quickly as Chico runs into the light post his new friend is gone and back we go to the frenetic pace as Chico runs to a local bar. It is at this bar that we are introduced to our protagonist Charlie (Charles Aznavour).
Much like Antoine (Jean Pierre Leaud) in The 400 Blows (Truffaut, 1959) the character of Charlie in this film is an extension of Truffaut himself. Charlie we learn, is really Edouard, and he has a checkered past as a successful classical pianist. When he was working as such, his wife Theresa (Nicole Berger) throws herself from their apartment, guilty over her role in Edouard's rise to success and fame. Also adding to their problems is Edouard's (Truffaut) trouble in dealing with his fame and success as a talented and celebrated artist. Obviously Truffaut never had anything as traumatic as this occur but to be able to self analyze yourself within your work takes not only great ability but tremendous courage. This self analysis is evident throughout Truffaut's work, much like his ability to deal with sexuality in so many ways.
And here is what the film is entirely about, sexuality and the roles we play in defining that sexuality. Throughout the film we see numerous images of male fascination with a woman's sexuality. In the bar as crowds dance, the camera lingers on the feminine form again and again. During the kidnapping sequence, the kidnappers discuss their beliefs on woman, crude though they may be, these men give us a bare bones look at the basest form of male desire. To them, woman "want it" so therefore they deserve to "get it".
Charlie/Edouard himself cannot deal with women on any level. His two real relationships within the film both end tragically, and he could have prevented both deaths had he been able to deal with those relationships on an advanced level. A poignant moment in the film is when Charlie walks Lena (Marie Dubois) home from work on their first evening together. Through voice over, we hear Charlie's internal struggle with just how to act. Should he hold her hand, what does he say? These questions raised in his mind show that Charlie cannot be more than an adolescent when it comes dealing with the women he loves. The scene becomes even more poignant later in the film as Lena tells Charlie how much she desired that he would have just grabbed and held her hand.
Charlie's desire between loves is sated by his relationship with the prostitute that lives next door to him, Clarisse (Michele Mercier). This relationship gives us two simple things to digest as a viewer. First, it pushes the point home that Charlie cannot maturely deal with an adult relationship. To him, woman are objects, there only to satisfy desire. But can you blame him? Every time he attempts a real relationship he is utterly out of his depth and of course they end badly. This analyzation of relationships is striking if you compare them to contemporary problems within relationships.
The second thing we see as viewers is a different tone (much like the entire film) when it comes to sexual attitudes between Americans and those of Europeans. Their exists a frankness, an openness to sexual attitudes for Europeans. It is evident both in this film and The 400 Blows. The casual feel to Charlie's relationship to Clarisse, the cavalier attitude towards woman displayed by the men. American films to this day cannot deal with sexuality in the same manner, and it has been fifty years since this film was released. The film is ahead of itself compared to the American films the French New Wave directors revered and emulated.
This emulation of American films by men such as Truffaut is a potent forerunner to what would later be recognized as traits of postmodern films. Postmodern films operate using a wide array of techniques among them a pastiche of many previous films and genres, a self reflexive quality which resides within the film and the ultimate tribute, a direct homage to the films they loved. Truffaut brilliantly pastiched together different genres within this film, crafting a melodrama with a gangster film. He places elements of a noir styled film next to comic moments. The film becomes self reflexive at various moments, particularly when Charlie covers Clarisse's naked breasts because"that's they way they do it in the movies". And the film is Truffaut's tribute to the many B level American films he loved so much.
As I slowly work my way through Truffaut's work, I get more fascinated with the depths to which his films reside themselves in. I highly recommend this film, as long as you know to watch the film knowing the film will leave you guessing. And asking more questions after each viewing.
TO BE OR NOT TO BE (Ernst Lubitsch, UA, 1942)
In our contemporary society due to political correctness and a continual dumbing down of our comedy, scathing satire and intelligent humor have become relics of an older age. Today's audiences have films such as The Hangover Part 2 (Todd Phillips, Warner Bros., 2011) to hang their comedic hat upon. Good films such as Bridesmaids (Paul Feig, Relativity Media, 2011) are often a surprise but then they turn into over marketed hype machines. If you want to see scathing satire, intelligent humor and marvelous acting go back and watch a film such as To Be or Not to Be (Ernst Lubitsch, United Artists, 1942) and you will see that the comedy genre is just not what it once was.
This film is filled with some supremely timed comic moments. It's writing is top drawer, filled with comedy but also skewering Nazi Germany and the profession of acting at the same time. The performers are all extremely talented as actors and the films stars are amazing. Carole Lombard proves why she was the highest paid star in Hollywood at the time and Jack Benny is simply great. And what about the great Ernst Lubitsch? Often overlooked, Lubitsch always imbued his films with style and grace, elegance and class. The "Lubitsch touch" is on display throughout this entire film. I recommend watching this film to anyone, it is that good!
This film is filled with some supremely timed comic moments. It's writing is top drawer, filled with comedy but also skewering Nazi Germany and the profession of acting at the same time. The performers are all extremely talented as actors and the films stars are amazing. Carole Lombard proves why she was the highest paid star in Hollywood at the time and Jack Benny is simply great. And what about the great Ernst Lubitsch? Often overlooked, Lubitsch always imbued his films with style and grace, elegance and class. The "Lubitsch touch" is on display throughout this entire film. I recommend watching this film to anyone, it is that good!
PAPILLON (Franklin Schaffner, Columbia, 1973)
I often watch and write about classic films because to me they are a passion. Like a good book, films that stand the test of time can be digested again and again, always with the hopes of discovering something new. I like to write about them because I have this crazy notion that my eternally younger friends may see something I write and in turn it would spark an interest for them. Some classics are automatic inclusions to to any list of must see films and should be watched by all. Others, like PAPILLON (Franklin Schaffner, Columbia, 1973) are only for the most die hard of cinephiles.
I am not sure why I chose to watch this film. Often I receive recommendations and many times I read books on film which sparks an interest for me to watch a film. I don't remember why I was interested in watching PAPILLON other than Steve McQueen. McQueen is the quintessentially cool actor. When it comes to acting though I feel he often gets disregarded as more of a star. In the title role for this film, McQueen shines. He gives an amazing performance as the indefatigable Papillon and his performance carries one of the themes of the film, that of a human spirit which cannot be broken or defeated. I know McQueen struggled early on in his career, many doubting his ability as an actor and this role reminds me of his struggle. When he shouts "you bastards, I'm still here", I can almost envision him growling at a producer or director.
McQueen also establishes a great rapport with his co-star Dustin Hoffman. What a great pairing of the two for this film. Unlike McQueen, Hoffman has long been considered a great actor, not just a star. Again unlike McQueen, I don't think Hoffman has ever been given any kudos for being "cool". So the dichotomy between the two works, and they make a great film duo within the narrative.
If I have a problem with the film it is with the narrative. There are many dull moments in the film, and it really stretches about a half hour too long. There are entire sections with which I was left wondering why what I had just seen was in the film at all. The entire sequence with the natives in Honduras is a good example. The strength of the narrative lies in it's condemnation of an antiquated penal system, one that was basically a death sentence to all those sent to Devil's Island.
One final moment sticks out to me personally and raises a great question. In the middle of one of Papillon's stints in solitary confinement he of course starts to hallucinate. He imagines he is back in France and he is facing is judge and jury again. He demands of them that he is innocent and the judge agrees. But the judge goes on to say that he is guilty of a crime, the crime of wasting one's life! Realizing his crime, Papillon turns away and returns to the reality of his cell. This is a powerful statement and one that applies to me personally. The time given to us is short, and we are not promised anything. Do with your time what you will, just make it count. When all is said and done, this is what I will take away from PAPILLON.
I am not sure why I chose to watch this film. Often I receive recommendations and many times I read books on film which sparks an interest for me to watch a film. I don't remember why I was interested in watching PAPILLON other than Steve McQueen. McQueen is the quintessentially cool actor. When it comes to acting though I feel he often gets disregarded as more of a star. In the title role for this film, McQueen shines. He gives an amazing performance as the indefatigable Papillon and his performance carries one of the themes of the film, that of a human spirit which cannot be broken or defeated. I know McQueen struggled early on in his career, many doubting his ability as an actor and this role reminds me of his struggle. When he shouts "you bastards, I'm still here", I can almost envision him growling at a producer or director.
McQueen also establishes a great rapport with his co-star Dustin Hoffman. What a great pairing of the two for this film. Unlike McQueen, Hoffman has long been considered a great actor, not just a star. Again unlike McQueen, I don't think Hoffman has ever been given any kudos for being "cool". So the dichotomy between the two works, and they make a great film duo within the narrative.
If I have a problem with the film it is with the narrative. There are many dull moments in the film, and it really stretches about a half hour too long. There are entire sections with which I was left wondering why what I had just seen was in the film at all. The entire sequence with the natives in Honduras is a good example. The strength of the narrative lies in it's condemnation of an antiquated penal system, one that was basically a death sentence to all those sent to Devil's Island.
One final moment sticks out to me personally and raises a great question. In the middle of one of Papillon's stints in solitary confinement he of course starts to hallucinate. He imagines he is back in France and he is facing is judge and jury again. He demands of them that he is innocent and the judge agrees. But the judge goes on to say that he is guilty of a crime, the crime of wasting one's life! Realizing his crime, Papillon turns away and returns to the reality of his cell. This is a powerful statement and one that applies to me personally. The time given to us is short, and we are not promised anything. Do with your time what you will, just make it count. When all is said and done, this is what I will take away from PAPILLON.
Monday, October 3, 2011
THE CAINE MUTINY (Edward Dmytryk, Columbia, 1954)
Humphrey Bogart is widely considered the greatest male star Hollywood has ever produced. I've seen all of his major hits yet it wasn't until I watched THE CAINE MUTINY ( Edward Dmytryk, Columbia, 1954) that I understood just how truly great Bogie was. With the role of LCDR. Phillip Queeg, Bogie displays a sublime vulnerability that stretches beyond performance. To me its as if Bogie is baring his soul, allowing us to see real pain, real emotion. And this role drives THE CAINE MUTINY entirely. In fact without Bogie's portrayal this film becomes just another piece of 50's fluff propaganda, serving to stoke a post war euphoria and rehabilitate an industry damaged by an ongoing struggle with it's identification with liberalism and suspected communist ties.
Coming at the end of his career, the role of Queeg suits Bogie perfectly. Queeg is the crusty veteran, having served his country well and faithfully through years of war service. He is the ideal American man, never complaining, always doing his duty and sticking by the book. But much like Bogie himself, the cracks are starting to show. Within three years of the films release Bogie was gone and one could say to by the end of the court-martial so to was Queeg. But this is where Bogie's portrayal is sublime. His vulnerability and anguish make him relatable, they allow his audience to feel with Bogie/Queeg and though he plays the crusty old hard liner, we empathize. I've always maintained that great acting allows audiences to empathize with characters regardless of deed or brutality. Bogie playing Queeg is a perfect example of this. It is easily the best performance I have ever seen from Bogie.
Also playing a role that transcends what audiences expected of him is Fred MacMurray in the role of LT Keefer. Slimy and backstabbing, self serving to the end, LT Keefer is an excellent villain. Admittedly I have never read the Herman Wouk novel which is the source of the film but it's twist on the title at the end of the film is very intriguing. I want to know if Keefer truly is the author of THE CAINE MUTINY, and only by reading the novel will I be able to figure that one out.
One thing I can determine is that at the time of the films release the film is an obvious propaganda piece for the U.S. Military. There is extensive use of actual war footage within the film and most assuredly there is a pro-military slant to the films overall message. With the director being one of the infamous Hollywood Ten, I wonder if this was his shot at redemption, his way of rejoining the industry he obviously loved. I guess I have more reading to undertake, figuring out just who Edward Dmytryk was and why he made this film.
The final thing that really impresses me with this film is a rather simple one. I love when I am watching an older film for the first time and as I'm watching I see elements or entire sections of more contemporary films throughout the text I am viewing. CRIMSON TIDE (Tony Scott, Hollywood Pictures, 1995) and A FEW GOOD MEN (Rob Reiner, Castle Rock, 1992) are two excellent films yet after having seen THE CAINE MUTINY they will never be the same. How can I look at COL. Jessup (Jack Nicholson) or CAPT. Ramsey (Gene Hackman) without seeing Bogie playing Queeg? And this solitary fact drives home to me finally just how great Bogie was. Nicholson and Hackman are two of the very best ever to work in Hollywood, yet they owe something to Bogie. He was truly a great!
And so I must ask, what is your favorite Bogie role, and why?
Coming at the end of his career, the role of Queeg suits Bogie perfectly. Queeg is the crusty veteran, having served his country well and faithfully through years of war service. He is the ideal American man, never complaining, always doing his duty and sticking by the book. But much like Bogie himself, the cracks are starting to show. Within three years of the films release Bogie was gone and one could say to by the end of the court-martial so to was Queeg. But this is where Bogie's portrayal is sublime. His vulnerability and anguish make him relatable, they allow his audience to feel with Bogie/Queeg and though he plays the crusty old hard liner, we empathize. I've always maintained that great acting allows audiences to empathize with characters regardless of deed or brutality. Bogie playing Queeg is a perfect example of this. It is easily the best performance I have ever seen from Bogie.
Also playing a role that transcends what audiences expected of him is Fred MacMurray in the role of LT Keefer. Slimy and backstabbing, self serving to the end, LT Keefer is an excellent villain. Admittedly I have never read the Herman Wouk novel which is the source of the film but it's twist on the title at the end of the film is very intriguing. I want to know if Keefer truly is the author of THE CAINE MUTINY, and only by reading the novel will I be able to figure that one out.
One thing I can determine is that at the time of the films release the film is an obvious propaganda piece for the U.S. Military. There is extensive use of actual war footage within the film and most assuredly there is a pro-military slant to the films overall message. With the director being one of the infamous Hollywood Ten, I wonder if this was his shot at redemption, his way of rejoining the industry he obviously loved. I guess I have more reading to undertake, figuring out just who Edward Dmytryk was and why he made this film.
The final thing that really impresses me with this film is a rather simple one. I love when I am watching an older film for the first time and as I'm watching I see elements or entire sections of more contemporary films throughout the text I am viewing. CRIMSON TIDE (Tony Scott, Hollywood Pictures, 1995) and A FEW GOOD MEN (Rob Reiner, Castle Rock, 1992) are two excellent films yet after having seen THE CAINE MUTINY they will never be the same. How can I look at COL. Jessup (Jack Nicholson) or CAPT. Ramsey (Gene Hackman) without seeing Bogie playing Queeg? And this solitary fact drives home to me finally just how great Bogie was. Nicholson and Hackman are two of the very best ever to work in Hollywood, yet they owe something to Bogie. He was truly a great!
And so I must ask, what is your favorite Bogie role, and why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)