Noirvember: Spy Noir- Hitchcock's "Notorious"

Warning: If you haven't seen this film yet, this essay reveals important plot details including the ending.

Alfred Hitchcock's Notorious (1946) perfectly illustrates how Hitchcock's technical virtuosity served the story and themes of his films. It also showcases his couching of complex emotions and ideas in commercial Hollywood thrillers. On a plot level the film is about a woman who goes uncover to expose a Nazi plot. But the plot is secondary to the odd and twisted love triangle at the films' centre. 

Alicia Huberman (Ingrid Bergman) is the daughter of a Nazi sympathizer who has been convicted of treason against the United States. An American spy named T.R. Devlin (Cary Grant) later appears at a party she is holding. The shot I always remember from Notorious is Devlin's introduction. He's in the foreground, shot from behind in shadow while Alicia in the mid-ground and her guests in the background are high-key lighted. He also doesn't speak.

This shot establishes Devlin as a mysterious outsider.  As Hitchcock re-frames the shot Devlin is always off centre of frame, signifying something is off about him. Placing Devlin in shadow makes him appear devilish (Devlin/devil). He's  not introduced as a hero but as someone more morally ambiguous and moral grayness is how Hitchcock parallels between  Devlin and Alica.

The scene fades out and when it fade back in we get the back of Devlin's head again. The camera pulls back and to the right to provide a two-sbot of him and Alicia. Then we get the first close-up of Devlin's face. We're essentially introduced to Devlin twice, establishing the two sides of the character: the mysterious and interloper, and the charming and glamorous suitor who better befits the audience's image of Cary Grant. 

Devlin approaches her with the mission of infiltrating the aforementioned group of Nazis who are hiding out in Brazil. Their leader is Alexander Sebastian (Claude Rains), a former friend of Alicia's father and who was in love with Alicia. Alicia initially refuses the assignment but Devlin plays her a recording of an argument between her and her father, in which he says she loves America and would never betray it. But why does Alicia go along with the mission. Is it due to love of country, because she's intrigued by Devlin, or is she searching for redemption? I think it's a combination of all these things, which makes her character all the more complex.

Devlin is cruel to Alicia at the beginning of the film, knocking her out after she was driving while inebriated, then later saying her new sobriety is just a phase. When they arrive in Rio they fall in love and he reveals his more humane side. But Devlin's superiors tell him the mission involves Alicia having to seduce Sebastian and he reverts back to being cold and mean towards Alicia. When she notices him being distant, she jokingly asks if he's actually married. He remarks she should be used to that by know. Alicia rightly says it's always "right below the belt" with him. 

Devlin's snide and vicious remarks are clearly a front. From the film's beginning he's been attracted to Alicia. He's a spy and she's a the daughter of a traitor. She also a drinking problem and is a "loose woman." He hates he has feelings for someone with this background.. As a spy  he's supposed to have no emotional attachments. He lets his guard down for a while and gives in to his feelings. He then becomes jealous of Alicia being with another man. It also gives him an excuse to revert back to his down-to-business, heartless persona.

She "accidentally" meets up with Sebastian and they begin a relationship, with Sebastian eventually asking Alicia to marry him. What fascinates me about the love triangle is the man who's the villain- Sebastian- treats Alicia better than Devlin, whom we expect to be the romantic hero. Rains was nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars and the quality I think makes his performance great is he doesn't play Sebastian as a villain. Rains is-as Hitchcock said in the famous interview between him and Francois Truffaut- "an appealing fellow," whose "love for Ingrid Bergman is probably deeper than Cary Grant's."

Sebastian discovers Alicia and begins to poison her. The film has already set up Sebastian's partners will eliminate their own for just a minor mistake. Emil Hupka (Eberhand Krumschmidt) reacted strangely to a bottle of wine- we later learn some of the wine bottles contain uranium ore, which is an ingredient for building atom bombs. This is was enough for Hupka to be killed. There's no way Sebastian will live if his dangerous blunder is discovered. One of Hitchcock's great abilities as a storyteller was making the audience empathize with villains or morally grey characters. We can feel genuine suspense regarding the situation in which Sebastian finds himself.

I love that when Sebastian tells his mother Madame Sebastian (Leopoldine Konstantin). "I've married and American agent," Hitchcock shoots him slightly from above, heightening the intensity of this moment. Sebastian looks ominous, foreshadowing the drastic choice he will make. I feel Madame Sebastian is the real villain of the film, the one who has the most control over Sebastian and whom comes up with the poisoning plot..

But can we talk about Ingrid Bergman? I'd argue Bergman is the greatest screen actress of all time. She could say so much without dialogue, suggesting pain and joy, often in the same scene. And not many actresses could be both glamorous and gritty. Alicia has to be alluring while also having negative qualities- someone who pursues redemption throughout the film. Redemption is one of the film's major themes. As already mentioned, Alicia is looking for redemption due to her father's Nazi sympathies.

Cary Grant is often undervalued as an actor. I think this largely because he's thought of a movie star. But this was an actor who play light comedy and dark drama. Like Bergman, Grant plays a lot of Devlin's emotions without speaking.  Hitchcock needed an actor who the audience would be willing to forgive for his treatment of Alicia and Grant in this film is someone the audience wants to like because they like him in other films. There's something cathartic in him admitting he was "a fat headed guy full of pain." He finally does something heroic by saving Alicia, receiving his own form of redemption.

Paul Duncan points out in his book on Hitchcock, Sebastian even helps Devlin save her. But he is not redeemed but left to die at the hands of his own people. The film's writer Ben Hecht hated the Nazis so he doesn't give Sebastian any reprieve. The morality of the film is very clear in this regard.

Hecht's Oscar-nominated screenplay is a study in economy, giving us enough information to understand the plot and characters without excessive exposition or set-up. This befits Hitchcock's own efficient style since he believed in what he called "pure cinema," telling the story completely through the language of cinema. And we can't discuss the filmmaking of Notorious without mentioning the famous crane shot that goes from the top of a staircase to a close-up of the wine cellar key that Alicia has stolen. When Peter Bogdanovich asked Hitchcock in a 1963 interview how the idea for the crane shot came about, Hitchcock said:

"That's again using the visual. That's a statement which says, "In this crowded atmosphere there is a very vital item, the crux of everything." So taking that sentence, as it is, in this crowded atmosphere, you go to the widest possible expression of that phrase and then you come down to the most vital thing-- a tiny key in the hand. That's merely the visual expression to say, "Everybody is having a good time, but they don't realize there is a big drama going on here." And that big drama epitomizes itself in a little key."

Again, visual storytelling. Without dialogue we understand the idea Hitchcock is communicating. It was a difficult shot to achieve but it appears elegant and seamless.

The other famous shot in the film is the infamous kiss between Alicia and Devlin. Kisses were not allowed to last more than three seconds per the Hays Code. Hitchcock's way of getting around the restrictions was having Devlin and Alicia kiss, then talk, then kiss again, so they end up kissing for about three minutes.  I would argue the restrictions ended up making the scene even sexier. The scene done in one shot deepens the intimacy, making us feel we're spying on private moments between two lovers. Cinema as a form of voyeurism is an idea prevalent in Hitchcock's ouevre- Rear Window and Vertigo being prime examples. And like those films Notorious is about the literal act of spying on people. Devlin goes from spying on Alicia to becoming her lover. This is similar to Scottie Ferguson (James Stewart) falling for Madeleine (Kim Novak) in Vertigo. Alicia has to become intimate with Sebastian to spy on him, expect she doesn't have romantic or sexual feelings towards Sebastian, making their relationship purposely unerotic when contrasted with her's and Devlin's

Professor Drew Casper, in his commentary for the film, says romance for Hitchcock is "a matter of suspense and thrills." This conflation may best sum up not only Notorious but many of Hitchcock's other films. It's also noted by Professor Leonard Leff onthe making of documentary on the MGM DVD, that Hitchcock creates a "kind of erotic suspense," due to our knowledge of what will happen between Devlin and Alicia.

This is one of Hitchcock's great films, elegant but rough, dark but hopeful, romantic and perverse, or perhaps perversely romantic. It's a film that I would show to someone who's never seen a Hitchcock film to illustrate why he's brilliant filmmaker. Notorious  has risen in my estimation on recent re-watch. I don't know how much I liked upon first viewing but I appreciate the film more now and have really come to love it. I think it was Devlin's treatment of Alicia which made the film difficult to embrace but that aspect of the film can't be separated the story's theme. Notorious is largely about the emotional and physical abuse Alicia goes through.  

Alicia comes out the other side not unscathed but alive which gives the a sense of triumph, punctuated by Sebastian's implied death and Devlin's romantic admittance. It's these themes that make Notorious not just an entertaining spy thriller but a human drama which more than 70 years later is just as provocative, beautiful and sexy as ever. 

Looking Forward to Oscars 2020

For film fans, the most important season isn't Halloween or Christmas, it's Oscar season. As much as I disagree with the Oscars' choices for nominees and winners, every year I get sucked back in to the race, the predictions, the controversies and the surprises. As I've done before, I want to go through the major categories and give my thoughts on the likely nominees and the dark horses. 

Best Picture/Director

While things may change by the time we get deep in to the season, I think the two films going head to head for Best Picture are the opuses by Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino- The Irishman and Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood, respectively. The idea of Scorsese going for his second Best Director Oscar and Tarantino possibly winning his first (he's won two for Original Screenplay) is exciting. I thought Silence deserved more love from the Academy and The Irishman will likely be the polar opposite, getting plenty of nominations, in the same way Shutter Island was ignored and then Hugo became a huge contender. The Irishman has been called Scorsese's Unforgiven, a director looking back at his history in the genre, with Clint Eastwood it was the Western, with Scorsese, the gangster lifestyle. 

OUATIH is Tarantino's most humane film since Jackie Brown and perhaps his most personal. Hollywood loves films about itself and the film is a love letter to bygone era as well as Tarantino offering an "what if" question of what Hollywood would look like if the Manson cult hadn't succeeded in their murder spree. This combination of nostalgia and a "happy ending" could really take it all the way.

Then there's Noah Baumbach's Marriage Story, which provides an alternative to the two aforementioned epics. The film is an intimate drama about a divorce between Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver') and it's already received critical acclaim across the board. The film feels like the Lady Bird of this year. I don't know that it can win but it could come up the middle if there's a strong divide between The Irishman and OUATIH. Baumbach has been nominated once for Best Screenplay (2005's The Squid and the Whale) and everything points to him getting his first Best Director nomination.

I think those three are as of now the three big contenders. Then there's Parasite, Bong Joon Ho's highly praised drama that many have called the best film of 2019. It's a lock for Best Foreign Language film and like last year's Roma it will likely end up in the Best Picture race. 

Sam Mendes hasn't been nominated since winning for American Beauty nearly two decades ago, despite directing baity films like Road to Perdition and Revolutionary Road but that could change with 1917, his World War I film that's been shot and edited to look like one shot. It sounds like Dunkirk if it was Birdman and I think the Academy will really go for it based on it being a technical marvel. 

JoJo Rabbit, Taika Waititi's satire about a boy in Nazi Germany whose imaginary friend is Adolf Hitler, sounds like such an oddball film. However, we're in a different place now with the Oscars where their tastes have broadened. This film is so strikingly bizarre it'll be hard to ignore. 

The big dark horse of the season is Joker, which reinvents the most famous super villain in comic book history from the ground-up.  Black Panther broke the Superhero glass ceiling by getting a Best Picture nomination and Joker could follow suit. And if Joaquin Phoenix is going to be the Best Actor front-runner, it'd be odd for the film not to be nominated. The last time a Best Actor winner wasn't in a Best Picture nominee was Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart. Todd Phillips is an even bigger dark horse for Best Director. 

Jay Roach's Bombshell, which chronicles the Fox News sexual assault scandal, is getting good early buzz and could be the Best Picture winner of the #metoo movement. Roach feels like Adam McKay getting nominated for The Big Short, a director known for comedies who makes a topical drama that gets respect from the Academy. Though to be fair, Roach has been doing this kind of material on TV>

Greta Gerwig's Little Women is still a question mark. I get the sense it could be a sophomore slump for Gerwig after Lady Bird. It's just feels unexciting as a project.

Best Actress

Renee Zellwegger winning for playing Judy Garland in Judy would be a really safe choice but the Academy does love transformative performances, especially when the actor is playing a real person. In that regard Zellwegger's closest competition may be Charlize Theron as Megyn Kelly in Bombshell. Scarlett Johansson, like Marriage Story itself, is an alternative to these performances. And unlike Zellwegger and Theron, Johansson has never won.

Even if Little Women isn't great, voters love Saoirse Ronan and she  could be looking at her fourth nomination and third in this category. 

Best Actor 

Joaquin Phoenix is my favourite working actor and I think he should've won for The Master and been nominated and won for Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far On Foot. He could possibly dominate the season for Joker. I think he'll benefit from the overdue narrative and the strength of his career overall.

I think it may be too early for Leonardo DiCaprio to win a second Oscar but he'll be nominated for his very funny performance in OUATIH.

Marriage Story keeps feeling like the alternative choice. I don't see Adam Driver, winning but he's a sure bet to get his second Oscar nomination after being nominated in Best Supporting Actor for BlacKkKlansman last year. 

Robert De Niro is up for The Irishman and this could be the last time to honor an acting legend. 

Jonathan Pryce has yet to be nominated and could be looking at his first for The Two Popes, written by Anthony McCarten. McCarten has written the screenplay for three Best Actors thus far: Eddie Redmayne in The Theory of Everything, Gary Oldman in Darkest Hour and Rami Malek in Bohemian Rhapsody. The story of The Two Popes centers around the relationship between Pope Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) and the future Pope Francis (Pryce).

Taron Egerton stands an outside shot for his portrayal of Elton John in Rocketman as does Adam Sandler in Uncut Gems, which has garnered him the best reviews of his career since Punch Drunk Love.

Best Supporting Actress

There's already a debate regarding which movie for which to campaign Margot Robbie: OUATIH or Bombshell. I think she stands a better chance for the latter, given her role in the former is too small and doesn't really have a big Oscar scene. Nicole Kidman, who's also in Bombshell, seems primed for another win in the coming years but I don't think it's her year. She may be left out entirely as she was last year for Boy Erased and Destroyer.. 

I think Laura Dern could be this year's Patricia Arquette  and dominating the season for Marriage Story. She has goodwill and the overdue narrative, plus the acclaimed drama behind her. Speaking of Marriage Story, Johansson could be a double nominee this year if she gets in here for JoJo

Rabbit.  Thomasin McKenzie, who deserved a nomination for Leave No Trace last year may get a makeup nomination for JoJo Rabbit as well.

Jennifer Lopez has gotten buzz for Hustlers, being called a reminder of her talent as an actress. If she gets in it's probably be the film's only nomination.

Best Supporting Actor

I love Al Pacino and it's great he'll be back in the race for The Irishman. And Joe Pesci too. I'd love to see Pacino win another Oscar. But Brad Pitt could be the won to beat this year for his loose, quintessentially movie-star performance in OUATIH.

It continues to be so strange Tom Hanks hasn't been nominated since Castaway. He feels like he should be like Meryl Streep, getting nominated every other year. I think it's because he makes it look so easy so it's easy to take him for granted. His casting as Fred Rogers in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood felt perfect even before the trailer- which itself is a tear jerker- was released. This could finally bring Hanks back. The film's director, Marielle Heller, directed Melissa McCarthy and Richard E. Grant to nominations for last year's Can You Ever Forgive Me? 

Taika Waititi, aside from writing and directing JoJo Rabbit, also co-stars as the imaginary Adolf Hitler. It'd be one of the most outlandish performances ever nominated; but like I said about the movie, it's a performance that's hard to ignore.

Chrisitian Bale could also pop up for James Mangold's Ford v. Ferrari. He was nominated this year for Vice and this could be an afterglow nomination.

John Lithgow, who's way overdue for a nomination, is a possible contender for playing Roger Ailes in Bombshell. Covered in make-up and essentially playing the villain, it's the type of role the Academy eats up.

Best Original Screenplay

Is this Noah Baumbach's to lose? Unless voters want to give Quentin Tarantino a third Best Original Screenplay Oscar. 

Bong Joon-Ho will likely be a multiple nominee this year, with nominations for Director, Picture, Foreign Language and here in screenplay. 

I'd like to see Jordan Peele nominated here for Us but I don't think that film hit off the same way Get Out did.  

I can honestly see Rian Johnson's script for Knives Out getting in here.

Best Adapted Screenplay

Waititi's screenplay for Jojo Rabbit, based on Christine Leunens' novel, could have its best chance to win here.

McCarten has been nominated three times thus far and is looking at a fourth for The Two Popes, based on his play. McCarten specializes in dramatizing real life events and it's worked our for him so far.

If The Irishman really sweeps, Steve Zaillian's screenplay, based on former lawyer Charles Brandt's narrative nonfiction account of hitman Frank "The Irishman" Sheeran, could be the front runner, with Zaillian his second Oscar, his first since Schindler's List.

Other Categories

Cinematography: Roger Deakins- 1917,  Rodrigo Prieto- The Irishman, Robert Richardson- OUATIH, Hong Gyeong-Pyo- Parasite, Robbie Ryan- Marriage Story,  

Editing: Chris Dickens- Rocketman, Thelma Schoonmaker- The Irishman, Fred Raskin- OUATIH, Jennifer Lame- Marriage Story, 

Score: Randy Newman- Marriage Story, Seann Sara Sella- The Irishman, Hildur Guonadittor- Joker, Michael Giacchino- JoJo Rabbit

So, those are my basic thoughts on the race thus far. Who do you think will be nominated? Who should be nominated? Comment below and let me know.

Musings on Matrix 4

I don't think any film will ever be able to replicate the "whoa" factor of the Wachowskis' original The Matrix, which came out 20 years ago this year. Seamlessly weaving together cyber-punk, martial arts, John Woo amounts of bullets and philosophical questions about reality, I would argue it's the Star Wars of its time, a game changer whose influence is still being felt today. Its sequels, The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions doubled- hell, triple- down on the action and cerebral themes but received mixed reactions from audiences. It had been reported this past year that Warner Bros. was planning to do another Matrix film, with rumours suggesting it was to be a prequel focused on the Laurence Fishburne character of Morpheus. But just recently it was announced Lana Wachowski would be returning to write the fourth installment of the series along with novelists Aleksandar Hemon and David Mitchell (who wrote the novel Cloud Atlas, which was adapted by the Wachowskis); Wachowski will be directing, the first time a Matrix film was helmed by just one of the siblings. Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss are returning to reprise their roles of Neo and Trinity.

It makes sense to bring Reeves back for another Matrix film. When people think of The Matrix, they think of his surfer-dude delivery of "whoa" and "I know Kung-Fu, and the iconic bullet dodger. Along with the popularity of the John Wick films and Reeves persona as one of the nicest guys in Hollywood, it'd be remiss not to include him. However,  Neo's story did appear to be over at Revolutions' end, though his fate was left ambiguous; and Trinity's death was the big emotional scene of that film. Can they be brought back without seemingly undoing the emotional and thematic beats of the film?

It's the same problem with which the new Star Wars films have faced. Return of the Jedi had such a concrete ending to the Star Wars saga that the events of the new films have put a damper on the series' happy ending. Though unlike ROTJ, Revolutions' ending was more guardedly optimistic than fairy-tale perfect.

I do like we're not travelling down the prequel or reboot hole with the franchise, despite rumours of casting a younger actor as Morpheus. Unless this is like The Godfather Part II were we get flashbacks to Morpheus at the beginning of his journey to finding The One. The young Vito scenes in that film are in my opinion the best example of doing a prequel/origin story for a character. I do hope Fishburne because I feel the film would feel incomplete without his presence.

Regardless of the sequels' receptions there's a compelling story to be told about the trilogy's aftermath. The Wachowskis have always been audacious filmmakers, refusing to water down their vision for mainstream audiences, so I believe this will be daring and unexpected. Both Cloud Atlas and Jupiter Ascending make the Matrix films seem tame by comparison. But I do miss the simplicity of the original Matrix and wouldn't be against pulling back a little and returning to the more intimate scale of that film. 

So, what are your feelings continuing down the rabbit of The Matrix franchise? Comment below and let me know.

The Essential Films: "The Hustler" (1961)

A Series of Writings on Films that I feel are essential for film lovers, coupled with films that are personal to me. Spoilers for those you haven't seen the film.

Robert Rossen's The Hustler is one of the darkest and most honest films to come out of Hollywood. The film isn't about winning a pool game but hard-won wisdom and the limitations of talent without character. 

At this point in his career Rossen already had a Best Picture Oscar winner to his name (1949's All The King's Men) and boxing drama Body and Soul with John Garfield, among others. His collaboration with Garfield is bitterly ironic. Rossen "named names" before the House Un-American Activities Community (HUAC), which he did after initially refusing and being blacklisted Garfield was blacklisted for the rest of his career for refusing to cooperate. Garfield's career was tragically cut short by a heart attack at age 39. The Hustler would be Rossen's penultimate film, his last being 1964's Lilith, starring  Warren Beatty and Jean Seberg. Tensions on the set caused Rossen to quit film-making. He would die two years later in 1966.   

In The Hustler Paul Newman plays Fast Eddie Felson, a talented but arrogant pool shark who challenges the pool hall legend Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason) to a match. Gleason is known for his role on the classic sitcom The Honeymooners but here gives a restrained and imposing performance. Fats doesn't speak much. He doesn't need to showboat. He knows he's the best and commands respect.

While Eddie gets ahead, he's too stubborn and drunk to quit, inevitably losing. He gives his partner and mentor Charlie (Myron McCormick) the last of his money and leaves, leading to a faithful encounter with a woman who'll change his life.

Structurally, the film is almost nothing but pool from its pre-credits sequence through the match with Fats. It's almost 40 minutes until "the girl" is introduced. This is Sarah Packard (Piper Laurie), who has a limp, goes to college except on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Usually the female "love interest" would enter the film earlier or be a part of the main character's life before the story starts but it's not until what is essentially the second act in which Sarah appears. She's the first character we and Eddie meet that isn't part of the pool hall world. She's also the first person with whom Eddie is taken aback. This all gives her entrance more of an impact. The story not so much changes but gains a complex new person. This relationship complicates Eddie's desire to defeat Fats. He may eventually have to choose between his obsessive quest and her love. Laurie isn't a typical Hollywood beauty but she brings a rawness and peculiar aura to Sarah which makes her stand out among other actresses of the time. 

Charlie finds Eddie but is spurned by him. Charlie tried to stop the match with Fats and Eddie believes Charlie is more interested in buying his own pool hall with the money makes from Eddie.The rejection of Charlie is Eddie's cruelest moment and marks a turning point in the film. Eddie re-encounters  gambler Bert Gordon (George C. Scott), who witnessed the match with Fats. He tells Eddie that what beat him was his lack of character but he'll stake him for 75% of Eddie's winnings, which Eddie refuses. It's only when Eddie's thumbs are broken after being exposed as a hustler during a game-  and after they're healed- does Eddie accept Bert's offer. Sarah is brought along on the trip to Louisville, which ends in tragedy.

This was only Scott's third film, his previous being Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder, where he played the ruthless prosecutor Claude Dancer, a role for which he received his first Oscar nomination. Scott was great at being a bastard. He brings a cat-like quality to the role of Bert, a man whose attacks of emotional violence sting harder than any physical violence.

Stylistically, The Hustler is positioned where film noir and neo-realism meet. Eugen Scufftan's Oscar winning cinematography envelops us in the smoky atmosphere of pool halls, where night can lead in to day without notice. Outside the pool room  the cinematography takes on a more social-realist feel. The first encounter between Eddie and Sarah feels right out of a British New Wave film by Tony Richardson. 

I want to highlight two of Rossen's and Scufftan's visual choices. In the aforementioned scene when Eddie's thumbs are broken, Eddie is taken in to an office and his face is pressed against the 

glass. We don't see the thumbs being broken, only hear and see Eddie in pain. As is often the case, the implication of violence is nastier than the complete of details of a violent act.

Notice in the below shot how Bert is positioned in the background, almost like a little devil on Eddie' shoulder. For me, the shot also symbolizes how Bert's words will stick in the back of Eddie's head. And I think it's important that Burt doesn't sit down next to Eddie, a display of Burt and Eddie not being on equal grounds. It's not until Bert offers Eddie the deal that he comes up to him, emphasizing the importance of what this will mean for Eddie.

Now, I've gone on quite a bit without talking about The Hustler's most important player, figuratively and literally. It's time to talk about Newman. Before this film Newman had already received an Oscar nomination for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof but he was still attempting to prove himself as an actor. On the "Newman at Fox" featurette on the DVD/Blu-ray, the subjects being interviewed emphasized how Newman was largely seen as the handsome co-star and husband of the talented Joanne Woodward. After she and Newman were married she had already won an Oscar for The Three Faces of Eve. With The Hustler Newman showed he could carry a film on his own, solidified him as a major actor and star. 

Newman has an inherent charisma and charm which gets the audience on Eddie's side despite his self-destructive nature plays Eddie with an almost child-like and care-free innocence at the beginning of the film. He compares the pool hall where he plays Fats to a church. Pool is his religion and he has complete faith in his ability. He becomes bitter after his defeat, his first dose of reality. By film's end Sarah commits suicide due to Bert's abusive attitude and Eddie inability to properly articulate his love for her. After Sarah's death Eddie truly matures in to a man of character. He rejects Bert like he did Charlie but this time with good reason. By doing so and denying Bert his owed money he is no longer allowed to play pool.  Eddie is now without his religion. Now he lives in reality, beyond the confines of his church. 

The final shot of the film shows Bert, alone. Despite his talk of character he is revealed throughout the film as a man without character, incapable of love, more interested in money than passionate about anything. If Bert was the devil on Eddie's shoulder than Sarah was the angel. Looking back, when she tells Eddie (after his speech about his passion for pool). "You're not a loser, Eddie, you're a winner. Some men never get to feel that way about anything," she's really summing up the Eddie and Bert perfectly. Sarah is the tragic heart of the film, seeing herself as "Perverted, twisted, crippled," but is Eddie's ultimate salvation.

On Robert Pattinson as Batman and Fan Entitlement.

When it comes to comic book movie- or any big Hollywood movie- casting, history, as in all things, repeats itself. With Robert Pattinson announced as the new Batman in Matt Reeves' upcoming film,

there's already a petition to replace Pattinson, just like his predecessor Ben Affleck when his casting in Zack Snyder's Batman v. Superman was announced. They're both in good company though.

When Michael Keaton was first cast as Bruce Wayne/Batman in Tim Burton's 1989 Batman (which, like me, celebrates its 30th anniversary this year), the reaction from fans was less than positive. Keaton was known for his comedic roles in films such as Mr. Mom, Johnny Dangerously and Burton's Beetlejuice. Due to Keaton's comedy background, the impression was Burton's film would be similar the Batman TV show from the 60s starring Adam West, which was notably comedic, whereas fans were hoping for a more serious take. 

Burton's film would ultimately turn out to be a fun-house mirror version of the 60s series, with Jack Nicholson's Joker being a more psychotic take on Caesar Romero's performance. West played Batman as just a normal guy dressing up in a Bat-suit; Keaton brought a strong silent presence to his portrayal of the Caped Crusader and played to his comedic strengths as Bruce Wayne. Keaton's performance was a slightly "off" version of Wayne, a version of the character that emphasized how weird and anti-social a guy who decided to dress up as a bat would be. Now, it's hard to disassociate Keaton from the role, especially for my generation who grew up with Keaton and Burton's two films.

Heath Ledger's casting as the Joker in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight was met with intense scepticism who couldn't see Ledger as a psychotic clown. Ledger would go on to posthumously win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, the only actor to win an Oscar for a superhero film. And his performance is still seen as the benchmark for super-villain performances.

Even Robert Downey, Jr. as Iron Man was met with resistance. But his performance and the original Iron Man gave birth to what's arguably the biggest franchise in film history, the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

It's okay to have doubts regarding an actor's casting but creating a petition to recast an actor before they even give a performance is, I believe, dictating the film-making process. I feel certain fans want to control the making of these movies when t's the director's crew and cast whom craft it. Pandering to fans does not a good movie make. Look at Justice League, which was re-shot from Snyder's original version to accommodate fans who disliked Batman v. Superman and Man Steel. It ended up making Superman a caricature and losing any of the edge and thematic aspiration that Snyder brought to his previous two films. 

There's also a petition to remake Season 8 of Game of Thrones and before that one to remake The Last Jedi. However one feels about the new season of GOT (I haven't seen it but know the events of the previous episode) or The Last Jedi, they will never be remade. Ultimately they have be viewed as they are, good or bad, or somewhere in between. I have my criticisms of The Last Jedi but there will never be a version of the film which "fixes" my issues with it. Being critical of the media you consume is healthy but wanting an artist to somehow to remake or change a film or TV show reeks of entitlement. Now, there are cases a where a director has gone back and tinkered, added or eliminated things from a film. Oliver Stone continued to rework his maligned Alexander. Ridley Scott went back twice to Blade Runner and of course George Lucas notoriously added to special effects to the original Star Wars trilogy. While it is possible for a film to be changed down the road, in these cases it was the directors' choice to go back and alter their films. Their reasons had to do with their creative fashion rather than fan dictation.

Coming back to Pattinson, I think he's a tantalizing choice for the role because like Keaton and Bale, and even Val Kilmer, he's not a conventional leading man. In his roles in David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis and the Safdie Brother's Good Time, has an off-kilter quality that befits the weirdness inherent in Bruce Wayne's character. I also admire Reeves as a filmmaker. The last two Planet of the Apes films are what more Hollywood blockbusters should aspire to be. So now I leave it to you. What you think about Pattinson's cast as well as fan petitions? Comment below and let me know.

Some musings on "Bond 25"

I'll always have a soft spot for the James Bond franchise. Along with Star Wars, it's one of the big film series I grew up with and watched constantly. And while it's become popular to put the Mission: Impossible franchise above it, I'm honestly more excited for Bond 25- which announced its cast and plot, but no title last Thursday- than I am the next two M:I films. I think this is due to Bond being M.I.A for a while. The last Bond film, Spectre, came out in November 2015. It's the only Bond film I've only seen once and I do want to revisit it to clarify my feelings. I thought it had a good build-up but it made the mistake of making Christoph Waltz's version of Ernst Stavro Blofeld intimately connected to Bond. Instead of just being the head of Spectre, he was Bond's Foster brother and  being responsible for the tragedies which had bad befallen Bond. I had no problem with Spectre being behind the events of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace but giving Blofeld a vendetta against Bond didn't feel like a natural continuation of those films, especially when Javier Bardem's character, Raoul Silva, from Skyfall was revealed to be part of Spectre as well. And like Star Trek Into Darkness, Spectre relied too much on Blofeld's identity being a twist solely for the audience and not Bond. Just as the name "Khan" wouldn't mean anything to Kirk and Spock, the name Blofeld means nothing to Bond.

If Spectre was Star Trek Into Darkness then maybe Bond 25 will be Star Trek Beyond. a more streamlined and simple film that lets Bond be Bond. Without a trailer and just some basic plot details, it's hard to know. We do know Jeffrey Wright will be back as Bond's C.I.A ally Felix Leiter, who will be getting Bond out of retirement for a mission involving a kidnapped scientist.. It's nice that Felix is returning to the franchise. He was gone completely from Pierce Brosnan's tenure and was absent from Spectre and Skyfall. I'd like to see a Bond/Felix team-up film.Felix helped out Bond frequently in the pre-Craig films but he actor playing Felix always changed and was mostly a supporting character. Wright and Craig already have a pre-established relationship as the characters so putting them together with Felix being more at the forefront would be a good pay-off to Craig's run. 

Lea Seydoux is also set to return as Dr. Madeline Swann from Spectre. Madeline would be the first main Bond woman to return. The late Eunice Gayson played the supporting Bond woman Sylvia Trench in Dr. No and From Russia With Love. Maude Adams played Francisco Scaramanga's (Christopher Lee) lover in The Man With the Golden Gun and then main Bond woman Octopussy nearly a decade later. We know that Bond drove off with her at the end of Spectre but it's not confirmed if they're going to be together in Bond 25. I hope she's not killed off early to leave room for him to shack up with Ana De Armas' character. This Bond has already dealt with the death of Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) and Judi Dench's M. I think it's time for Craig's Bond to have a little bit more fun. 

Rami Malek will be the third Oscar-winning actor in a row to play a Bond villain, and the first to win Best Actor (Bardem and Waltz, along with A View to a Kill's Christopher Walken, all won Best Supporting Actor.) I think Malek has the right look (those eyes) and vibe to make a good Bond villain. Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw are all set to reprise their roles as M, Moneypenny and Q, respectively. Skyfall and Spectre gave Moneypenny a bigger part to play in the plot than previous Bond films and may be the case here. I do love Whishaw's take on the Q character though no one will ever replace Desmond Llewelyn. And I do miss  Dench as M.

Danny Boyle was set to direct but bowed out due to the oft cited creative differences. While I was disappointed Boyle left the project I feel Cary Joji Fukunga is an exciting choice for director. Fukunga  directed the first season of True Detective and the recent mini-series Maniac starring Emma Stone and Jonah Hill, along with the films Jane Eyre and Beasts of No Nation. He's adaptable to different genres. and also a skilled technical director so I think the franchise is in good hands. Cinematographer Linus Sandgren, who won the Oscar for La La Land, will be photographing the film. The Craig Bond films have been  beautiful looking films, and that tradition will no doubt continue.

As the world changes, so must Bond's place in it and the way in which the character is approached. Producer Barbara Broccoli has already stated the #MeToo movement will have an influence on the film. I also wonder if there'll be any parallels to Brexit given its controversy and topicality; plus, the Craig Bond films have addressed political themes before.

So, what are your thoughts on Bond 25? What do you think the title will be and in which direction do you think it'll take the franchise. Comment below and let me know.

Watch Yourself: "Us"

While I've attempted to reveal too much about this film's twists, if you haven't seen the film yet and want to go in as cold as possible, go see it and come back later.

It's impressive that just two movies in director Jordan Peele's name has already become a brand, representing horror movies which are smart and socially conscious, familiar yet different Peele's name was already a brand based on his sketch comedy days with Key & Peele; but even so, transitioning to feature film-making with 2017's critically acclaimed Get Out, which won Peele the Best Original Screenplay Oscar, was quite a feat. Peele is in the position where he can pretty much do whatever he wants. But it is a mixed blessing to have that type of success early on. It's nice to have creative control in Hollywood- a place that's not always supportive of a director's vision- and not having to compromise your vision. However, you're put under a lot of pressure to live up to your early success. Film critics build you up but are equally ready to tear you down. Then there's the pressure to compromise for film critics instead of studio execs. Peele is already receiving comparisons to M. Night Shyamalan, and while Peele's new film Us has received extremely positive reviews, it's a film that's on shakier ground than his first- largely because it's a more ambitious and yes, Shyamalanesque venture, with some pretty big twists. It's a film whose denouement forces us to re-contextualise everything we've just seen, and is genuinely disturbing in its implications.

Adelaide Wilson (Lupita Nyong'o), her husband Gabe (Winston Duke), and two children, Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph) and Jason (Evan Alex) are on a family vacation to where Adelaide once grew up. She once had a traumatic experience seeing her doppelganger in a mirror house,  which resulted in her not being able to speak for a time. Adelaide tells Gabe she still feels she's coming for her and soon enough, all the family's doppelgangers show up. The set-up is basic but what is revealed by the end of the film suggests a much larger mythology to the story. Like Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds, Shyamalan's Signs and George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead, we see a large scale event through the eyes of a small group of characters. This makes the terror more realistic due to its intimacy and limited knowledge concerning the events occurring around the country.   

Peele doesn't explain everything about the story, which can be viewed as a significant flaw but I think Peele's lack of explanation adds to the film's nightmarish and mysterious ambience; he's a director more invested in creating atmosphere and staging horror sequences.With this film I sensed Peele wanted to strengthen and further his visual storytelling abilities. He's a skilled filmmaker, with a great eye for composition and framing. Mike Gioulakis (the cinematographer for It Follows and this year's Glass), clearly understands the horror genre. I love how he use shadow to make the doppelgangers appear as if they're part of another world. The film's editor is Nicholas Monsour, who worked on Key & Peele. He's just starting out in feature films and he has strong grasp on how to slowly pace a film while still having a certain dramatic momentum. 

Before the family of doppelgangers show up, Peele visually foreshadows them- the shadows of the family on the beach, the multiple rabbits during the opening credits. It's cheeky while still being spooky. Peele is adept at incorporating humour in to his films without undermining the uneasiness or weight of the story. I particularly liked the Home Alone reference, which reminds me that I'm getting older and younger kids may not even know what the hell Home Alone is. 

I'd be interested in seeing Peele a silent film due to how effectively he uses close-ups on actors' face, letting those faces tell the story. Peele also makes the doppelgangers being unable to speak, presenting them as primal, inhuman but still frighteningly human. 

Us asks what peoples' reaction would be to twisted mirror version of themselves. But more importantly, it asks what the doppelgangers's reaction would be, especially if they had it worst off than their double. And who is the "real" version, what defines individuality and personhood. The film also asks the timeless question of what happens when those who have been oppressed fight back. In Get Out, it was one individual- In Us, the retaliation is on an ever larger scale.    

Nyong'o is great as Adelaide and her doppelganger, Red. She's fierce, vulnerable and maternal as Adelaide and as Red she's incredibly creepy but also deeply wounded by her past and what we eventually learn about her. The tragic implications of their backstories could form the basis of a whole other film. And like many horror films before it, Us's story is fueled by tragedy and trauma. Horror movies are- in a weird way- extreme therapy sessions for the audience and characters. Peele adds a twist to the catharsis experienced at the end, giving what at first feels like a typical ending a more complex and insidious layer. 

The more I've thought about Us, the more I've liked it. The film showcases the oppressed and the marginalised fighting for their piece of the world. Us is appropriately titled since it's such simple and universal word. I also take the title to refer to the doppelgangers talking: us- humans, people who deserve the same basic dignity as anyone else.  

The title also refers to us, the audience and our comfortable sense of identity. The film is about what happens our sense of identity is challenged. I'd say Peele is preparing us for but I think he's highlighting how it's already happening. We have to make room for each other. Like the aforementioned films I mentioned (The Birds, etc.) Us is about human survival but Peele subverts those films by having it about the supposed villains' survival. And Peele isn't merely preparing us for a revolution, he's clearly saying it's already begun.

    

"The Times They are A- Changin:" Zack Snyder's "Watchmen" at 10

Zack Snyder's Watchmen, adapted by David Hayter from Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' seminal 1986 graphic novel of the same name, was released 10 years ago this month. It's often referred to as ahead of its time, just like  Moore and Gibbons' masterpiece, entirely different from anything before or after in the medium. And yes, I would say the same about Snyder's film, which stands out from any comic book movie before or since, even his own.

While the superhero genre had matured and deepened by 2009 with Spider-Man 2, and the one-two punch of Iron Man and The Dark Knight the year previously, the concept of adapting a dense and intricate work such as Watchmen was equivalent to adapting The Lord of the Rings- it was seen as impossible to do a successful film adaptation of Watchmen. I think this is because- as has been said in the past- Watchmen is a comic about the comic medium and uses the medium in a very specific way to tell its story. As such, any film version of Watchmen would have to be it's own thing. In his video on the film, "Iamthatroby" says the Watchmen film is a superhero movie about superhero movies. And I the film, while faithful to the overall plot of the graphic novel, has to be viewed in the proper context without judging it too much against the graphic novel. Having just re-watched it, I've come to love the film and think it's quite amazing. I never disliked it just that I needed a few watches for it to really click with me. And the fact it came out 10 years ago, when the idea of an Avengers or Batman/Superman movie was still a comic book fan's dream, is incredible.

The fact such an ambitious undertaking was only Snyder's third feature is also impressive, though his first two films weren't safe bets either. His first, Dawn of the Dead (2004), was a remake of a horror classic and 300 (2007) was a largely visual effects adaptation of Frank Miller's epic graphic novel 300. That which made Snyder's name synonymous with highly stylized visuals and fidelity to the comic book source material. Also, Miller, like Moore, is one of the most important comic book creators of his time (both also contributed to the Batman mythos with Miller writing The Dark Knight Returns, a big influence on Snyder's Batman v. Superman, and Moore writing The Killing Joke.) So, it's not a surprise Snyder got the job bringing Watchmen to screen.

Watchmen takes place in an alternate 1985 where Richard Nixon has been able to retain power and is still President of the United States. This is also a world where costumed vigilantes have and still exist, though costumed crime-fighting has been made illegal. Former Nite Owl (Stephen McHattie), Hollis Mason, tells his successor Dan Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson), also retired, that the earlier generation had it easier. Nixon pushed the younger generation out. I love when Mason calls Nixon a prick then adds "And to think I voted for that prick five times," to which Dan replies "Hey, it was him or the commies." This notion of voting for someone you don't like just to avoid someone who you like less can't help but remind of the attitude in the last American election.

Edward Blake, also known as The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), a government agent and former Minuteman/Watchmen, is killed, which kicks off the action of the story. While in the graphic novel, the Comedian's is shown is brief flashbacks, the film opens with a stylized fight sequence establishes the film's action. While I've had a problem with the seemingly normal people in the comic world having super strength in the movie, I think I've come to view the action in this film in the proper context of it being a heightened reality, as well as calling attention exaggerated superhero action. The contrasts stylization with real-world brutality quite effectively.

I think Morgan really nails the character. This is a guy who's a real bastard- he tries to rape Sally Jupiter/Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino), kills a Vietnamese woman he impregnated during the Vietnam War, and killed JFK. But he's charismatic and somewhat sympathetic when he experiences an existential crisis. Morgan captures both the humanity and inhumanity of this man, and we can kind of understand why Sally went back to him and eventually had had his child, Laurie (Malin Akerman), the second Silk Spectre. This is perhaps the powerful and poignant aspect of both the comic and movie, that a woman could love a man who attempted to rape her. This is a complex emotional territory and I love Sally telling Laurie that she couldn't hate Blake because "he gave me you."

I want to talk about John Osterman/Dr. Manhattan because in many ways I find him the most fascinating character in the film. Osterman is a atomic physicist who due to a freak science accident is transformed in to a super-powered being named Dr. Manhattan after the Manhattan project. Dr. Manhattan isn't human but he's not quite a god either. Janey Slater (Laura Mennell), Osterman's former lover and fellow scientist, says Manhattan is a god to which says he doesn't believe in God and if he's real, he's nothing like him. Thinking about the character brought to mind the oft-quoted idea that God can't be both all powerful and all good; and if neither why call him God. Manhattan doesn't seem to be either all powerful or all good, eventually having a detached view of humanity and retreating to Mars.

When Blake kills the Vietnamese woman he blames Manhattan for not stopping it and says Manhattan is losing his touch with humanity, adding "God help us all," underscoring how Manhattan isn't God. Manhattan's purpose in the story is to explore how people would react to a super-powered being in the real world. Snyder would also explore this idea in Man of Steel and BvS, in which Lex Luthor does bring up the Problem of Evil (God can't be both all powerful and all good). And like Manhattan, Superman in BvS begins to lose faith in humanity.

But  there's something terrifying about Manhattan, he's not the hopeful figure Superman is. He's a deterrent to Russia starting a Nuclear War with the US but he also creates a kind of fear that would start a war. Manhattan is not all powerful, as Laurie tells him later, he's just going through the motions like a puppet. Nor is he all good- he doesn't prevent Blake's gunning down of a pregnant woman.

I think my favourite sequence in the film is  Manhattan's origin, beautifully edited by William Hoy, Snyder's editor on 300 and his follow-up to Watchmen, Sucker Punch (2011). Hoy  creates a nostalgic, dream-like feel that soon turns in to a nightmare when Osterman becomes Manhattan. I love how the flashback stars out with a warm look at the fair with Osterman and Janey. The scene cuts from Osterman's friend  Wally Weaver looking lively to Weaver dead in a hospital; this shot has a cold look. The scene in the science lab is also shot to look a little colder, foreshadowing Manhattan's personality and look. 

One of the major changes in the film is Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode) making the world think Manhattan attacked New York City, preventing any nuclear conflict and bringing the world together in an Utopia. In the comic, it's a giant squid but I think-at least in the movie- Manhattan being the scapegoat works really well, tying everything back to the fear surrounding Manhattan. People are willing to accept Manhattan did turn on them. Veidt understands what will unite the world is the fear of something outside of humanity.

What I like about Watchmen's ending is it's not about whether Veidt's actions are morally justifiable but what do the characters do in the aftermath of destruction? Do they preserve the lie that has brought peace or reveal the truth, which would mean all those people died in vain if the world went back to the brink of war. It's a no win scenario. Walter Kovacs/Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) doesn't compromise and I think it's incredibly appropriate he tells Manhattan to kill him; that's the only way he won't reveal the truth.

Rorschach reminds me of the Marvel Comics character The Punisher, in that he is committed to warring on crime and killing criminals without mercy. When he's arrested and interviewed by a psychiatrist, he tells of how he used to let criminals live until he found the killer of a young girl, brutally murdering with a meat cleaver. This is where- as Rorschach tells it- Walter Kovacs truly died and Rorschach was born. When his mask is taken off by the police, he screams for them to give him back his face. It's part of him, it is him. Rorschach's narration is reminiscent of Travis Bickle, the character portrayed by Robert De Niro in Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver (1976), due to his narration about the scum on the New York streets. My favourite shot in the film is when Rorschach goes in to the bathroom to kill Big Figure (Danny Woodburn). The door swings eerily and unusually back and forth as we see Rorschach move in for the kill- until we can only see Rorschach before the door closes. For a film with such brutal and explicit violence, this is an effective example of leaving it to the audience's imagination what happens.

Haley has to do a lot of acting with just his voice and body language. I think he absolutely embodies the character. When we see him without his mask, we see a man cold and detached but with much anger underneath the surface. It's only at the end when he tells Manhattan to kill him that we see him actually break down emotionally and cry. For me it's the most affecting emotional moment in the film.     

Rorschach does get the last laugh, so to speak, since his journal will be discovered by a newspaper employee. The film ends with the question of not only will the truth be revealed but what are the consequences? Will humanity go back to the brink of or will it enter a new status quo? It's also a question of personal responsibility and what choice an individual feels he/she should make. Is a world of peace more important than our own feelings of morality? And how do we deal with knowing a dark truth, what does it do to our conscience?

I know one criticism of the film is Veidt being too sinister, telegraphing he's the villain, as opposed to his depiction in the comic. I believe Veidt is intentionally being played up as the villain because the surprise of the film is his plan not be rooted in villainy. He's attempting to make the world a better place. His villainous demeanour is a red herring. Veidt is set up as an archetype, an archetype that's subverted by film's end.

I also want to mention Larry Fong, who I think is a fantastic cinematographer. He creates a diverse palette for this, as I mentioned when I talked about the Manhattan origin scene. Some scenes have a warmer look, others colder. There are scenes and shots that reflect an "old-timey" representation of the past, and more urban, gritty scenes. We also  have cosmic stuff with Manhattan on Mars. What's impressive is it all blends together, forming a cohesive world.

The title sequence is a great example of this, as we travel through history, showing us the Minutemen's origin in the 40s, to Manhattan meeting JFK in the early 60s and the emergence of the new Watchmen. There's both happiness and tragedy in this sequence. It's  a brilliant piece of visual storytelling.

Another sequence I think is wonderful is Mason's death. After Nite Owl and Silk Spectre break Rorschach out of prison, some goons think it was the former Nite Owl who did it. They attack Mason who fights back and from his POV we see him imaging the attackers as his former enemies from his time as Nite Owl. The music is stirring until it cuts out when Mason is killed with a trophy, signifying the emergence of brutal reality in to the scene.

Snyder is one of those rare blockbuster auteurs, filmmakers who are making personal and artistic films on a large budget. Instead of relying so much on a formula, movies like Watchmen operate outside of the box. I've come to appreciate Snyder as a filmmaker more since Man of Steel. I'd go as far as listing him as one of my favourite working directors. Watchmen foreshadowed similar themes Snyder would explore later on in MoS and BvS, including the idea of a super-powered, God like being among us.

It's appropriate that Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin" plays over the opening credits since Watchmen is about the past and nostalgia. And the perception of superhero cinema has changed over the years. With the deluge of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, Watchmen shines a little brighter because it's so distinct from other superhero films. Like BvS, it's a grower, and one now I would rank amongst my favourite comic book films.