THE BREAKFAST CLUB (John Hughes, Universal, 1985)

THE BREAKFAST CLUB (John Hughes, Universal, 1985) is quite simply the best teenage/high school film ever, besting even REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE (Nicholas Ray, Warner Bros., 1955). For me this claim is staked solely in the complete and entirely accurate representation of all cliques within high school life. Whereas REBEL covers a smaller segment, TBC covers them all. As the five teenage characters narrate at the films end; the brain, the jock, the princess, the freak and the criminal truly do represent the primary categories within high school life. And Hughes captures each clique magnificently with his casting of each character.

Each character is cast very well, and their corresponding performances are all good. Brian (the brain, Anthony Michael Hall) is excellent as he loses it to the group over his failed shop experiment and even more so as he realizes these new found friendships will not be there come Monday. Allison (the freak, Ally Sheedy) is memorable for not saying much and letting her actions speak for her. Can your teeth not hurt as she eats a pixie dust/captain crunch sandwich? Something we all would have loved to have done as a child?

And then there is Claire (the princess, Molly Ringwald). Totally and completely a bitch, who didn't have the awesome chance to listen to someone similar rave about her popularity? Or Andy (the jock, Emilio Estevez) as he talks about his offense and actually breaks down? But of the kids this film belongs to John Bender (the criminal, Judd Nelson). Nelson gives the performance of his career as the troubled Bender, coping with a destructive home life, a high school life that is going nowhere all while being a kid that probably has no idea who he is. A great performance is turned in by Nelson, hitting all the facets of his character perfectly.

The film's narrative has some holes that must be explained. Like why does Vernon (Paul Gleason performing intensely) stop checking on the students in lieu of drinking with Karl (John Kapelos)? Or, as Andy screams breaking the glass in the library, why is there no repercussions to this? So yes there are some serious holes in the films narrative, but the deeper journey it's characters undertake and it's uniquely comical moments more than make up for it. And the films theme song, the ultimately eighties song "Don't You Forget About Me" by Simple Minds is absolutely brilliant and totally identifiable to the film. One cannot be thought of without the other. Great film.

SOME LIKE IT HOT (Billy Wilder, United Artists, 1959)

Another one of my all time favorites, a film that has been written about endlessly. Here are the things I love about SOME LIKE IT HOT (Billy Wilder, United Artists, 1959);

I love Osgood (Joe E. Brown). This man literally steals every scene he is in. Dancing with Daphne (Jack Lemmon), chasing Daphne into the elevator, walking drunkenly to his dinghy, everything he does is perfect. But his best comes last as he utters the line "nobody's perfect". No better way to finish the best comedy ever written than with that line.

I love that this is the best comedy ever written and I love that man who wrote it. The characters are rich, the dialogue witty and sharp. Not a line gets wasted, not a scene is a throwaway. Everything is wrapped tightly in a neat little package from start to finish. Many talk of the "Lubitsch touch" but I definitely believe there is also a "Wilder touch". All of his films are filled with his sensibility, his panache. Its my understanding Wilder came here unable to speak English and taught himself by spending time on the streets listening to people. If this is true it is obvious in all his writing, for every film.

I love that they explode the gangster genre into a comedy. Way before films exploded genres fully in the late sixties and seventies, this film was at the front. Poking fun at the seriousness of the gangster genre and it's characters. A lead guy named "Spats"? Are you kidding me? And impeccably played by George Raft.

How about that main cast? Let's start with Tony Curtis. Here you have a man who turns in an iconic performance basically portraying his idol Cary Grant. It speaks volumes for Grant and Curtis both. Try watching this film then watch a Grant film. The performance by Curtis is eerie! And who wouldn't be able to pull off that performance next to the great Marilyn?

And Marilyn as Sugar Kane is out of sight. Three scenes stand out. In her first appearance on screen, that walk in the train station. When she sings her number on the train to Florida. But she is outta sight as she vainly tries to turn a frigid Shell Jr. warm on his yacht. When Curtis has to take off his glasses to wipe off the steam, you know Marilyn is doing her job.

But the captain of the ship, the man who drives everything is the inimitable Jack Lemmon. Both as Jerry and then even more so as Daphne, there is not a more impeccably great comedic performance on screen, ever. Try watching Daphne's dancing scene with Osgood or the scene when Daphne returns with Osgood's proposal without stopping and re-watching them due to how gut- bus tingly funny they are. And they are purely driven by Lemmon. Amazing performance.

I love that fifty years before gay marriage became a prominent social issue, before the rise of LGBT movements, this film tackled taboo topics and turned them on their heads. This film was released in the fifties and look at the topics it covers? Two men pose as women? One of them decides to wed another man? Brilliantly, there is a moment when Joe and Jerry have a conversation and Joe says "why would a guy want to marry another guy"? So incisive and insightful, fifty years ahead of it's time.

This is one of my all time favorite films, one that everyone should watch, it's that good!

THE GETAWAY (Sam Peckinpah, First Artists, 1972)

Every now and then I get a spectacular treat as a cinephile. Today I got to see THE GETAWAY (Sam Peckinpah, First Artists, 1972) and was completely on the edge of my seat, blown away by the gratuitous amounts of violence Peckinpah is known for and the incredible on screen pairing of Ali MacGraw and the stellar Steve McQueen. The film is from the reactionary phase of the modernist film period and there are so many explosions of conventions in regards to classical cinema as to make the film overwhelming. This film, like so many others from this same timeframe, are amazing pieces of work and some of my personal favorites.

Always one of my favorites is the great Steve McQueen. McQueen definitely benefitted from the time he rose to prominence, as his persona as the anti-hero wouldn't have worked in previous periods. He is so antagonizingly cool, I absolutely believe that if he were around today he would be the worlds biggest film star. But beyond that cool veneer is a sensitivity that I think helps people relate. Like here in the role of Doc, you can see the pain that underlies his actions. As Doc is confronted with his wife's infidelity and deals with it through the films second act, every action has that exquisite pain. Audiences identify with McQueen because we have been through what he has.

And that identification is furthered by a very specific and palpable chemistry between MacGraw and McQueen. Whether it is the roles they are playing in the film, or maybe the burgeoning romance that was happening between the two on set, there is a fire between the two that is just remarkable. Maybe it's the nice dichotomy that the two fulfill. MacGraw as the innocent girl next door, McQueen as the cool bad boy sweeping her away. Whatever it is, it works exceptionally well.

Also working exceptionally well is the great Sam Peckinpah. His work has some amazing qualities and you can still see his influence in work being down today, particularly in a film like DRIVE (Nicolas Winding Refn, 2011). The ongoing dichotomy between Peckinpah's extremely still frames and shot compositions to his explosions of violence makes for a remarkable tension for his audience. How can you not be on the edge of your seat throughout the film if extreme violence can explode at any second? This quiet simplicity from his shots and compositions, as well as his extended use of long shots gives his films a very western feel, essentially making the film a modern day western. Though his film becomes a western, he destroys the myths of the genre with his violent anti-hero, gratuitous violence and an ending in which his protagonist gets away with his crimes.

Among other things that are striking in the film is Peckinpah's great use of sound and a nice score by Quincy Jones. Also, the role played by Sally Struthers is completely out of left field. The role, which I would call very "Jennifer Tilly-esque", except for the fact that obviously Tilly patterned her role after Struthers. It's just amazing to see Struthers as she is in this film. Completely against everything we have come to know her for now.

Also against what we have come to know are some very funny moments throughout the film. Forty years has changed so much. Like Doc carrying a shotgun everywhere he goes, in broad daylight as a wanted man. Or the six Texas bad guys rolling to meet Doc in a huge Cadillac with amazing ten gallon hats. Most striking is the ending though, because here we see a paradigm shift in American consciousness. Opposite of classical cinema, we now root for the anti-hero. The man who murders and robs gets away in the end, and that is a huge shift for us as a viewing public. It gives the film a different feel, and it changes they way we as a society react to our films. Great film, a must see for any McQueen fan!

ALADDIN (Ron Clements and John Musker, Disney, 1992)

As much as I absolutely loved BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (Trousdale and Wise, Disney, 1991) I cannot say the same about ALADDIN (Ron Clements and John Musker, Disney, 1992). I had two major problems with this film. The first is that in 1992 Hollywood still cannot get past it's stumbling feet and still puts out a film that blatantly uses stereotypes and racial profiling in its release of a film. Now I know that the film is animated and supposed to be fun, but it's a children's film. And when Hollywood releases something of this nature it further positions and strengthens these stereotypes to yet another generation of American children. The film positions Arab and middle eastern people as savages, as backwards and uneducated, as believers and practitioners in magic and sorcery. It paints their culture as backwards in regards to familial and gender roles and relationships. Hopefully one day soon films like this will not be so culturally accepted.

My second problem was probably also it's greatest source of amusement to most audiences and that is the character of Genie (Robin Williams). Williams is energy and freneticism personified and I believe him to be a supreme talent. Yet his over the top act did not mix for me in this film. If you are going to set a film in the Arabian Nights period, you do not mix in jokes denigrating homosexuals, again further establishing stereotypes and slurs.

The biggest difference between these two films (and I watched them back to back) is that I was delighted watching BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and about halfway through ALADDIN is that I hadn't once smiled or laughed. Such a dichotomy.

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, Disney , 1991)

If you know my film tastes, you know that I am not much of a fan of animated films. To me they are typically heavy handed morality tales and they employ the use of stereotypes and cliches to tell their story. To my great surprise though, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, Disney, 1991) is quite entertaining and not once did I feel my usual prejudices against animated film.

The film does follow the traditional fairy tale narrative and is of course a morality tale when all is stripped away. Unlike most animated films though, this morality isn't pushed down out throats in a heavy handed way. The narrative plays itself out without any forced feeling. I liked the characters of Belle and the Beast and all of the supporting characters worked. I did notice that of the supporting characters not one is more featured than the rest, and this might be a reason why I didn't feel such a heavy handed push. To me it is often these characters which are not used deftly as they push the agenda to the main characters and this is what tends to give me pause in regards to these films.

And a deft touch is used throughout this film skillfully by it's directors. The shot composition is elegantly reminiscent of German Expressionism and the art direction hearkens back to the early days of horror films. I loved watching the scenes in the Beast's accursed castle. And though this film is animated (and cinematography should not be a category) there were some definite movements with the camera that left me genuinely impressed. Trousdale and Wise did an amazing job and obviously know their film history.

The final really great thing about the film was it's beautiful songs. Of course the title song by Angela Lansbury is great but Gaston's song in the tavern was remarkable. Just listening to the lyrics made me laugh, so intelligently written.

I'm not much of an animation fan, but this film easily zooms to the top of my personal list of animated films in which I do love.

IN NAME ONLY (John Cromwell, RKO, 1939)

Why is is that certain stars fade from our memory while others linger more firmly? This is what I ask myself after watching IN NAME ONLY (John Cromwell, RKO, 1939). I ask myself this because this film is maybe the second or third film I have seen with Carole Lombard as the female lead and it puzzles me why she isn't remembered quite the same way as other great stars of her time. She was just as big as any star from the era, made many memorable films with her playing amazing roles. But many more people remember Katherine or Audrey Hepburn. They know Monroe or Dietrich. It seems that Lombard is forgotten some and for me this is a shame.

Because IN NAME ONLY she shines like no other. From the very first shot of the film as she clumsily fails at fishing we are captivated by her amazing grace, subtle beauty and an innate likability that resides within her and her performances. She is beautiful, though not overly so and she definitely resembles the theories archetype of femininity. She holds herself with style and grace, much like the later Audrey Hepburn and I feel there exists to an ease in which we relate to her, adding to her charm. And her performance in this film is really good, matching all they way with her two co-stars.

Cary Grant and Kay Francis co-star in the film and both give tremendous performances. Grant, always the gentlemen we all aspire to be, gives his normal top class. There is not a role he does that doesn't exude his persona (although his best roles are his comedic ones). And Kay Francis is spectacular as the jilted wife Maeda, struggling to remain in a marriage of status, all she desires in life. Her performance is cunning and ruthless, cold and aloof all at the same time.

The narrative to the film is quite good. It is romantic and endearing; at times funny and of course it hits the methodology of a romantic comedy quite well. I compare it favorably to LOVE AFFAIR (Leo McCarey, RKO, 1939) and can only surmise that the often interminable sadness which accompanies that film makes it so it is remembered more romantically when compared to IN NAME ONLY. One is just as good as the other, to me.

SHE DONE HIM WRONG (Lowell Sherman, Paramount, 1933)

When I watch a film from decades past that I haven't seen before, I often come away with a sense of awe at just how much has changed in our world. SHE DONE HIM WRONG (Lowell Sherman, Paramount, 1933) is a great example of such a film. Obviously there are great cinematic changes, from the quality of the acting to technical details such as editing, cinematography and sound. One of the co-stars to the film, the great Cary Grant, is remarkably young and looks much different then the Grant we later became accustomed to. This film though belongs to Mae West and here is where the difference between 1933 and 2011 are most apparent.

First, let's look at West herself. Her physicality and sexuality are what made her a sensation but what struck me while watching is the fact that she would have difficulty achieving such status today. She is a big girl, she has curves. In today's anorexic at all cost society a girl of such size has a much harder time rising to such prominence. Much like Marilyn Monroe twenty years later, West exudes extreme sexuality with everything she does on screen from the double entendres to the way she moves through the frame or in how she deals with men. To these two, men are toys to be played with at leisure.

Also striking me is the role of Lou (West) and how she is such a dominant female figure. Set in the 1890's she controls all in her realm and she does so with her sexuality. For a woman exert such control in contemporary film she either must be a bitch or a shrew. Rarely does sexuality meet cunning in powerful female representations on film which helps make West role even more powerful. Though one thing hasn't changed and that is how Lou succumbs to a strong male character in the end as he saves her from harm. Nice to see that Hollywood believed a woman needed a man ultimately way back then too.

I really liked this film. Mae West was a revelation as was such young Cary Grant. The film is rather short, which makes viewing much easier. Definitely a must see at some point if you love film as I do.

ONCE UPON A HONEYMOON (Leo McCarey, RKO, 1942)

This film revolves around the pairing of two of the biggest stars of the studio era, Cary Grant and Ginger Rogers. And other than these two, this film really provides nothing memorable. The narrative is rather stiff and disjointed. The best technical quality is the score as it is very beautiful. Grant and Rogers though make this two hour film a breeze. Grant is his suave and debonair best and Rogers always looks great. Both of their personas shine, and both give nice performances even though they do not have much to work with.

THE DESCENDANTS (Alexander Payne, Fox Searchlight, 2011)

It's the most wonderful time of the year, no not Christmas but Oscar season. A great list of films awaits me and one of the ones I was most eagerly anticipating was THE DESCENDANTS (Alexander Payne, Fox Searchlight, 2011). It has an acclaimed director as well as one of my favorite actors and being from Fox Searchlight you know the story has to be good right? Yet I came away from the film not feeling this picture was worthy of a Best Picture nod, something it is being pushed towards.

My biggest problem with the film lies in the narrative for the film. The story is fresh and poignant, and it definitely tugs the heartstrings. But that starts my issues with it. I feel the narrative is overburdened and heavy handed. It throws a few too many things into it's mix and this gives the film a cumbersome effect which kills the pace and flow. There is too much going on within this narrative. You have Matt King (George Clooney) dealing with his wife's injury and impending death, his discovering her affair, his pursuit of his wife's lover, the transaction of selling the family trust and the attendant pressures from that sale and finally two daughters which he is alternatively incapable or ineffectual at dealing with. As a result of all this, the film has an inherent sadness which feels forced. The film also feels extremely manipulative. The film travels from sad event to sad event to sad event. It's too much.

With that said, there is some really good work in this film. The cinematographer Phedon Papamichael is one of the best working at his craft today. The film is beautiful, easily aided by shooting in Hawaii of course. But Papamichael finds beauty in the simplest of shots and also creates some shots that just amaze. As Elizabeth's parents visit her for the final time in the hospital they are spied on by Matt. Papamichael's work here is sublime, as he captures Robert Forster simply and with touch and feel. One of the moments in the film that worked most effectively. And Alex Payne also puts in his usual standard of great and amazing work.

Great and amazing describe fully the star of the film, George Clooney. And make no mistake, this film is entirely driven by Clooney. A subtlety exists to Clooney, this innate ability to convey such range of emotion simply by just being himself. As Papamichael let's the camera linger on his face for long stretches, so much is said without any dialogue. And George is so damn good looking yet still remains a man that the average guy can identify with, one to emulate and admire simultaneously.

I liked this film, just didn't feel it was as strong as I expected. I will say there weren't many dry eyes in the theatre, so make sure to take the tissues.

PERSEPOLIS (Satrapi and Paronnaud, Sony, 2007)

Every now and then I learn about a film which was released a few years before and It intrigues me for whatever reason. Then when I watch it, I don't understand how this amazing piece of work was not more universally recognized, or maybe more properly commercially viable. After seeing PERSEPOLIS (Marjane Satrapi and Vincent Paronnaud, Sony, 2007), I have just such a feeling. How did this movie slide by me? It is one of the best films of the last five years yet I missed it? More so, I had never even heard of it until recently. I don't know whether to be more ashamed at myself for not knowing about it or for the viewing public as a whole for not making this a more well known film. I absolutely loved this film and here's why;

I love Satrapi's adaptation of her graphic novel and the choice of how to stylize the film. By using animation I feel Satrapi takes the edge of the tone of the film, softening it and making it more palatable to it's audience. The tone of the film is rather dark and cloistered and animation opens it up, allows it freedom for joyful moments. And the choice to present the film primarily in black and white allows for the starkness of the films narrative to be presented in a manner befitting it's subject matter. Symbolically it seems the Iranian regime that takes over is itself rather black and white, much like the film.

I really like the narrative Satrapi presents and how she conveys so many life lessons without forcing her hand with her audience. It would be rather easy to be heavy handed with such intent, but Satrapi employs a particularly deft touch here. At various moments we learn to be proud of who we are regardless of what others may think or say; we also learn that our heritage and country are proud markers of who we are not only collectively but individually. We live in a rather patriotic country, where inherent patriotism is seemingly part of our essence. This is good but it allows us to forget that other countries and people more than likely believe the same about themselves. But most importantly is the message of being true to yourself. At the end of the day, your job, your life, there is one person you are accountable to and that is yourself. Satrapi teaches these lessons to little Marji with style and grace, effortlessly and elegantly, and through Marji to us.

The final thing that impresses me is the depiction of Iran, the Iranian Revolution, the Iraq-Iran war and the installation and reaction to the rise of prominence of the new Islamic Regime in Iran. Here in the west, mainly due to a biased media, our perception of Iran and other Islamic countries is despicable. They are not blood thirsty war mongering people whose only desire is our death. They are people much like us, who want the freedoms and chances to live their lives the way they choose, the way they see fit. The Iranian Revolution is an event of historical import that has always fascinated me, from the second we had hostages taken through today. Yet my perception of the country and it's people has only evolved due to my interactions with many friends whose families hail from the region and country. To me this is sad as I am a highly educated person who needs this kind of interaction to open my eyes. It is no wonder that others carry prejudice and opinions that are uninformed and ignorant. I did, for many years.

In the end this is just a marvelous film, one that I recommend to everyone. It can be informative as well as instructive and at the same time funny and insightful. I love it and it is one of those films I will recommend to everyone.

MIDNIGHT EXPRESS (Alan Parker, Columbia, 1978)

A couple weeks back I had an audition for a show called LOCKED UP ABROAD. The show focuses on an individual who has been arrested somewhere around the world usually for attempting to smuggle narcotics in or out of the country. It has been thirty three years since the release of MIDNIGHT EXPRESS (Alan Parker, Columbia, 1978) and while obviously many have never seen nor heard of this film, how anyone could not know not to smuggle drugs on their person mystifies me. This film captures the very essence of why such activity might be some of the dumbest a person can undertake, especially if you are American in another country.

The stupidity of such actions not withstanding, the film captures the differences between our American culture and that of other countries quite well. The most striking difference lies in the value placed on human life and then the quality that life is afforded. When Billy Davis (Brad Davis) is thrown into the Turkish prison he is confronted with a myriad of lessons on what his status is within the prison walls as well as what limits he will endure in regards to the human condition he is accustomed to. Governed by the sadistic Hamidou (Paul Smith), Hayes is subjected to an endless array of degradations. Torture, starvation and sensory deprivation are just some of the standard treatments Hayes is subjected to for what Americans would deem innocuous offenses. Grabbing a blanket to keep warm gets Hayes severely beaten, providing him with a limp he carries throughout his term in prison.

The performance by Brad Davis as Hayes is captivating and thoroughly committed. The level of his commitment is best exemplified at the end of act two, as Billy is visited by his girlfriend Susan (Irene Miracle). Having been locked in the mental ward as well as not having seen a woman in five years, Davis gives a courageous and touching moment simply by pleasuring himself through the glass partition. As Susan walks away Billy carries on and it is this moment that sparks his awakening and leads him to his escape and survival.

Among the other great performances in the film are those of Max (John Hurt) as a deranged drug addicted inmate and the aforementioned Hamidou (Smith). Smith really provides a performance which he seemingly relishes and his Hamidou is one of those characters that should scare people straight.

Technically the film does an excellent job in production design capturing the interior of the prison. The best production aspect is that of the score. At least three to four times in the film the score matches the films visuals brilliantly, adding a surrealistic feel to a Turkish prison, one in which unspeakable atrocities are a daily occurrence and where survival is dependent on either a drug induced haze or succumbing to the basest of human instincts. If you don't come away from this film knowing to never break the law, I'm not sure you can be helped.

NIAGARA (Henry Hathaway, 20th Century Fox, 1953)

Knowing a little about the history of film, particularly when it comes to each specific period, it is always striking to me when I watch a film from the early fifties. Fresh from the Paramount decision and struggling mightily to regain audience to combat television, the methods used by the studios around this time are always quite apparent. With a film like NIAGARA (Henry Hathaway, 20th Century Fox, 1953) you see this methodology right from the start of the film.

As television got started it had two major drawbacks when compared to film. The screen was minuscule by comparison and what was viewed on that screen was black and white. So the studios came up with technologies like Technicolor and CinemaScope and they slowly wore down walls of censorship that had existed for years. Within the first ten minutes of NIAGARA we see all three methods in use. The colors provided by Technicolor are rich and striking, vibrant and full. And while the film did not use a technique like CinemaScope, the cinematography for the film is vast and expansive, taking in incredible shots of Niagara Falls and it's attendant beauty. And soon thereafter we are treated to a lush and beautiful Marilyn Monroe, always sultry and seductive but in this opening shot, inviting as she has ever been seen onscreen.

And Marilyn, if she is anything, is pure sex. The opening shot of her in the film finds her in bed (albeit in a twin bed, a fifties signature) with a very obvious "nothing" between her and the bedsheets. Still not quite the icon she would become or even the feminine ideal of her time, her sex during this films release had to blow standards away. And Hathaway does a remarkable job in balancing decency (battling censors) and displaying her in a way which is provocatively suggestive. And her character belies one of the films major themes, which is that underlying sexuality in fifties America. I have written before on this topic but the sexual subtext for America during this decade was palpable in every piece of culture we examine today.

Forgotten in today's disposable world is the great Joseph Cotten. Not suave and debonair like Cary Grant, never the grandfatherly Jimmy Stewart, not even the everyman that Bogie represented, Cotten still is a tremendous actor. He has this ability in his roles to be that average Joe yet to still be able to infuse his portrayals with a menacing foreboding. He portrays that darker side of us, the one we all pretend doesn't exist. If you get the chance try to catch some of his films, particularly SHADOW OF A DOUBT (Alfred Hitchcock, Universal, 1943) or THE THIRD MAN (Carol Reed, Selznick Pictures, 1949) and you will not be disappointed. Spend a day of it, watch all three films I mentioned in this post. You won't regret it!

THE IDES OF MARCH (George Clooney, Columbia, 2011)

In the Shakespearean play, Julius Caesar was warned "to beware the Ides of March". In history as he walked to the Senate, Julius Caesar was told by a seer a second time of his impending doom on the day and yet Caesar marched onwards to his impending doom. In the recently released film THE IDES OF MARCH (George Clooney, Columbia, 2011) no such doom awaits any of it's characters. What does march onwards to it's doom is the metaphorical death of idealism, trampled by the political machinations and maneuvering behind the scenes during a campaign. It is this death, symbolized with the characters of Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) and Mike Morris (George Clooney) that gives the film a sublime message, and for me an unexpected one at that.

The narrative to the film is excellent. It is a fascinating (although I am unaware of the accuracy) look into the machinations of a campaign and this glimpse is afforded us without any specifically overt political messages. This is utterly refreshing as the temptation exists to sub textually infuse the narrative with just such a message. Throughout the film the dialogue is outstanding but the moments without dialogue work just as, if not more effectively. And the character arcs, particularly for Meyers and Morris are full and rich. Both travel the road from idealist to corrupt conformist and the films representation of politics as the ultimate tool of corruption is paramount to giving the narrative such excellence.

Also striking to me is work that George Clooney accomplished as a director combined with the efforts of his cinematographer Phedon Papamichael. There exists a stillness to this work, a quiet subtlety that allows the visuals of the film to carry the work. A good example of this is when Morris succumbs to Meyers pressure and fires Paul (Philip Seymour Hoffman). We don't know what Morris has decided to do leaving the previous scene and Clooney elects to show Paul coming out onto the street and asks him to enter his vehicle. Then, we see only the vehicles, with no dialogue. We know what is being said, we don't have to hear it and this is just beautiful work. As Paul exits the vehicle, his performance tells us all that was said inside the truck.

Achieving this stillness requires good shot composition and also serves to lend weight to the moment. It is a tonal shift for Mike Morris as well as the film as a whole. It is the moment when he is abandoning his principles (although his dalliance with the intern could be seen as the same). Clooney and Papamichael both chose to place the camera in some very interesting places, creating shots that were de-centered and off kilter, adding to the effect that something wasn't right with our narrative or our characters.

And the characters in this film were all cast spectacularly. George Clooney is always good and Evan Rachel Wood is so adult finally. Hoffman and Paul Giamatti are two of the best in the business today but in the end this film belongs to Ryan Gosling. There is a quiet intensity to him, giving you the feeling that he is always ready to explode, that something is about to burst forth, scripted or not. This has been a banner year for Gosling and he is really coming into his own.

George Clooney chose to do a few other things which I love. First, the ending is ambiguous. You want to know what happens to these characters, but Clooney leaves it open for individual interpretation. Does Stephen Meyers crack and turn on Mike Morris? Does the scandal come out on Governor Morris? Leaving it open and ambiguous is great filmmaking. Finally, Clooney keeps the film tightly timed at under two hours, a refreshing change of pace in contemporary Hollywood. I think this film was excellent and is proving Clooney and Gosling to be at the top of their respective games.

THE PINK PANTHER (Blake Edwards, United Artists, 1964)

Through the magic of new technologies such as DVR's and brilliant stations such as TCM I have the great fortune to be able to see films like THE PINK PANTHER (Blake Edwards, United Artists, 1964). And while this is really cool, for me it can be somewhat problematic in that I will watch it over and again, and soon I have to force myself to delete it off my DVR. I watched this film four times before deleting it and if I hadn't deleted it how many other times I'd have watched, I don't know.

I am also going to begin trying something new for my blog. I've realized that with many of the classic films that I watch, two things strike me. One, many people today haven't seen the film, never heard of the film or just couldn't care any less about the films I love. The other realization is that many of these films have been written about or discussed endlessly. So for films like THE PINK PANTHER, ones I've seen countless times, I'm going to just write less formally, and focus on the things I truly love in that film. Obviously the more I write, the more beloved a film is to me. And maybe my musings will spur others to watch. So what do I love about this film....

Let's start at the beginning. I love the title sequence. Animated, we get two wonderful things. The Pink Panther character which everyone knows and loves and we get the great score from Henry Mancini. Both have become iconic and the music particularly is just contagious. It's been rattling around inside my head for two weeks now, but since I love it so much, not one bit of that matters to me.

Let me not forget Meglio Stasera (It Had To Be Tonight). I love this song. Placed throughout the film, particularly as Sir Charles (David Niven) chases Princess Dala (Claudia Cardinale), it is catchy and romantic at the same time. But what really sends the song over the top is the performance of the song in the middle of the film. Performed by Fran Jeffries, she is sultry and seductive and adds the spice to the number. But watch the film. During this sequence just keep your eyes on Clouseau (Peter Sellers). The man is amazing. You will be dying from laughter as he just destroys it. Him dancing, with a seriousness that just screams comical.

And here is the film and franchise all in one man, Peter Sellers. The franchise has become so universally loved that many don't realize the Clouseau character is not the main character in these films until the later films. It is because Sellers absolutely STEALS every scene he is in.

The bedroom scene. Ridiculous. As Simone (Capucine) struggles valiantly to keep Jacques and his amorous advances at bay, the comedy just flows. Jacques with the blanket, the sleeping pills, the Stradivarius, Simone's cold feet, Jacques with the milk. All of it endless comedy and all done so simply; one set, actors who can act, no special effects and comedy that is pure and funny, no toilet humor or vulgarity. And the filmmakers make use of sound and visual design brilliantly. As Jacques gets the sleeping pills all we hear if the offscreen sound of pills spilling on the floor and then his feet crunching them. Just amazing, and funny as hell!

What about the driving sequence in the town square? How many times has this sequence been emulated, even outright copied? When Sir Charles and George (Robert Wagner) stop in the middle of the square, both in gorilla suits and discuss what to do, look at the older Italian gentleman. Just priceless. And let's not forget the scene right before at the costume party, where Jacques (in full armor, visor down) starts a fireworks show, all the while shouting "Tucker, Tucker"!

Speaking of Sir Charles and George Lytton, what a pair of remarkably cast actors. Sir David Niven and Robert Wagner epitomize early 60's suave and debonair men. Niven has upper crust charm just oozing from his pores and Wagner is Hollywood drop dead handsome. And what of their counterparts Capucine and Claudia Cardinale. Both just beautiful and elegant, the four take us back to a more glamorous era in Hollywood, when stars could be idolized for their onscreen work, not "being just like us".

This brings me to an interesting thought I had while watching the film. This film was released pre sexual revolution and it can easily be seen as a portent of things to come. Capucine kisses three different men in this film yet is a married woman. The Lytton boys think nothing of sexual conquests and Princess Dala is teased by Sir Charles as being "the Virgin Queen", an Elizabethean taunt. Not to mention the portrayal of Clouseau as the only forthright member of working class society, a man constantly frustrated sexually in his advances towards his wife. I'm sure a whole paper can be written on this subject, a fascinating one at that.

This whole film is fascinating to me, one worth watching over and again. While it has more comedy than A SHOT IN THE DARK, overall I'd rate it a little lower for overall quality. Still, a comedy masterpiece, and I thank my parents for having had me watch this many times when I was growing up.

THE NOTEBOOK (Nick Cassavetes, New Line, 2004)

There are times when the entire world seems to be against you, and if this happens to a moment when the world is against you being in love with someone it makes life that much more agonizingly cruel. These same people, at most turns every bit as rational and reasonable as any person, will do things completely against their character. And they will do these things for love. So it is with the love story you have between Allie Hamilton (Rachel McAdams) and Noah Calhoun (Ryan Gosling) in THE NOTEBOOK (Nick Cassavetes, New Line, 2004). Theirs is a simple love story, often similar to a modern day Romeo and Juliet. And with this film you get exactly that. Simple and predictable, nothing earth shattering.

The narrative for the film is rather predictable, from the incessant clues placed within the narrative to overtly placed iconography throughout the films production design (seriously, did they have to make every thing worn by McAdams and Rowlands red to beat into us that they were the same character?) The story follows the basic tenets of the traditional love story. Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, love brings them together again (usually against all odds). The problem for me with this film is that this narrative is forced upon us, and we are severely manipulated into feeling. Compare the narrative of this film to the brilliantly refreshing one offered in 500 DAYS OF SUMMER (Marc Webb, Fox Searchlight, 2009). THE NOTEBOOK doesn't even come close in regard to Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber's amazingly updated take on the classic mythology of the genre.

What is amazing in this film is the job put forth by it's cast. Ryan Gosling has so much talent, and plays characters with such unusual mannerisms and intensity that every time he is on the screen he places you on the edge of your seat, prepared for anything. To me, he is what Brad Pitt used to be, back before he became BRAD PITT. With a huge 2011 my hope for Gosling is that he doesn't become too big of a star and lose all the quirkiness and likability which helps to make him so endearing.

His co-star in the film actually manages to steal the film out from under him. Rachel McAdams plays Allie Hamilton with such energy, vitality and just the right amount of uncertainty that it is easy to see her sitting in her dressing room, rehearsing, trying to decide if she wants Noah (Gosling) or Lon (played with oozing charm by James Marsden). Her performance as Allie, particularly as she decides between the two men, is the singular moment where the narrative leaves it's predictable shell.

It was also really great to see two veteran actors giving heartfelt performances, and Gena Rowlands and James Garner really help propel the film. Long a favorite of mine, James Garner offers up a portrayal that seemingly adds to what Gosling accomplishes.
And Rowlands is very good as the dementia stricken older Allie, floating in and out of a reality that no longer exists for her character. Their touching end is a deft touch and honestly a neat little spin on the Romeo and Juliet ending.

Formally the film is done quite well. The set design allows you to float back to a charming south and the directors decision to fill his screen with rich and bold colors throughout give the film added depth and dimension. The score is rather complementary and obviously adds emotional tone and weight.

My problem with this film probably lies in the fact that I waited eight years after it's release to see it. Years of hearing fans talk about it's emotional weight and the film itself becoming a signpost for being the ultimate "chick flick" built it up within my mind before the film has even started. As I watched I steadily prepared myself for something drastically sad to happen, and when that event never materialized there was an obvious disappointment. Also, ultimately the film will be completely forgotten within weeks. There is no iconic scene, no memorable lines or scores. Think of the great love story films over the years. You remember the end to CASABLANCA, the theme from LOVE STORY, even the haunting score and cinematography to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. This film just falls a little short, for me.

THE MALTESE FALCON (John Huston, Warner Bros., 1941)

The second half of my glorious film adventure was seeing the classic THE MALTESE FALCON (John Huston, Warner Bros., 1941). Like CASABLANCA before it, there is nothing I can write which tells anyone something new about this great film. So again, I'll just write what comes to mind for me, with no linear order or structured thought.

Humphrey Bogart is great as Sam Spade. In fact he is great period. AFI determined he is the greatest male actor of the twentieth century, and while I personally am a Cary Grant man and would also argue for Jimmy Stewart, the amount of iconic roles Bogie made is incredible. The iconic roles aren't the entire story with Bogie though. He defined a role for American males to admire and emulate, and his standard lasted longer than he did. The role of Sam Spade embodies this. Tough, never flinching, a ladies man when he wants to be, nothing gets to Sam Spade. The only way to stop him is to trick him as Kasper Gutman (Sydney Greenstreet) resorts to in the film. The only issue that doesn't hold up, for me, is this portrayal is rather over the top by today's standards. It's almost TOO much.

I love the cinematography in the film. To me, using natural light and keeping everything realistic in tone and mood is what the best films are about. When this is done correctly it almost feels as if the viewer is right amongst the characters within the narrative, living in the same spaces our heroes and villains are. But the great Arthur Edeson does another thing which I personally love. Taking a page from German Expressionism, he constantly changes the angles and positioning of his camera. He uses extreme angle camera placement as well as canted and oft-centered. Changing things from the norm give photography like this a freshness and vibrancy. I love it!

I have to admit I read this after watching but I love John Huston and the work he did directing this film. Extensively prepared he shot his script and allowed his actors time to do their work. And having seen many of his other works, you know he is truly a master at his craft.

I love true noir films. The darkness and the stark reality get me. The idea of the femme fatale strikes a chord. Honestly guys, who among us hasn't done completely foolish and reckless things for women, particularly those we know to be detrimental to us. DOUBLE INDEMNITY (Billy Wilder, Paramount, 1944) is the ultimate example of this. What Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) does for Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck) personifies what the femme fatale will do to a man. But noir films are dark and real and to me are a more accurate representation of what life is. And their rise through the forties is the perfect foil to the packaging the studios gave us during that period.

I love Peter Lorre as Coiro. I love the scene where he confronts Spade in his office and sticks a gun in his face not once but twice. I love that Lorre is smarmy and self serving, slick and cowardly. And I love that his face is not what Hollywood ever showed us during that period. He was different and that makes him stand out. And every time I see him, I want him to turn around so I can see if there is a chalk marked "M" on the back of his suit. Let's see who knows what I'm talking about there.

Finally I love that theaters like the New Beverly exist, and that stations such as TCM broadcast classics every day, and that DVR and Netflix exists so that cinephiles like me can get our fix!

CASABLANCA (Michael Curtiz, Warner Bros., 1942)

There is nothing I can write or say about CASABLANCA (Michael Curtiz, Warner Bros., 1942) that has not been endlessly done before. It is one of the best films ever made, it is critically acclaimed and universally loved. It's stars, story, songs, lines and essence have become iconic in our society and there are very few who haven't seen it. So after seeing it yet again the other day at a wonderful double feature at the New Beverly, I am just gonna write down some of the things I love best about the film.

I love Ingrid Bergman. She defines what a movie star was and should be. Simply beautiful and exceedingly elegant, her role as Ilsa Lund is understated and performed with passion. I defy anyone to watch her and not fall in love with her. The cinematography by Arthur Edeson in this film quite simply accentuates her in every possible way. When I watch this film I often find myself lost when she is on the screen.

I love Humphrey Bogart as Rick. Never a huge fan of Bogie, over the years I have come to appreciate the tremendous work our most popular actor displayed for us. Role after role becomes iconic with him. In CASABLANCA he defines the ideals of the American male during the war years. Full of stoicism and self sacrifice for the greater good, Rick sets a standard for all of us to aspire to.

I love Rick's Americain Cafe. What a remarkable place. As I watched yesterday I was struck by the thought of having a nightclub where dress was required. Dinner jackets and gowns, civility oozing out of every crevice in the establishment. Full of European taste and sensibility. I would be a regular at Rick's.

I love the writing and the dialogue. Watch the film again, maybe for the 10th or 23rd time. Catch things you have never heard before, laugh at lines and realize comedy exists where you hadn't previously realized. These lines have become iconic, known universally. Some are so big they are misquoted more than stated correctly. "Play it once Sam, for old times sake". Play it Sam. Play As Time Goes By".

I love As Time Goes By. The piano, the melody; it takes me to the era, to the time. It takes me to Rick's. It's haunting and romantic and can make you love and feel sad all at the same time.

I love the stellar cast. I love the fact that as a cinephile I know that Claude Rains (Capt. Renault) was also the villain in another personal favorite, NOTORIOUS (Alfred Hitchcock, RKO, 1946). Or that Conrad Veidt (Maj. Strasser) was the sleepwalker Cesare in that classic of German Expressionism, THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (Robert Weine, Goldwyn, 1919). Or that Peter Lorre (Ugarte) is creepy and fantastic every single time I see him in a film.

I especially love that there are moments in this film, no matter when I see it, that give me chills. The aforementioned scene when Ilsa directs Sam to play As Time Goes By. The entire airport sequence at the end of the film. Or when Viktor Laszlo (Paul Henried) directs the band at Rick's to play La Marseillaise and the entire club sings along (well, except the Nazis).

I will watch CASABLANCA anytime, anywhere. I have seen it at least twenty times and hope to see it another thirty. It is definitely on my short list of top ten films EVER.

THE FOOTBALL FACTORY (Nick Love, Momentum, 2004)

I am slightly obsessed with several things which are all rather easily explained. I love the beach, surfing and blondes. Easy to figure that out, I'm from Orange County. I love films and USC which has a lot to do with me attending the film school there. Unexplainably I have an ongoing love of England and particularly Premiership football. So when the film THE FOOTBALL FACTORY (Nick Love, Momentum Pictures, 2004) was recommended to me of course I immediately queued it up. And the film hardly disappoints. The narrative is based off the novel of the same name also by Love and I of course will be reading it shortly. While the film has it's shortcomings, primarily in a confusing narrative and dialogue and an extreme glorification of violence, it is entertaining as hell and raises some very intriguing social issues, particularly for England.

The film is made with a faux documentary style, which lends weight and importance to it's narrative. This style, using news footage and broadcasting, gives the narrative a "loosely based on" feel to it. These headlines are extremely believable, and the film itself could easily be something that any member of the warring factories could be filming as events unfold. The narrative needs this because if you are not a fan of premiership football then you will be extremely confused as to what is taking place and why. Adding to this confusion is the fact that every actor has a heavy British accent and the dialogue is written full of colloquialisms and slang. Also giving the film good local color is the characters within the narrative.

And each one of these characters is superbly portrayed. In fact, the portrayals of many of these characters also adds to the overall film and it's documentary style. Tommy Johnson (Danny Dyer) is remarkable. The protagonist to the film, he epitomizes what appears to be a lost generation of males in contemporary England. He works a dead end job, has no meaningful relationships with women and lives only to party on the weekends and watch football. A good life no doubt, but Tommy is facing the other side of thirty and social conventions implore him to move on.

And to me this is one of the most powerful aspects and messages of the film. The role of social conventions and constructs within our lives. Tommy has no prospects. He is uneducated and a member of a non existent work force. To maintain a lasting relationship with a women would require advances beyond his means. The only thing left for Tommy is to embrace that which he knows; his love of Chelsea football, drugs and casual sexual encounters and a fair amount of violent episodes. These releases come for Tommy as a way of coping. How can he be expected to live out life's social conventions when those particular doors are shut to him and his generation? And how exactly does the role of Tommy play into the ancillary character of England within the film?

England is represented in two manners within this film. There is the role of Tommy and his mates, the lost generation that believes their country has failed them and that what they were promised as children was all lies. The other half of England is the representation of the grandfather. Here is old England, proud and patriotic, yet still ready to move on. It is telling that the two grandfather characters never escape to Australia. The message is clear, there is no escape for these men, regardless of generation.

And for England to be represented as a character in such a manner opens up the ability for the film to show a side of England the world doesn't usually see. Here is a country that is economically struggling. There is, amongst it's youth, a general malaise and ambivalence towards life itself and the social and power constructs of the country. There is also wide spread drug use, creating a country apathetic towards it's situation. Does this sound like any country we might live in? Are we Americans destined towards a similar fate? I am sure that Mr. Love had no intent of his book or film being analyzed as such but the parallels to me are just very striking.

I loved this film, probably a little bit too much due to my English obsession. But anything that can have such an impact with social commentary is definitely a meaningful work, and I highly recommend this film to anyone. And lastly, no one cares about Chelsea football.

COCO BEFORE CHANEL (Anne Fontaine, Warner Bros., 2009)

One of the best things about contemporary film is that with the blossoming of the digital age and the ongoing ubiquity of film, film subjects have become as wide and varied as they ever have been. Viewing a film now gives you insight to subjects never before imagined, and with the explosion of availability of information one can easily learn so much more about the subject of a film. One recent such foray for me was to watch COCO BEFORE CHANEL (Anne Fontaine, Warner Bros., 2009). The Chanel name is ubiquitous in our society, really try to find someone that has never heard the name. So when the film was recommended to me I figured I'd give it a shot. And what I come away from this film with is a portrait of an amazingly strong woman, one that overcame so many obstacles yet persevered. An inspiration no doubt, but in a time with few good role models, one that should be held in much higher regard.

Gabrielle 'Coco' Chanel (Audrey Tautou) had the world against her. Abandoned to an orphanage at an early age, by young adulthood she is scratching out an existence in a world beneath respectable layers of society. It is a world that is not destined for someone of Chanel's social status to succeed in, and the fact she is a woman makes the odds even longer for her. Yet Tautou infuses the role (and character of Chanel) with strength and determination and an unyielding disdain for the excess and frivolity of her time. Often we forget that which our predecessors overcame in order that our lives should be bettered. Woman in general owe a debt to people such as Chanel. At the very least, some knowledge of her is necessary.

It is this knowledge of her world and the portrait the film creates that fascinates me. Chanel's views on marriage, disdainful at best, denied after the loss of her lover Boy Capel (Alessandro Nivola - a great role for him, he has that sly smile DOWN) are eye-opening when compared to many contemporary women and their view to marriage. The changes to social conventions, primarily in the expectations of females is also rather striking. When Chanel wanted to start her business, both Boy and Baron Balsan (Benoit Poelvoorde) offer to finance her, but merely with the intent to amuse her, never thinking once that anything substantial could come of such endeavors. And here is the question that hits me the most as I think about this subject. Have things changed tremendously, or have they really not? Appearances say so, but a deeper examination would definitely change the color of your perception.

This is a fascinating film, filled with beautiful costume design and overall art direction and production design. The performances are really good, with Audrey Tautou just capturing the essence of such a great feminine role model. Please, if you have a daughter, have her watch a film like this, to see what she is capable of not only becoming but capable of OVERcoming.