LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA (Clint Eastwood, Warner Bros., 2006)

As I watched LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA (Clint Eastwood, Warner Bros., 2006) the other night for the first time, a few things struck me as remarkable. Some of these things I already knew and some I had never once considered and one I forget stupidly. Nothing can be said about the film without first discussing the cinematography by Tom Stern, which was incredibly well done. As I watched, the difference in POV dawned on me. And then I slowly realized how great at his craft Clint Eastwood is while realizing my memory must be going because how could I forget that? This was a fascinating and beautiful film and I can't believe I hadn't taken the time to watch it sooner. Beautiful is the most elegant way of describing this film and this beauty starts and ends with the cinematography. From the opening shots of Iwo Jima, wide panoramic giving a picture of the islands bleakness to one of the films final images, that of the rising sun over a distant Japan every shot is meticulously crafted and beautiful in result. The film is almost entirely shot in black and white and besides being exceedingly difficult to capture I wonder what the actual thematic reasoning was. The lighting set-ups, particularly in every cave scene was extraordinary. Vast shadows were created adding to the peril of impending doom for the Japanese soldiers. Throughout the film they injected bits of color at various moments, usually red and usually blood, adding depth and horror to the images being shown to us. Quite simply the film is as I said, beautiful. The film was a good thirty minutes into its narrative when I realized what a fascinating and unique POV I was watching. At least three American generations have been given a steady diet of American POV WWII films and the narrative to this film provided a refreshing and enlightening change. Regardless of which side you fell on, in the end the men fighting all had one goal. To get home safe and to see their families and loved ones again. The brutal and savage methodology of war had worn these men down and this provided another unique perspective. It was incredible to see the Japanese code of honor and willingness to die for the glory of their country. And this code surely hastened their defeat, to the point where it was sad watching. In the cave as the men one by one set grenades off, hugging them close to their chest is a particularly gruesome scene to endure. This fatalism that pervaded their military, especially their officers, was astounding. Hard to believe an entire generation of military officers buying into such lies fed them by their government. Quite tragic. Also tragic is my forgetting just how good Clint Eastwood is as a director. Maybe it's because he only does movies every other year or so, or because at this point in his career he isn't beholden to a constant media and publicity barrage but I always seem to forget how good his work is. He crafts shots that are simple yet effective. He uses sound perfectly whether it be in his use of score or in his overall sound design. He gets smooth performances from his actors and finally he creates a beautiful and haunting film. The type of film that resonates with you days after watching because it was so damn good. Here it is the next morning after having watched LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA and I have already had two conversations with people about how good a film it was. Great film.

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK (David O. Russell, The Weinstein Company, 2012)

Tis the season where I make sure to watch any Oscar nominated film (Best Picture nominees surely) as well as re-watch those I have already seen. I like to do this because I feel that in order to make commentary on a film viewing it is a primary component (laugh not at the ridiculousness of that last sentence - last year I had many people bemoaning THE ARTIST winning Best Picture and they had not seen the film). Particularly with Best Picture nominees I try to watch every nominee prior to awards night to better understand why certain films win. The number one factor when watching a film, for it to be Best Picture worthy; it has to be great. It has to wow me. Make me want to tell friends to see it. Evoke considerable emotion. Stand out either technologically or cinematically in a revolutionary way. SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK (David O. Russell, The Weinstein Company, 2012) just doesn't do any of these things. The narrative to the film is good and the writing superlative. The acting is tremendous both on an individual level as well as for an ensemble cast. I even admire the directorial choices made by Russell. I just don't feel that extra oomph after viewing the film. The screenplay by Russell is marvelous (actually going to read it after posting this). The narrative to the film is good. It is engaging, compelling and most importantly entertaining. The dialogue works; it is real and true to the narrative. Most impressive though is the character development Russell takes great lengths to expound upon. Each character is fleshed out fully and real growth is shown for the three main characters to the film; Pat (Bradley Cooper), Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) and Pat Sr. (Robert DeNiro). Helping make these characters real is strong acting from the entire cast. All actors put up very strong work they have remarkable chemistry on all levels. The cast just works. DeNiro is excellent, his best work in years. After years of being Fockerized to death it is good to see the man return so strongly. As Pat Sr., he embodies those creatures you see in sports bars every Sunday, the die hard fans. In fact this is one component the film captures amazingly perfect. The element of being a sports fan and the lengths one will go to in order to do our part and secure the victory (trust me, I know these lengths). Jennifer Lawrence gives a heartfelt portrayal, compelling and layered. The trouble she has in these performances is her body. It is exceedingly difficult NOT to watch her body. Finally Bradley Cooper. Wow. Real, gritty and true he captures the essence of a man dealing with heartbreak, from the fits of rage to those moments of clarity when all can be fixed (been here too!). The overall direction of Russell is good. He gets superb performances from a brilliant cast. One thing I did start to get annoyed with was his constant use of close up and steadicam. This serves to bring us into the lives of his characters more fully asking us reside within their lives. It's just a bit much when it is constantly done this way. In the end the film is fine, I'd watch it again. I just don't get that extra and that leaves the film lacking to me.

THE FORTUNE COOKIE (Billy Wilder, UA, 1966)

Every time I watch a Billy Wilder film that I haven't seen before I am reminded of the mans sheer genius. Strangely, I forget what an amazing writer, producer and director he was and it's like I am learning all over again. It's a great feeling but unfortunately I am running out of hidden Wilder gems. The latest gem I watched was THE FORTUNE COOKIE (Billy Wilder, United Artists, 1966). This is a fantastic film with superb writing, the first pairing of one of the funniest duos in screen history and a fascinating look at the infancy of what was to become a media behemoth, the marriage of football and television. The film follows the attempt of a crooked ambulance chaser as he convinces his brother in law to sue the NFL and CBS over a supposed injury sustained working a football game. Good performances by the cast, great access to the stadium and games of the Cleveland Browns and the Wilder touch made this a great film. Everything Billy Wilder does well is on display in this film. The writing is superb. He catches the rhythm of the language of the period, doesn't load the film down with unnecessary dialogue and captures the essence of what is needed for his characters. The writing for Willie Gingrich (Walter Matthau) is particularly good, full of sarcasm and generally poking fun at the established order of things. Wilder also has an inimitable style to his directing and I feel it is very influenced by the horror genre and German Expressionism of the 1920's. Minimal lighting and shadows are used to great effect, like as Gingrich exits his car only to recede back into the comforting shadows as he spies Purkey (Cliff Osmond) spying on his client. This not only adds to the comedy of the film but it plays on the shyster lawyer stereotype lingering in the darkness. Wilder also has great camera placement, often using a set-up from the ground up at his characters. He does this often in Harry Hinkle's (Jack Lemmon) apartment, foreshadowing that Hinkle will eventually do the right thing. The tilted angle facing up elevates Hinkle, rising him above the depths, above evil. This is really masterful work done by Wilder here, throwing these different elements together yet not bludgeoning his audience into knowing what he is doing. I also really liked the numbering and naming of chapters and it made me wonder if this was the first film to do so. I certainly can't re-collect immediately one previously released that had. A great technique still popular in today's filmmaking. If both Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau were alive today I think they would still be making films and they would still be entertaining audiences endlessly. What an amazing pair. This was their first film together and the chemistry between the two worked right away. The pairing worked on many levels but I feel it is the dichotomy that the two men represent which works best. As audiences we relate to both in many ways but then there is that part of us which relates individually. And these qualities are on full display here in the film. Lemmon, helpless and romantic, a good guy trying to do the right thing. He just wants his love Sandy (Judi West) back and for things to be okay with Boom-Boom (Ron Rich). And Matthau. Conniving, manipulative and looking for that easy pay day. One of the funniest bits to me was immediately following the reveal that Hinkle was faking injury. Gingrich doesn't miss a beat immediately informing Purkey he will be suing the rival law firm for invasion of privacy. Classic stuff. Two last notes. I really liked West and Rich in their roles. West played her role deftly though we knew right away she was up to no good. And Rich gave us just the right amount of athlete and just the right amount of actor. Kudos to Wilder for getting good performances from all. Finally the ending. What a touching way to end the film, with Hinkle and Boom-Boom playing catch on the Browns turf. And this is where I think the film gives a glimpse into the future (remember it was released in 1966). The film had great access to the game at the start of the film showing game footage and the sidelines as the camera crews worked. But I think Wilder sees that football and television are meant for each other, that a relationship is brewing. And as we have seen, how right he was. Throughout the film he also uses TV as a narrative device. I often tell the story I learned of Wilder coming to America and learning English. The story goes that Wilder came to America and didn't know any English. So he just hung out on the streets and learned by osmosis. This is what makes his writing so true. To me it would also explain his ability to capture Americana so perfectly and for him to be thoughtful enough to see the marriage of football and television coming. I loved this film, pretty much like I love all Wilder films. Please watch it if you get the chance.

THE QUEEN (Stephen Frears, Miramax, 2006)

Strangely, watching THE QUEEN (Stephen Frears, Miramax, 2006) for the very first time the other day what struck me as most remarkable about the film was the art direction and production design. Every aspect of these areas was done well. Makeup, costume design, set design et al were superb. Of course the performances were also really well done, the writing good and the direction of Frears superlative. But the world created by the stellar production design of Alan MacDonald was simply amazing. Simply put, the dichotomy between the world of the royals and that of the Prime Minister was fascinating. MacDonald does an excellent job of showing us the gilded life of the royals, from lavish sets to lush costumes, incredible makeup on the actors and showing us a world we all long to see and maybe reside in if only just for a bit. He then turns around and gives us a Prime Minister that is one of us, an every day man who wears soccer jerseys and lives in the suburbs. I am not sure which was more revelatory to me. That the Prime Minister of England would remain living in his home or this dichotomy between the two worlds. And this is what the film is describing best. The royals have almost become anachronistic, past use at this point. The queen lives in her insular world, almost not wanting to believe she doesn't have power still. I know the part of Phillip (James Cromwell) showed this brilliantly, Cromwell playing the bombastic monarch drunk with perceived power. I think here is where the magnificent portrayal of Elizabeth by Helen Mirren shines best. Mirren plays the Queen with all the stoicism we expect but the performance is so strong that she layers it with a nuanced vulnerability. We see her as a trapped animal, running out of room to run. The analogy between the Queen and the hunted stag is quite obvious. The Queen is running out of options and time and has no place to go. Eventually, the monarchy will end. There are some subtleties to the film as well that work perfectly. Alexander Desplat's touching score deftly gives depth and emotion to the royals, softly shooting the hard exterior of Elizabeth. And Michael Sheen. How has he not won an Oscar yet? This man gives remarkable performance after remarkable performance. His day is coming surely. Finally, I have always had a weakness for all things British, particularly their lasses. Diana probably had much to do with this as I remember having a complete crush on the Princess. I vaguely remember her wedding being a pretty huge deal and when I was growing up she was always in TV, in the tabloids, etc. I remember my grandfather and I watching in dejected silence when the news of her crash reached us. That weekend was a solemn one, and we were thousand of miles away in Los Angeles. What a tragic end to such a beautiful life.

IT'S A WONDERFUL WORLD (W.S. Van Dyke, MGM, 1939)

I have a friend who happens to be one of the few people I trust when it comes to film recommendations. If he were to call me and say "you have to see this film" more times than not I see it rather quickly so we can then talk about the film. For the most part we agree. Now, when it comes to films from Hollywood's studio period getting him to watch something I recommend is much like pulling teeth from a rabid dog. An exercise in futility really. I am always telling him there is value in the classics, see them, give them a chance. I cannot make this recommendation for IT'S A WONDERFUL WORLD (W.S. Van Dyke II, MGM, 1939) easily one of the least watchable films I have ever come across from this period. Films of this period are generally not technical masterpieces. There draw to us resides in the stars of the film and in the pairing of great stars as well as the representations those stars make to us as fans and viewers. IT'S A WONDERFUL WORLD pairs Jimmy Stewart and Claudette Colbert together, two stars I have raved about in past write-ups. Yet the chemistry between these two is entirely non-existent. In fact I would rather go to the dentist than to watch these two again. Colbert, who I absolutely adored in DeMille's CLEOPATRA, comes across in this film as needy, whiney and altogether a rather big pain in the ass. Playing Edwina Corday the poetess (umm, okay) she annoyingly screams her way through her first ten minutes on film. Amazingly, after Guy Johnson (Stewart) puts up with this and falls asleep (he's on the run, but hey a nap is always cool) the next morning they awake and Corday has done a 180 on Johnson. Now she wants to help him and the beginnings of a love affair have taken root. Corday proceeds over the rest of the film do as all girls do in screwball comedies; help by making matters worse, driving the object of their affection into worse straits and generally being a total nuisance. Now that I write it up as such, maybe Colbert did an amazing job as she is completely and totally helpless and annoying as Corday. And as the film opened I myself was amazed to see Jimmy Stewart playing a role we do not know him for. Here Stewart plays Guy Johnson, a tough hard boiled and cynical detective along the lines of something Bogart or Cagney would play. As he spits out tough one liners and uses dialogue from the streets I went from being amazed at seeing Stewart play opposite his type to wishing he would stop. There is a reason stars need to stick to their type. WE LIKE to see them that way. Stewart is entirely mis-cast in this role. Try to watch the segment of the film where he dons the thick spectacles and constantly refers to them as "cheaters". Bet you will want to stop. Other than two stars playing roles not suited for their particular attraction and the chemistry between the two being non-existent, the film fails in other areas as well. There are several plot holes, such as Corday waking up overnight and being in love, or her leaving Johnson on a boat and of course showing up the next day having already secured him a job in the theatre he was headed to. Mainly the film tries too hard to mix genres, and sometimes this just doesn't work. Anything with a screwball comedy tends to not mix that well. Screwball comedies should most definitely be left as stand alone genres. I guess I will not be recommending this film to my friend, lest it be harder to get him to watch something good.

ADAM'S RIB (George Cukor, MGM, 1949)

The dynamics of a relationship, whether a public or private one, are always rather interesting. How a star works her way into our minds and hearts, our collective psyches is an astonishing exercise. A films power to mark the first overtures in a particular social issue battleground is remarkable. That all three of these statements can be ascertained from watching ADAM'S RIB (George Cukor, MGM, 1949) for the very first time establishes the film as worthy of its consideration as a classic work from Hollywood's golden age. To me the most striking aspect of the film is the relationship between the films two stars Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn. The pair portray Adam and Amanda Bonner, he an assistant D.A. and her a defense attorney. The film being a romantic comedy from the Golden Age, of course the pair ends up on opposite sides of an important and controversial (sensational as well) case involving another fractured husband and wife pairing. Court case aside the film truly revolves around the relationship of Adam and Amanda and the attendant friction spilling over from their daily court battles. And what a remarkable relationship they have. Years after both have passed on, we now know the two carried on a long standing relationship, a secretive one owing to the fact that Tracy was still legally married. Amidst the age we live in now, I find it remarkable that people were unaware of this relationship existing. Watch the two of them on screen and the ease and comfort between the two is amazing. This is particularly evident in the scene in which they are treating each other to rubdowns. Both take turns smacking each other in the ass and Tracy especially smacks Hepburn particularly hard. Now I am sure they didn't actually hit each other but looking back, knowing what we know now? Why wouldn't they have hit each other if only for a more realistic portrayal. Regardless the pair worked well together; they had an amazing chemistry and obviously the love between the two revealed itself on the screen. And loving Hepburn would have been easy. A strikingly beautiful woman (watch her as Tracy Lord in The Philadelphia Story and try not to fall for her) Hepburn is one of those rare actresses that has that special ability to draw you into her world. As a man you fell for her, as a woman you wanted to live her life. Strong, independent and fierce, she is a striking figure in every film. And a leader on the front of a feminist movement brewing in the U.S. After the end of the war, many American women were left wanting. The jobs they had performed during the war were being given to men, they were being asked to meekly return home and raise children. The true roots of feminism were formed earlier but this type of film surely accelerated the process. The narrative to the film is about equal treatment for women and Cukor goes to great lengths showing the inequality of treatment women were under. The courtroom sequence where Cukor changes Doris (Judy Holliday), Warren (Tom Ewell) and Beryl (Jean Hagen) to the opposite sex so the jury and viewer can look upon them in a different light. An effective way to stress his point and also a moment with which he could infuse the courtroom scenes with a little comedy. Great directing by Cukor. Hepburn herself was also an early proponent for feminism and surely her selection of this role cemented her as an early figure in any movement for women. The analogy must be made. As Adam is to Eve, so to is Tracy to Hepburn. That is always how they will be remembered, at least by me.

M.A.S.H. (Robert Altman, 20th Century Fox, 1970)

Right away you realize that M.A.S.H. (Robert Altman, 20th Century Fox, 1970) is both a very different war film and a unique film regardless of genre. Released at the height of the Vietnam War the film mocks military institutions as well as other conventional social institutions such as marriage and religion. The film also turns the conventions of the war film genre on its head with graphic and different portrayals of wartime action. Finally Altman makes use of tremendously creative and effective techniques in the areas of sound design all of which help lend the film a unique way of viewing the film and interpreting its meanings. There are not many social conventions bigger than marriage, religion and the military. Classical Hollywood cinema (post Hays office code) effectively settled American audiences within moral parameters according to their depictions of social conventions of the era. By the 1960's and the Modernist period of filmmaking these conventions were quickly being turned upside down and M.A.S.H. destroys the conventions established for marriage, religion and military in earlier filmmaking periods. The sanctity of marriage is questioned and for the first time on film there are no narrative recriminations against those that commit adultery. Both religion and marriage are mocked as inept, out of place and behind the times. Examples abound in the destruction of all three. As soon as Hawkeye (Donald Sutherland) and Duke (Tom Skerritt) arrive at the 4077th they attack the nurses with tremendous enthusiasm. Both married, they quickly are attracted to Lt. Dish (Jo Ann Pflug) and although Hawkeye quickly notices she is married almost as soon is carrying on an affair with her. Everyone is in on the adultery, even their commander Colonel Blake (Roger Bowen), showing that adultery occurs amongst all levels of society. Finally even the pious are guilty of sin as even Hot Lips Houlihan (Sally Kellerman) and Frank Burns (Robert Duvall) immediately become involved with each other. The sanctity of marriage is meaningless and adultery is widespread to everyone involved at the camp. Everyone at the camp also successfully mocks both institutions of marriage and religion. Religion is marked as out of place and behind the times. As Father Mulcahy (Rene Auberjonois) stumbles into the O.R. and fumbles his way around the sacrament as well as the room he makes religion look inept. Later, the men mock the symbology of religion when during Painless (John Schuck) suicide they are arranged just as Christ and the Disciples are in the Last Supper. The symbology of the military is brought into question at various times with the continual mocking of the salute and the respect accorded the use of rank. Those "regular Army clowns" as Hawkeye calls Hot Lips, all salute while Hawkeye insists no one use his rank but call him by his name. There are instances throughout the film giving this depiction of military institutions. The film also gives a depiction of war never seen before in films. Unlike previous war films there is not one battle scene in the film. Not depicting the horrors of battle lend the film a pacifists tilt. It shows war as inhumane and brutal without showing one shot fired. And how does it do this? With graphic displays of blood and surgery in the O.R.'s of the 4077th. Blood is everywhere and the surgeons portrayals are effective enough for audiences to buy into the realism the film is portraying. This graphic display was prominent to films turning their respective genres on its head, films such as BONNIE AND CLYDE (Arthur Penn, Warner Bros., 1967) and THE WILD BUNCH (Sam Peckinpah, Warner Bros., 1969) having already accomplished this for gangster and western genres. Finally director Robert Altman and his work with sound design is absolutely amazing. Throughout the film he uses cluttered dialogue with multiple characters talking at once. This forces the audience to focus on the images and de-emphasizes dialogue as a narrative tool. Often times the camera remains on action while the dialogue to the film concerns something entirely meaningless to the image. Here I feel Altman wants to force his viewer to again pay more attention to the image. The use of song in soundtrack and within the narrative are also key. Oftentimes through the film he chooses non American, Asian songs for the American military camps. He uses the title song for the film during the Last Supper/suicide sequence with one of his characters singing the song. Finally he allows the film a self reflexive quality when he warps sound and slows it down as Frank and Hot Lips realize they are being listened too. All of the uses of sound are innovative for the time of the film and help give the film it's unique and remarkable feel. My parents had me watch this film as a kid and I loved it then almost as much as I love it now. Like other films of the period, my favorite period of filmmaking, it turns genre upside down, exploding myths and conventions of the genre as well as filmmaking. A truly remarkable work, one I intend to watch prior to making any film.