There are times when I get super busy and watching films gets put on the back burner. There are times when I'll have a particular film from Netflix for weeks, sitting by my TV collecting dust. I've had my copy of EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE (Stephen Daldry, Warner Bros., 2011) for weeks now and by coincidence happened to decide to watch it on 9-11. It wasn't until after watching it that I realized the date, so maybe there were some strange karmic energy going around that day. Regardless of when you watch the film it is a very fine film, obviously packed with emotion and feeling yet not too heavy handed. It has some good technical work and the acting is superlative. And still something put it in my head to watch it today.
Watching the film the first thing that strikes me is the quality of the narrative. Without relying on a heavy handed approach, the film follows Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn) as he attempts to cope with the loss of his father during the attacks. Oskar's journey is a painful one but one that must be taken. And the narrative to the film does his story justice, giving us a full and complete journey for our young protagonist. The character development for Oskar is outstanding and the supporting characters all add dimensions to the overall narrative. The writing is good, never heavy handed nor manipulative. The narrative proves strangely cathartic for the viewer, especially after so much time has passed. Everything about the writing for this film is superb.
The writing isn't the only superlative detail of the film. The performances turned in by the cast are all excellent and this all starts with Horn. The kid is a revelation, alternating between maniacally excitable to immature and petulant, oftentimes within the same scene. His relationship to his father Thomas (Tom Hanks) is realistic with genuine moments, like the scene where Oskar refuses to ride the swing. Some of the best scenes come when Oskar is with The Renter (Max von Sydow). Playing a mute, von Sydow is remarkable and the two share some touching screen moments. The rest of the cast is good in their roles from Viola Davis to Jeffrey Wright and Sandra Bullock. All of them turn in fine performances.
I have mentioned before that I particularly admire cinematography that is done in an unusual and innovative manner and this film has that. There are numerous interesting shots throughout the film, with the director and cinematographer (Chris Menges) placing their camera in some inventive and interesting places. Doing this gives the film character in my opinion and adds to the depth the fine acting and great narrative are already creating.
Stephen Daldry has created a nice film, one that has a subject matter that if not dealt with correctly could appear manipulative and forced. The film is powerful at times yet never heavy handed. At no time do you feel like your feelings are being pushed onto you. The film is a good way to let your feelings out, though watching it on the day I did may have had a factor in that. I really liked this film a lot and only wished I hadn't waited so long to view it. I highly recommend it to anyone!
Monday, September 17, 2012
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
HOLIDAY (George Cukor, Columbia, 1938)
I absolutely love it when I watch a film for the first time and become utterly captivated by seeing it. Then I marvel about how I could have went so long without knowing of its greatness. This is exactly how I feel about HOLIDAY (George Cukor, Columbia, 1938). The film is a revelation. It is smartly written with crisp dialogue and a narrative that doesn't feel stodgy or stale. The direction moves the film along brilliantly, keeping the film flowing at a brisk pace. And the casting and performances. With Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn you just simply can't go wrong. Add in great supporting roles and you have a fine film.
What makes this film particularly impressive is the examination it makes on our societal belief systems; what motivates us, our never ending pursuit and desire for money, our ideas on love, the values we associate with proper behavior. Both Johnny (Grant) and Linda (Hepburn) are idealists and as such in order to live their lives the way they see fit both must compromise. Johnny must forgo his dreams; he must succumb to societal pressures and become a promising young businessman. His dream, to live life to the fullest while he is young enough to enjoy it, is deemed "un-American" by his expectant father in law. Linda has made the simple mistake of loving the man engaged to her sister, except that her sister doesn't quite love Johnny. Still, she struggles with what she has been taught is the right thing to do and it isn't until near the end of the film she chooses to pursue her love.
The narrative to this film is daring in its attack upon what we have been conditioned or taught as the way to live our lives. Most of the films characters look down on our two protagonists and demeans their pursuits as frivolous. The narrative questions the validity of the belief that all must pursue the endless accumulation of wealth and it focuses a harsh light on the emptiness of that belief. Johnny and Linda are not characters often seen portrayed in film. I happen to love them and this film has instantly become one of my favorites.
One final thought and it concerns my favorite line from the film. Johnny is rejecting Julia (Doris Nolan) and Edward's (Edward Kolker) notions of what their married life will be. He says "if we begin loaded down with possessions and obligations we'll never get out from under them". A line uttered in a film almost seventy five years ago and a line which could be spoken to so many people today. It would be advice well heeded.
What makes this film particularly impressive is the examination it makes on our societal belief systems; what motivates us, our never ending pursuit and desire for money, our ideas on love, the values we associate with proper behavior. Both Johnny (Grant) and Linda (Hepburn) are idealists and as such in order to live their lives the way they see fit both must compromise. Johnny must forgo his dreams; he must succumb to societal pressures and become a promising young businessman. His dream, to live life to the fullest while he is young enough to enjoy it, is deemed "un-American" by his expectant father in law. Linda has made the simple mistake of loving the man engaged to her sister, except that her sister doesn't quite love Johnny. Still, she struggles with what she has been taught is the right thing to do and it isn't until near the end of the film she chooses to pursue her love.
The narrative to this film is daring in its attack upon what we have been conditioned or taught as the way to live our lives. Most of the films characters look down on our two protagonists and demeans their pursuits as frivolous. The narrative questions the validity of the belief that all must pursue the endless accumulation of wealth and it focuses a harsh light on the emptiness of that belief. Johnny and Linda are not characters often seen portrayed in film. I happen to love them and this film has instantly become one of my favorites.
One final thought and it concerns my favorite line from the film. Johnny is rejecting Julia (Doris Nolan) and Edward's (Edward Kolker) notions of what their married life will be. He says "if we begin loaded down with possessions and obligations we'll never get out from under them". A line uttered in a film almost seventy five years ago and a line which could be spoken to so many people today. It would be advice well heeded.
THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (George Cukor, MGM, 1940)
Easily one of the best films ever made and one of my personal favorites THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (George Cukor, MGM, 1940) cannot be praised enough. A true classic the film is a marvelously written one with great dialogue as well as a funny and romantic narrative. The cast may be one of the best ever assembled with everyone giving stellar performances. Being adapted from a stage play makes the film stagnant in setting but this is a minor knock on great work by George Cukor. Watching the film today leaves me with one very striking facet that cannot be ignored.
The facilitating vehicle bringing Mike (Jimmy Stewart), Liz (Ruth Hussey), Dex (Cary Grant) and Tracy (Katherine Hepburn) together is the desire of Spy magazine to get a first hand account of a socialites wedding. Now in this day and age this type of thing doesn't at all seem implausible or even far fetched, in fact it might even be expected. This role played by the tabloid press is an interesting one. At the beginning of the film Tracy complains of the indecency of such press and wonders how any decent and good person would succumb to such invasion of privacy. The tabloids are viewed as an intrusion and the characters of Mike and Liz despise their jobs but despair having to make money. Today this type of behavior is embraced, the cameras welcomed and the privacy of lives commoditized. This signifies a tremendous shift in the societal and moral directions this country has taken. A significantly sad one.
This shift can best be seen in analyzing stars. The stars of this film; Stewart, Hepburn and Grant were of the classical mold. Carefully tailored images, discreet private lives. Always leaving their homes as part of the bigger picture, never being photographed in less than detailed presentation. Contrast this to today's celebrity personas. It is as if everything done by these greats was tossed out the window as anachronistic and tired, useless in today's age of media over saturation. Watching a great film like THE PHILADELPHIA STORY takes you back to a different time and those short two hours let you relive things as they used to be if only for a little while.
The facilitating vehicle bringing Mike (Jimmy Stewart), Liz (Ruth Hussey), Dex (Cary Grant) and Tracy (Katherine Hepburn) together is the desire of Spy magazine to get a first hand account of a socialites wedding. Now in this day and age this type of thing doesn't at all seem implausible or even far fetched, in fact it might even be expected. This role played by the tabloid press is an interesting one. At the beginning of the film Tracy complains of the indecency of such press and wonders how any decent and good person would succumb to such invasion of privacy. The tabloids are viewed as an intrusion and the characters of Mike and Liz despise their jobs but despair having to make money. Today this type of behavior is embraced, the cameras welcomed and the privacy of lives commoditized. This signifies a tremendous shift in the societal and moral directions this country has taken. A significantly sad one.
This shift can best be seen in analyzing stars. The stars of this film; Stewart, Hepburn and Grant were of the classical mold. Carefully tailored images, discreet private lives. Always leaving their homes as part of the bigger picture, never being photographed in less than detailed presentation. Contrast this to today's celebrity personas. It is as if everything done by these greats was tossed out the window as anachronistic and tired, useless in today's age of media over saturation. Watching a great film like THE PHILADELPHIA STORY takes you back to a different time and those short two hours let you relive things as they used to be if only for a little while.
BRINGING UP BABY (Howard Hawks, RKO, 1938)
With a film as perfect as BRINGING UP BABY (Howard Hawks, RKO Pictures, 1938) there is not much insight I can give adding to the film. It is impeccably written, the casting and performances are all good, Hawks overall direction and pace to the film are exemplary and the film just makes you feel good about life. It is funny, romantic and watching it now takes one back so many years. Per my usual I will just list my favorite moments from the film, in no discernible order.
The golf course scene. Interesting to watch because this is the scene in Scorsese's THE AVIATOR in which Cate Blanchett does a great Hepburn. But in the film you see Susan (Katherine Hepburn) just owning David (Cary Grant). More specifically she tells him "you can't own everything, my golf ball, my car". I always say Grant is at his best when playing down his persona and this film is a great example. Hepburn gets the best of him from the start and it all begins right here. This continues later at dinner. Susan torments David yet it is always David's fault. "Oh you've torn your coat" as she chases him down. Poor Cary Grant.
I have long been a huge Grant fan but it is Hepburn herself that is starting to become a revelation to me. She is amazing in this role. Cute and coy, seductive and suggestive she is really great. The first instance I noticed this was as Susan tells David (upon hearing he is to marry) "why would you want to do that"? This moment is preceded by a laugh that is so infectious, so disarming how can anyone say no to it? Just an amazing moment in the film.
Later Susan really starts turning the screws on David as she gets him to first stop in at her apartment and then accompany her to Connecticut, all ostensibly to help her with Baby. Her feigned attack to get him to come over, her switching cars to avoid a ticket even pretending to be the local phone operator, repeating the time over and again. Susan is devilish in her pursuit and really does David ever stand a chance?
How can he stand a chance when she coos the line "you're so good looking without your glasses". Of course we all already know this but with Grant playing against type it works so well.
Susan tells everyone anything she can think of regarding David and who he really is and I love when he follows George (the dog) outside during dinner. On the third or fourth go around he is asked about his time on the Malay Peninsula. "I've never been to the Malay Peninsula" in a deadpan so spot on it hurts.
Even funnier moments occur as Susan and David hunt down George and Baby. Armed with a croquet mallet and a butterfly net they clumsily make their way around the countryside, getting further and further entrenched and falling more and more in love. By the time Susan lights David's socks on fire he doesn't even seem to be trying to fight her any longer. David is resigned to the fact he can't beat Susan, ever.
Finally the entire sequence in the local jail with Constable Slocum (Walter Catlett) is tremendous. The writing shines here, the timing is impeccable. Every member of the cast shows up and nails every beat, seemingly makes the scene about them. Even with brilliance shining all around the scene is still stolen by Susan as she becomes a gangster, adopting that James Cagney voice and busting herself out of the joint. I really cannot say enough about how amazing Hepburn is in this film.
The film is spectacular, funny as hell and such a joy to watch.
The golf course scene. Interesting to watch because this is the scene in Scorsese's THE AVIATOR in which Cate Blanchett does a great Hepburn. But in the film you see Susan (Katherine Hepburn) just owning David (Cary Grant). More specifically she tells him "you can't own everything, my golf ball, my car". I always say Grant is at his best when playing down his persona and this film is a great example. Hepburn gets the best of him from the start and it all begins right here. This continues later at dinner. Susan torments David yet it is always David's fault. "Oh you've torn your coat" as she chases him down. Poor Cary Grant.
I have long been a huge Grant fan but it is Hepburn herself that is starting to become a revelation to me. She is amazing in this role. Cute and coy, seductive and suggestive she is really great. The first instance I noticed this was as Susan tells David (upon hearing he is to marry) "why would you want to do that"? This moment is preceded by a laugh that is so infectious, so disarming how can anyone say no to it? Just an amazing moment in the film.
Later Susan really starts turning the screws on David as she gets him to first stop in at her apartment and then accompany her to Connecticut, all ostensibly to help her with Baby. Her feigned attack to get him to come over, her switching cars to avoid a ticket even pretending to be the local phone operator, repeating the time over and again. Susan is devilish in her pursuit and really does David ever stand a chance?
How can he stand a chance when she coos the line "you're so good looking without your glasses". Of course we all already know this but with Grant playing against type it works so well.
Susan tells everyone anything she can think of regarding David and who he really is and I love when he follows George (the dog) outside during dinner. On the third or fourth go around he is asked about his time on the Malay Peninsula. "I've never been to the Malay Peninsula" in a deadpan so spot on it hurts.
Even funnier moments occur as Susan and David hunt down George and Baby. Armed with a croquet mallet and a butterfly net they clumsily make their way around the countryside, getting further and further entrenched and falling more and more in love. By the time Susan lights David's socks on fire he doesn't even seem to be trying to fight her any longer. David is resigned to the fact he can't beat Susan, ever.
Finally the entire sequence in the local jail with Constable Slocum (Walter Catlett) is tremendous. The writing shines here, the timing is impeccable. Every member of the cast shows up and nails every beat, seemingly makes the scene about them. Even with brilliance shining all around the scene is still stolen by Susan as she becomes a gangster, adopting that James Cagney voice and busting herself out of the joint. I really cannot say enough about how amazing Hepburn is in this film.
The film is spectacular, funny as hell and such a joy to watch.
SYLVIA SCARLETT (George Cukor, RKO, 1935)
What do you do when you start watching a film and you realize it isn't that good? Even with a classic film it sometimes is hard to push through and view the entire thing. This is the case with SYLVIA SCARLETT (George Cukor, RKO Pictures, 1935) as the film was particularly hard to follow narratively, the performances were scattered and the film is just old enough that stylistically it doesn't compare favorably with other films made shortly after in the years to follow. The film does have Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn as it's two stars though, the first of four films pairing these two greats. And while the two of them are often great, this film doesn't offer many times for these two to shine.
There is one thing the film does very well, particularly looking back almost eighty years since its release. I am not sure if it is the persona of Hepburn that determines the role of Sylvia or if the script dictated her portrayal. But the wholehearted attack on gender roles and sexuality this film takes is amazing. This attack is multifaceted and takes on many aspects. Let me begin with Hepburn.
The most obvious physical change would of course be her hair and makeup. She goes under a radical transformation in cutting her hair entirely in a men's fashion. The makeup applied to her in the role is done well and contributes to her deceptively being very boyish. Her costuming helps as well and this is no doubt aided by her slender figure. The most striking aspect of Hepburn in this role is her movement. She moves just like a man does, totally different from all the other women in the film. All the tricks of hair and makeup are great but it's the movement that makes her convincing. And this effective portrayal of a man blurs the gender lines in the film.
Also blurring things is an underlying tone of sexuality to the film, particularly one of homosexuality. I counted three instances of same sex kissing, unheard of in classical Hollywood studio era films. What further muddles this same sex kissing is the pairings. Maudie (Dennie Moore) kisses Sylvia but Sylvia has a penciled mustache. The audience knows its girl kissing girl but the mustache and dress alters the landscape. Next Michael (Brian Aherne) kisses Sylvester. Definitely not a heterosexual moment but allowable because the audience knows Sylvester really is a girl. Finally when Sylvia reveals herself she is kissed by Lily (Natalie Paley). Again, girl kissing girl but the manner of the kiss and it's particular moment in the narrative make it allowable. (Lily is forgiving Sylvia for an earlier slight)
Lily of course has the line of the film, cementing this blurring of genders. When meeting Sylvia she coyly states "were you a girl dressed as a boy or are you a boy dressed as a girl"? This statement of confusion sums up exactly what the film is saying. Sylvia is blurring gender lines and the audience is supposed to buy into whichever role Hepburn is playing at the time. The film entirely belongs to Hepburn and her performance is strong.
The film is not good and is rather tedious to watch. But there are some fantastic moments within and the undertones that are broached are remarkable. And of course you get Grant and Hepburn.
There is one thing the film does very well, particularly looking back almost eighty years since its release. I am not sure if it is the persona of Hepburn that determines the role of Sylvia or if the script dictated her portrayal. But the wholehearted attack on gender roles and sexuality this film takes is amazing. This attack is multifaceted and takes on many aspects. Let me begin with Hepburn.
The most obvious physical change would of course be her hair and makeup. She goes under a radical transformation in cutting her hair entirely in a men's fashion. The makeup applied to her in the role is done well and contributes to her deceptively being very boyish. Her costuming helps as well and this is no doubt aided by her slender figure. The most striking aspect of Hepburn in this role is her movement. She moves just like a man does, totally different from all the other women in the film. All the tricks of hair and makeup are great but it's the movement that makes her convincing. And this effective portrayal of a man blurs the gender lines in the film.
Also blurring things is an underlying tone of sexuality to the film, particularly one of homosexuality. I counted three instances of same sex kissing, unheard of in classical Hollywood studio era films. What further muddles this same sex kissing is the pairings. Maudie (Dennie Moore) kisses Sylvia but Sylvia has a penciled mustache. The audience knows its girl kissing girl but the mustache and dress alters the landscape. Next Michael (Brian Aherne) kisses Sylvester. Definitely not a heterosexual moment but allowable because the audience knows Sylvester really is a girl. Finally when Sylvia reveals herself she is kissed by Lily (Natalie Paley). Again, girl kissing girl but the manner of the kiss and it's particular moment in the narrative make it allowable. (Lily is forgiving Sylvia for an earlier slight)
Lily of course has the line of the film, cementing this blurring of genders. When meeting Sylvia she coyly states "were you a girl dressed as a boy or are you a boy dressed as a girl"? This statement of confusion sums up exactly what the film is saying. Sylvia is blurring gender lines and the audience is supposed to buy into whichever role Hepburn is playing at the time. The film entirely belongs to Hepburn and her performance is strong.
The film is not good and is rather tedious to watch. But there are some fantastic moments within and the undertones that are broached are remarkable. And of course you get Grant and Hepburn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)