While THE IRON LADY (Phyllida Lloyd, Weinstein Co., 2011) tells the story of two distinct Margaret Thatchers, the film itself has two really distinct qualities when judging it on its merits. The narrative concerning Margaret Thatcher (Meryl Streep) deals with her rise to power as well as her tenure as Prime Minister. The other side of this narrative is an elderly Thatcher stricken by and dealing with dementia. The film splits between the excellent with Streep's portrayal of Thatcher and the superficiality of the balance of the film. When everything is finished, the film leaves you wanting more.
More is exactly what we want to see of the great Meryl Streep. Easily the most Academy nominated actor ever, she is in my opinion the greatest actress we have seen on film. The way she inhabits roles, subverting herself to fully envelope the part is just a wonder to watch. She embodies Margaret Thatcher, across a vast age range. Where she is most remarkable though is as the older Thatcher, suffering from dementia and attempting to come to grips with her diminished capacities. The best thing an actor can accomplish is to make you empathize with a character particularly when they are at their worst. As Thatcher berates one of her cabinet members towards the end of her term as Prime Minister we know she is starting to become ill. But our knowledge doesn't make her reprehensible and uncivilized behavior okay. And this is where Streep is remarkable. Because she fully embodies Thatcher and as an audience we have stopped thinking of her in any capacity other than Thatcher, we lose that disconnect and completely and totally relate to her as Thatcher. Her work is nothing short of remarkable.
Unfortunately the inimitable Meryl Streep wasn't doing everything else for the film. The film struck me as very similar to a movie of the week. Extremely superficial the film makes points for hitting the high points of Thatchers tenure as Prime Minister. But at the same time it would have you believe that the Falklands conflict was the high point for Thatcher and her major accomplishment as PM. Neither does the film delve into any real depth of character regarding Thatcher and her motivations other than being a woman in a male dominated world. And the unspoken pink elephant in the narrative is her unbelievable parallels to Ronald Reagan. A closer look at both politicians and their respective legacies as well any insight into the fracturing of their minds would have added so much to the film.
In the end the film is just too much of a clash of styles. The film could have a serious tone but too often stylistic choices are made which don't mix with such a tone. This might be a reflection of the fracturing of Thatcher's mind, it might be representative of a Great Britain in a state of turmoil. Either way these choices didn't work for me as a viewer. And in the end these choices make it near impossible for Meryl Streep to even overcome, at her best or not.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
SPEED (Jan DeBont, 20th Century Fox, 1994)
Almost twenty years after its release I recently re-watched SPEED (Jan DeBont, 20th Century Fox, 1994) and was struck by how much my perceptions of the film have changed. Some good changes, some bad but the realization of how much my movie watching tastes have, shall we say matured, is striking. The film is still damn good, a non stop action thrill ride but those perceptions. Hmmm.
I remember anticipating SPEED and being really hyped to see the film. I am fairly certain I saw it in the theaters at least twice. You had a great premise, Keanu Reeves was just starting to rise as a movie star (I am an unapologetic Keanu fan), the promise of Dennis Hopper and a trailer full of great action. And the film didn't disappoint. The film plays out at a breakneck pace, transitioning from one action sequence to the next. The rest and recover moments for the audience are few and far between and even those are loaded, so the rise and fall of tensions is slight. More like ramped up and left at a high level. The narrative to the film was plausible enough. Keanu is great as Jack Traven and Hopper does a good turn as the insane Howard Payne. Even Sandra Bullock was cute and bubbly and a nice complementary piece to Keanu's Jack.
Ah but times have changed. The narrative not only suspends disbelief it shatters it. How did a young me ever buy into a bus loaded with passengers jumping an unfinished section of freeway? A 50 foot section at that. Or that this same super bus, driven buy a passenger would careen around curves and turns throughout Los Angeles? Also, and this is strictly a qualm for a Los Angeles resident, how they get from downtown, to the west side and back to Hollywood and all over town without traffic being a constant concern is truly mind boggling.
Next the writing. Shall I say not superb? I understand writers seeking to be authentic and attempting to keep their dialogue grounded in reality. Then what the hell was the "pop quiz" routine all about? Maybe to annoy its audience. There are other spots of inane dialogue but it is an action film, I guess I should expect it. Keanu is good but I was really disappointed in all of the other actors. Jeff Daniels is always great, but here he seemed asleep. Bullock was good, not great. And Dennis Hopper? A little over the top.
The action sequences and stunts hold up fairly well and two things stood out as outstanding. As the films titles roll at the beginning of the film they do so following an elevator as it travels down the elevator shaft. Just a really cool idea to place the camera there, and that leads me to the second thing. The cinematography was really good with constant placement of cameras in unexpected places. When I see the camera being maneuvered like this it always shows me thought and creativity.
SPEED is still a really good film, a great action vehicle and one of Keanu's best. Wonder what it will look like in twenty years.
I remember anticipating SPEED and being really hyped to see the film. I am fairly certain I saw it in the theaters at least twice. You had a great premise, Keanu Reeves was just starting to rise as a movie star (I am an unapologetic Keanu fan), the promise of Dennis Hopper and a trailer full of great action. And the film didn't disappoint. The film plays out at a breakneck pace, transitioning from one action sequence to the next. The rest and recover moments for the audience are few and far between and even those are loaded, so the rise and fall of tensions is slight. More like ramped up and left at a high level. The narrative to the film was plausible enough. Keanu is great as Jack Traven and Hopper does a good turn as the insane Howard Payne. Even Sandra Bullock was cute and bubbly and a nice complementary piece to Keanu's Jack.
Ah but times have changed. The narrative not only suspends disbelief it shatters it. How did a young me ever buy into a bus loaded with passengers jumping an unfinished section of freeway? A 50 foot section at that. Or that this same super bus, driven buy a passenger would careen around curves and turns throughout Los Angeles? Also, and this is strictly a qualm for a Los Angeles resident, how they get from downtown, to the west side and back to Hollywood and all over town without traffic being a constant concern is truly mind boggling.
Next the writing. Shall I say not superb? I understand writers seeking to be authentic and attempting to keep their dialogue grounded in reality. Then what the hell was the "pop quiz" routine all about? Maybe to annoy its audience. There are other spots of inane dialogue but it is an action film, I guess I should expect it. Keanu is good but I was really disappointed in all of the other actors. Jeff Daniels is always great, but here he seemed asleep. Bullock was good, not great. And Dennis Hopper? A little over the top.
The action sequences and stunts hold up fairly well and two things stood out as outstanding. As the films titles roll at the beginning of the film they do so following an elevator as it travels down the elevator shaft. Just a really cool idea to place the camera there, and that leads me to the second thing. The cinematography was really good with constant placement of cameras in unexpected places. When I see the camera being maneuvered like this it always shows me thought and creativity.
SPEED is still a really good film, a great action vehicle and one of Keanu's best. Wonder what it will look like in twenty years.
PARADISE LOST 3: PURGATORY (Joe Berlinger and Bruce Shinofsky, HBO Documentary Films, 2011)
A good documentary makes its audience aware of its subject. It brings a consciousness to its viewer while it also raises questions within that person. No matter where you might fall on the side of an issue, a good documentary makes you realize there are two sides. Such is the case with a documentary I recently watched; PARADISE LOST 3: PURGATORY (Joe Berlinger and Bruce Shinofsky, HBO Documentary Films, 2011). My initial visceral reaction was quickly replaced by a quiet pondering of what I had just seen. I wanted to know answers to the questions I was raising to myself and those questions the film had given me. Most importantly the film had moved me, struck a chord inside me. It left me thinking so many things I had to write them down.
How can such a brutal crime still take place? Three young boys, all bright kids with their lives in front of them, dead. What was the motive of the killer? If the West Memphis 3 are innocent, who the hell did this heinous crime? If I had a child, what would I do if someone perpetrated a crime like this on my son?
How awful must the parents feel? These sons were the pride and joy of these parents. How cruel to have them taken away. One of the mothers makes a statement to the effect of "why give me eight years with my son only to take him from me"? I have to agree with that sentiment, in a way. What about these seemingly despicable stepfathers? Chris Byers appears to have turned a corner but has there ever been a looser cannon? Maybe so if you add Terry Hobbs into the mix. And Hobbs doesn't appear innocent at all. With the release of the WM3, why isn't there a pursuit into finding answers? Or is everyone involved at the point where letting the crime fade into the past the best thing to do? Will there ever be closure to this crime?
How do the WM3 re-establish themselves into society? Do they face continual death threats? Have they had to change their identities? What of the lives they lost in prison? James Baldwin mentioned in the press conference after his release that he was innocent and didn't want the Alford plea. Yet he did it for Damien Eccols. How does he feel today, admitting guilt? Was it worth it? And what a selfless act.
What about the role the police, the district attorney and the judge played in this travesty? Do they have guilt at night? Knowing they more than likely sent three innocents to prison for 18 years? Do they realize they look incredibly inept to the rest of the world?
What about the sensationalistic nature of the case? The role of the mob and the carrying out of a modern day mob justice? The absolute conviction of the accused before they went to trial. What about the role satanism played in the court of public opinion? I know this is the heart of the bible belt but geez, it was 1993. Not 1560.
How dedicated were Berlinger and Shinofsky? Twenty years, three documentaries. Incredible devotion. How about the others involved in getting the WM3 free? The lady that married Eccols? You can't write a screenplay this juicy with as many shocking twists and turns and life shattering revelations.
Finally, what does the film say about us as a society? How does it reflect us? Looking critically shows a picture of a society devoid of its moral compass. Sensationalism and mob mentality reign. As long as people are sated and happy, no problems exist. How can we have such a brutal crime basically being unpunished. People involved with this case do and say anything in front of the camera. The people involved show the worst of what we have become; uneducated, morally bankrupt, extremely narcissistic.
A powerful film.
How can such a brutal crime still take place? Three young boys, all bright kids with their lives in front of them, dead. What was the motive of the killer? If the West Memphis 3 are innocent, who the hell did this heinous crime? If I had a child, what would I do if someone perpetrated a crime like this on my son?
How awful must the parents feel? These sons were the pride and joy of these parents. How cruel to have them taken away. One of the mothers makes a statement to the effect of "why give me eight years with my son only to take him from me"? I have to agree with that sentiment, in a way. What about these seemingly despicable stepfathers? Chris Byers appears to have turned a corner but has there ever been a looser cannon? Maybe so if you add Terry Hobbs into the mix. And Hobbs doesn't appear innocent at all. With the release of the WM3, why isn't there a pursuit into finding answers? Or is everyone involved at the point where letting the crime fade into the past the best thing to do? Will there ever be closure to this crime?
How do the WM3 re-establish themselves into society? Do they face continual death threats? Have they had to change their identities? What of the lives they lost in prison? James Baldwin mentioned in the press conference after his release that he was innocent and didn't want the Alford plea. Yet he did it for Damien Eccols. How does he feel today, admitting guilt? Was it worth it? And what a selfless act.
What about the role the police, the district attorney and the judge played in this travesty? Do they have guilt at night? Knowing they more than likely sent three innocents to prison for 18 years? Do they realize they look incredibly inept to the rest of the world?
What about the sensationalistic nature of the case? The role of the mob and the carrying out of a modern day mob justice? The absolute conviction of the accused before they went to trial. What about the role satanism played in the court of public opinion? I know this is the heart of the bible belt but geez, it was 1993. Not 1560.
How dedicated were Berlinger and Shinofsky? Twenty years, three documentaries. Incredible devotion. How about the others involved in getting the WM3 free? The lady that married Eccols? You can't write a screenplay this juicy with as many shocking twists and turns and life shattering revelations.
Finally, what does the film say about us as a society? How does it reflect us? Looking critically shows a picture of a society devoid of its moral compass. Sensationalism and mob mentality reign. As long as people are sated and happy, no problems exist. How can we have such a brutal crime basically being unpunished. People involved with this case do and say anything in front of the camera. The people involved show the worst of what we have become; uneducated, morally bankrupt, extremely narcissistic.
A powerful film.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
THE AWFUL TRUTH (Leo McCarey, 1937, Columbia)
When it comes to a classic film like THE AWFUL TRUTH (Leo McCarey, 1937, Columbia), my writings and insights can provide very little to inform viewers. The directing won an Oscar for McCarey, the actors are brilliant; Grant and Dunne are two of the most lauded performers ever and Bellamy was nominated for Best Supporting Actor in the film. The writing is superlative and the film is a gem. Rather, I am just going to list three of my favorite moments from the film, in no particular order. Okay, as they happen in the film.
When Jerry (Cary Grant) invites himself and Dixie Belle Lee (Joyce Compton) to sit and have a drink with Dan (Ralph Bellamy) and Lucy (Irene Dunne) what proceeds is pure comedy. The couples make small talk and then Dixie goes onstage and does her routine. As the other three wince at the not so subtle nature of Dixie's routine, you almost have to wonder are they really laughing, barely able to hold in what is obviously a very funny moment? Next, Dan explains to Lucy how much he loves to dance and insists (with Jerry's help) on taking her to the dance floor. Jerry's delight as Dan prances around the dance floor with a horrified Lucy is great, but when he offers a tip to the maitre'd to have the song played again AND then the encore comes, is just a truly funny moment. I love Cary Grant with this smugness to him, Dunne's faces are tremendous and Bellamy plays the yokel to great effect. So good.
The next moment involves much of the same roles from the three characters. Jerry is at Lucy's apartment when Dan pays a visit. Hiding Jerry behind the door, Lucy is in a bad position when Dan insists on a kiss. Who couldn't sympathize with Lucy at this point, knowing she doesn't want Jerry being a party to this. We have the added benefit of seeing Jerry behind the door, ever so smug. And then, Jerry starts with the pencil. Lucy's laugh each and every time is awesome and it just takes the scene up each time Jerry prods her with the pencil. Bellamy hits the man in love perfectly, confessing his heart with total love. Again, great scene.
Finally we see Jerry get his comeuppance for all his glee at Lucy's expense. Towards the end of the film there are a series of sequences in which a supposedly drunk Lucy makes life rather difficult for Jerry. Dunne is spectacular, mockingly reprising Dixie's routine as well as causing general mayhem for all involved. And to see the tables turned on smug Jerry finally makes it possible for them to come together again.
This film is truly one of the best screwball comedies. It is lighthearted and funny and full of moments that are unforgettable. I love this film so much. If you have never seen it, please do, it is well worth it.
When Jerry (Cary Grant) invites himself and Dixie Belle Lee (Joyce Compton) to sit and have a drink with Dan (Ralph Bellamy) and Lucy (Irene Dunne) what proceeds is pure comedy. The couples make small talk and then Dixie goes onstage and does her routine. As the other three wince at the not so subtle nature of Dixie's routine, you almost have to wonder are they really laughing, barely able to hold in what is obviously a very funny moment? Next, Dan explains to Lucy how much he loves to dance and insists (with Jerry's help) on taking her to the dance floor. Jerry's delight as Dan prances around the dance floor with a horrified Lucy is great, but when he offers a tip to the maitre'd to have the song played again AND then the encore comes, is just a truly funny moment. I love Cary Grant with this smugness to him, Dunne's faces are tremendous and Bellamy plays the yokel to great effect. So good.
The next moment involves much of the same roles from the three characters. Jerry is at Lucy's apartment when Dan pays a visit. Hiding Jerry behind the door, Lucy is in a bad position when Dan insists on a kiss. Who couldn't sympathize with Lucy at this point, knowing she doesn't want Jerry being a party to this. We have the added benefit of seeing Jerry behind the door, ever so smug. And then, Jerry starts with the pencil. Lucy's laugh each and every time is awesome and it just takes the scene up each time Jerry prods her with the pencil. Bellamy hits the man in love perfectly, confessing his heart with total love. Again, great scene.
Finally we see Jerry get his comeuppance for all his glee at Lucy's expense. Towards the end of the film there are a series of sequences in which a supposedly drunk Lucy makes life rather difficult for Jerry. Dunne is spectacular, mockingly reprising Dixie's routine as well as causing general mayhem for all involved. And to see the tables turned on smug Jerry finally makes it possible for them to come together again.
This film is truly one of the best screwball comedies. It is lighthearted and funny and full of moments that are unforgettable. I love this film so much. If you have never seen it, please do, it is well worth it.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer
I believe that if a film doesn't crack any of the gluttonous amount of top film lists often that film becomes overlooked. There are many such films and these films have great merit and value. Truly the only way to discover them is to make lists such as one of mine (watching every Cary Grant film) and then just checking them off one by one. Such is the case with THE BACHELOR AND THE BOBBY SOXER (Irving Reis, RKO Pictures, 1947). The film doesn't stand out as a timeless classic but there is just enough done within it to make it a really fine film.
Maybe the fact that the film follows pretty generic and formulaic studio standards holds it back. The pacing of the film is tedious by today's standards which would turn off even the most diehard of cinephiles. It is formulaic, meaning utterly predictable. The action (and acting, more later) is stiff throughout the film although there are some truly hysterical moments. That said, the film works because it lays out what it's intent is immediately, sticks to it closely and accomplishes what it wants.
The accomplished Cary Grant also helps to set this film to a higher standard. In today's saturated "celebrity universe", where true stars don't exist as they once did to see a star such as Grant is utterly captivating. Grant had a very rare ability to overshadow everyone else on screen. Myrna Loy and Shirley Temple were huge stars in their own right, yet every time Grant is on screen you barely notice anyone else. Now that could be his persona or maybe his acting ability. In this film, he again does what I feel to be his best performing, comedic turns. When Cary Grant allowed his persona to slip, to be made fun of a little this is when his work was total genius. And there are moments in this film which he lets this happen, like when Dickie (Grant) and Tommy (Rudy Vallee) compete in the events. Grant plays the total object of comedy and it is wonderful.
Interestingly I was not very struck by either Loy or Temple. In particular the role of Susan Turner (Shirley Temple) should have been a transitional career one. A huge child star, Temple couldn't adjust to adult roles and it shows in her performance. Whether it was her performances or audiences not wanting to see her grown up, this is not a great role for her. And Loy lags in comparison to Temple, not coming close to her excellent performances as Nora Charles in THE THIN MAN series.
The film does capture excellence in its writing and the screenplay won the Oscar that year. Written by Sidney Sheldon (yes that Sidney Sheldon) the narrative is really striking. Written today it would cause controversy and I can only imagine how it was viewed in 1947. Dealing with a younger woman being in love with an older man this plot touches on some tried and true Hollywood tropes. The older man/younger woman has been a Hollywood staple for years, in front of the camera in casting and behind the scenes on the casting couch. A social stigma has existed through the years regarding this coupling, even through today. For Sheldon to write about this topic at the height of the studio period, when the code was its strongest and before a film like LOLITA had even entered a young Stanley Kubrick's mind is amazing. The Oscar was surely deserved.
This film will be hard for contemporary audiences to view, unless you are a die hard cinephile who is willing to watch anything. I loved it so what does that tell you about me?
Maybe the fact that the film follows pretty generic and formulaic studio standards holds it back. The pacing of the film is tedious by today's standards which would turn off even the most diehard of cinephiles. It is formulaic, meaning utterly predictable. The action (and acting, more later) is stiff throughout the film although there are some truly hysterical moments. That said, the film works because it lays out what it's intent is immediately, sticks to it closely and accomplishes what it wants.
The accomplished Cary Grant also helps to set this film to a higher standard. In today's saturated "celebrity universe", where true stars don't exist as they once did to see a star such as Grant is utterly captivating. Grant had a very rare ability to overshadow everyone else on screen. Myrna Loy and Shirley Temple were huge stars in their own right, yet every time Grant is on screen you barely notice anyone else. Now that could be his persona or maybe his acting ability. In this film, he again does what I feel to be his best performing, comedic turns. When Cary Grant allowed his persona to slip, to be made fun of a little this is when his work was total genius. And there are moments in this film which he lets this happen, like when Dickie (Grant) and Tommy (Rudy Vallee) compete in the events. Grant plays the total object of comedy and it is wonderful.
Interestingly I was not very struck by either Loy or Temple. In particular the role of Susan Turner (Shirley Temple) should have been a transitional career one. A huge child star, Temple couldn't adjust to adult roles and it shows in her performance. Whether it was her performances or audiences not wanting to see her grown up, this is not a great role for her. And Loy lags in comparison to Temple, not coming close to her excellent performances as Nora Charles in THE THIN MAN series.
The film does capture excellence in its writing and the screenplay won the Oscar that year. Written by Sidney Sheldon (yes that Sidney Sheldon) the narrative is really striking. Written today it would cause controversy and I can only imagine how it was viewed in 1947. Dealing with a younger woman being in love with an older man this plot touches on some tried and true Hollywood tropes. The older man/younger woman has been a Hollywood staple for years, in front of the camera in casting and behind the scenes on the casting couch. A social stigma has existed through the years regarding this coupling, even through today. For Sheldon to write about this topic at the height of the studio period, when the code was its strongest and before a film like LOLITA had even entered a young Stanley Kubrick's mind is amazing. The Oscar was surely deserved.
This film will be hard for contemporary audiences to view, unless you are a die hard cinephile who is willing to watch anything. I loved it so what does that tell you about me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)