tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46871955987753991382024-03-17T20:02:58.608-07:00Davies in the DarkA blog dedicated to the discussion of films and pop culture.Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.comBlogger227125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-3919179566811125042024-01-04T09:42:00.000-08:002024-01-04T09:42:39.134-08:00Death, Taxes, and Franchise Longevity: "Alien 3" and "Alien Resurrection" as Franchise Extensions and Parallel Versions of "Alien" and "Aliens"<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhgWYFmsa-6s8ZPoDt732j6xqVw615wPhoTRlh5anPXB8NcJF4ctRk94gumvZuOf35xDaF_xjqLV34LQlN6OPCowqKGiUaZ9-qzDQ9zNpM8yns62hGMTVekvmYoBwjueDsRNaq12UeTgn_uT1H3MjMxchl6EP1l_4chkvdgEhmUfdOJhsTivalItzxKhTw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhgWYFmsa-6s8ZPoDt732j6xqVw615wPhoTRlh5anPXB8NcJF4ctRk94gumvZuOf35xDaF_xjqLV34LQlN6OPCowqKGiUaZ9-qzDQ9zNpM8yns62hGMTVekvmYoBwjueDsRNaq12UeTgn_uT1H3MjMxchl6EP1l_4chkvdgEhmUfdOJhsTivalItzxKhTw=w400-h225" width="400" /></a></div><br /></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><i>Spoilers for the Alien series below</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">When Charlton Heston blew up the planet of the apes at the end of <i>Beneath the Planet of the Apes, </i>it was thought by Heston- who came up with the idea- that this would prevent any more sequels being made. But, this didn't stop 20th Century Fox from making<i> Escape From The Planet of the Apes</i> shortly after. James Bond is dead but we'll see a new Bond...sometime in the future. Avengers: Endgame felt like, well, the endgame of the MCU. The thing is, a franchise will always find a way to extend its life, even when it probably should end (though I guess there were several loose ends at the end of Endgame). The question is, how do you continue on a story after it's logical end point. "Rebooting" is always the easy option but there was a time where you didn't really wipe the slate clean- you just continued on with new characters or a new actor as Batman or Bond. When it comes to clear-cut endings, James Cameron's Aliens gives Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) a pretty neat ending-</div><div style="text-align: justify;">having overcome the trauma from the original Ridley Scott <i>Alien</i>, and gaining a surrogate daughter and possible love interest. But of course, a third film had to be made. After having difficulty nailing down a story, and even without a finished script, <i>Alien 3</i> was made, helmed by first time director David Fincher. <i>Alien 3</i> gives an even more definitive end to Ripley's story- having her commit suicide but, again, a sequel had to be made, and Ripley was brought back as a clone for <i>Alien Resurrection</i>, this time directed by French auteur Jean Pierre Jeunet. Neither <i>Alien 3</i> or<i> Resurrection</i> are beloved as the first two films but in this piece I want to talk about how they operate, not only as franchise extensions, but also largely as parallel versions of the first two films. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If <i>Aliens</i> is one of the quintessential Hollywood blockbusters, incredibly audience friendly- filled with one liners and an almost Spielbergian sentiment, then <i>Alien 3</i> is perhaps the bleakest, nihilistic and audience-unfriendly film of any franchise. It essentially tells its audience "Hey, remember that cute little girl and the cool Colonial marine you loved so much from <i>Aliens</i>? Yeah they're dead, and our supporting cast is now of group of ex-convicts guilty of rape, murder and child molestation. And, oh yeah, Ripley has an alien growing inside of her and wants to kill herself." I've heard <i>Alien 3</i> compared to a Michael Haeneke film and yeah, the tone of the film does feel like you're watching a depressing European art-house film rather than the 3rd film in a popular film franchise. But that's what I kind of love and appreciate about it. I can't think of another franchise installment that gut punches its audience the way this one does (though I understand many had the same experience with <i>The Last Jedi</i>).</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's pitiless and remorseless, in stark contrast to the sentiment of <i>Aliens</i>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">If Cameron makes very audience friendly films with a certain kind of sentiment, than Fincher often really puts the audience through it, not really giving them easy joy or comfort. I can't really see Cameron ever doing anything as bleak as the ending of </span><i style="text-align: left;">Seven</i><span style="text-align: left;">. This isn't a judgement call on Cameron as a filmmaker, just an observation. What I love about the original 4 movie cycle is that each film stands out as distinct vision. </span><i style="text-align: left;">Aliens</i><span style="text-align: left;"> could've been the template for all the Alien sequels afterwards, similar to how </span><i style="text-align: left;">Terminator 2 </i><span style="text-align: left;">became the basis for pretty much every Terminator sequel afterwards. </span><i style="text-align: left;">Alien 3</i><span style="text-align: left;">, on the other hand, feels increasingly radical as a sequel as the years pass since it stops the story of </span><i style="text-align: left;">Aliens</i><span style="text-align: left;"> in its natural path, saying we're not going to Earth or continuing on the family story of Ripley, Hicks and Newt. We're not doing a bigger scale film but something small, intimate and sad. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><i>Alien 3</i> takes a back to basics approach, limiting itself to one alien, and removing guns from the equation. As with the original, the characters have to get creative in how they'll kill the xenomorph. As franchises go on, there's usually a tendency to keep going bigger with the set-pieces and more of what people liked before. However Alien 3 is pretty minimalist as far as sequels go, surprisingly somber and understated. The setting- a former prison colony now overseen as a lead factory by its former inmates who've found religion- also gets back to the original's gothic atmosphere. Star Wars' lived in universe aesthetic influenced Scott when making Alien and its present in Alien 3, filtered through Fincher's 90s grunge aesthetic. This is perhaps the most visually striking film in the franchise, Alex Thomson's cinematography creating something beautiful out such a bleak setting.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The horror of the original<i> Alien</i> was largely based in its theme of sexual assault and death through childbirth. Many have remarked in the past how it subverts the image of sexual assault by having a man raped instead of a woman. . In Alien 3, the fear of sexual assault is placed back on the female character, but this time with the threat of sexual assault coming from the former inmates. If <i>Alien</i> didn't make a big deal of Ripley's gender (I believe Ripley was originally written to be a man) this film positions her as the lone female, the first and only time in the series, with the threat of male violence against her a constant undercurrent. There is an attempted rape by some of the prisoners on Ripley, who's saved by Dillon (Charles S. Dutton). The irony is clear- this is the man who straight out told Ripley he was a "murderer and a rapist of women." Dillon is a man looking for some kind of redemption and he and Ripley become unlikely allies. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the criticisms of the film is its hard to care about killing these men who are guilty of such heinous crimes, which I get. Outside of Ripley, the character we're allowed to feel the most warmth towards is Clemens (Charles Dance), the medical doctor who was once a former prisoner. He there because he got drunk and prescribed an incorrect dose of painkillers on survivors of a fuel plant boiler explosion. Ripley and Clemens become intimate- the only time we actually see a romantic interaction in the four films- but Clemens is killed off pretty early, <i>Psycho</i>-style, leaving the audience with pretty much just the inmates. Again, I actually kind of appreciate how the film doesn't make it easy for the audience. We're not given them easily identifiable or straight out likable characters but I'd argue the film is asking the audience if they're willing to sympathize or at least get on board with these characters. I find something compelling about Ripley and these inmates having to team together to fight the alien. This is essentially a story about people who have either lost everything (Ripley) or had nothing to begin with (Dillon) having to work together against a common enemy. Dillon sums it up pretty well when he tells the inmates that they're all going to die, you just have to decide how you're going to do it. This may sum up the whole franchise- when facing certain death how are you going to do it? </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Returning to the theme of sexual assault, the ultimate irony comes when Ripley realizes she's already been sexually assaulted by a facehugger, with a xenomorph growing within her. In <i>Alien</i>, Ripley fought for her own survival, and in <i>Aliens</i>, for her surrogate daughter. Here, Ripley is fighting the right to end her own life. largely to stop the alien from getting in to the hands of the Weyland-Yutani corporation who want to use it as a weapon. In his video essay on the film for his "The Unloved" series, Scout Tofoya remarks how rare it is to see a mainstream Hollywood emphasize with a woman's desire to have an abortion. Ripley does ultimately succeed in killing herself. This may not be the happy ending people were left with at the end of <i>Aliens</i>, is a sort of final triumph for this character, going out on her own terms.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjn9Gc0A-w3aa7mH6jYwbAQ9bvxzNe_HsamxaHavxgH7RyUfDGpqeo9pvvbUiKeGoamn7iNnBrUIkehzmEdCaJO3gXLy6_8ateExJW75N2yNNB8WCgq0BnG9RY8rHzm7rNGYuUtfZDOaAfcIkA_bPba9OeJjAUsP7xkl_yfHSp1j1OXx7G64iCRnZtB7rI" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="185" data-original-width="273" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjn9Gc0A-w3aa7mH6jYwbAQ9bvxzNe_HsamxaHavxgH7RyUfDGpqeo9pvvbUiKeGoamn7iNnBrUIkehzmEdCaJO3gXLy6_8ateExJW75N2yNNB8WCgq0BnG9RY8rHzm7rNGYuUtfZDOaAfcIkA_bPba9OeJjAUsP7xkl_yfHSp1j1OXx7G64iCRnZtB7rI" width="320" /></a></div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And for a while, <i>Alien 3</i> was the conclusion of the story. Of course, the ending didn't stick, with <i>Alien Resurrection</i> coming several years later. Just as <i>Alien 3</i> parallels <i>Alien</i>, with its gothic setting and bleak tone, <i>Resurrection</i> attempts to ape Aliens' more humorous, fun action movie vibe. We have multiple xenomorphs, the return of guns to the equation and the broader characterizations. The film's director, Jeunet, is probably best known to people as the director of <i>Amelie </i>though he hadn't directed it at this time, though he had directed <i>The</i> <i>City of Lost Children </i>and<i> Delicatessen. </i>Jeunet is the franchise's most off-beat and out of left field choice, with <i>Resurrection </i>being<i> </i>is the strangest, ickiest, and tonally conflicted of the four films. Screenwriter Joss Whedon has expressed his dissatisfaction with the film, saying it was directed wrong, acted wrong, and cast wrong. Unlike <i>Aliens,</i> which I think balanced its tone pretty well, <i>Resurrection</i> can't completely decide what kind of film it needs to wants to be. It wants to be, I think, a fun action movie in the vein of <i>Aliens</i>, but's it almost too grotesque and weird, and not really as exciting as Cameron's film. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">We almost had a deeper connection to <i>Aliens </i>with Whedon's original idea of cloning Newt, making her the lead of the film. 20th Century Fox however didn't want a story without Weaver. I feel Newt had potential as the lead of the franchise, if they had cast a strong actress in the role (Carrie Henn quit acting after <i>Aliens,</i> her only film). The idea of cloning Ripley was actually a joke producer David Giler made to Weaver when <i>Alien 3 </i>premiered. <i>Resurrection </i>definitely feels like the textbook definition of a franchise jumping the shark, or maybe we should say xenomorph, in an attempt to extend its life cycle, though the film does do funny and bold things with the idea of Ripley being a clone, though she's not just a clone, she's an alien human hybrid. In interviews Whedon said he thought Weaver wouldn't want to play Ripley in such a weird way but he was surprised she told him to push things further. Like in <i>Aliens</i>, Ripley is a mother figure, having been the bearer of the xenomorph embryo, a queen which gives birth to a human/xenomorph baby- yeah, it's very weird. Ripley was attempting to save her surrogate daughter before whereas now as he she has to kill her literal offspring. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Another parallel with <i>Aliens</i>, and something I think is integral to Ripley's story, is the continuation of the "Rip Van Winkle" thing with Ripley waking up years in the future. Ripley was in cryosleep for 57 years between the first two movies, now it's 200 years in the future. Ripley becomes more and more of an isolated character as the sequels go on- with the <i>Resurrection</i> positioning her as not even being completely human or even the same Ellen Ripley. When we arrive on Earth at the film's end, the android Call (Winona Ryder) asks what's next, to which Ripley replies that she's a stranger there herself. While I get why killing Newt off is seen as an unforgivable sin by many, I think Ripley works better as a loner, a ultimately a tragic figure. Sure, a big part of me wonders what alternate universe version of <i>Alien 3</i> looks like but I love that the <i>Alien 3 </i>we got makes you feel the pain of triumph snatched away, that sickening irony. Each sequel does undo the victory of the previous film's ending, though I guess that's just the horror genre- it doesn't matter how many times you kill Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, they'll be back for the sequel. I think it's best to look a the Alien quadrilogy as variations on a theme, with each director approaching their film as a stand alone film rather than as a Marvel-esque serialized piece of storytelling.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I never know how to end these things so I'll hand it over to you. What are your thoughts on the two latter Alien sequels. Are you a fan or do yo find them huge disappointments. Comment and let me know. </div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-42211876075866001232023-10-27T09:43:00.000-07:002023-10-27T09:43:50.184-07:00Hitchcock's Experimental, Art-House Monster Movie: "The Birds" at 60. <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhGbO37sOvyHlZbbmr3_OFRhGUcI5ipfJE5Nn_MwzXJllbzy7GhOIfES51gikpCQVtEEBSkgvMI4HiuB_9Er7uu_0AqGtNSRf_6sR3Qq0FZLp5mtkV7VHmG2rSjUKb2zoyBzD-w2dtSHRR2QCsifqbZL23NxrnncBVzjzDie-jWil3Z1R7cD-WdCNRlNms" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2433" data-original-width="3300" height="295" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhGbO37sOvyHlZbbmr3_OFRhGUcI5ipfJE5Nn_MwzXJllbzy7GhOIfES51gikpCQVtEEBSkgvMI4HiuB_9Er7uu_0AqGtNSRf_6sR3Qq0FZLp5mtkV7VHmG2rSjUKb2zoyBzD-w2dtSHRR2QCsifqbZL23NxrnncBVzjzDie-jWil3Z1R7cD-WdCNRlNms=w400-h295" width="400" /></a></div> <p></p><p><i>Spoilers for</i> The Birds <i>and</i> Psycho</p><p>Do I own <i>The Birds</i> on Blu-ray and can watch it comfortably at home? Yes. Did I still head out to a theatre to see a 60th anniversary showing of the film? Also yes. There's something cool about seeing classic cinema on the big screen and since it's one my favourites from my favourite director, I'm almost obligated to go). It got me thinking that there was a time where you had to see a movie in theatres, it wasn't as easy as it is now to see films. There was something special about something being shown on TV or getting re-released. Now it feels like something's in theatres for a week before it hits streaming. But anyway, back to <i>The Birds.</i> This was Hitchcock's follow-up to<i> Psycho </i>and its notable the only two horror films in his career were made consecutively. They actually make pretty good companion pieces: with both of them displaying Hitchcock experimenting in the later part of his career (he was in his 60s when he made them) <i>Psycho</i> was a lower budget film shot in black and white with his crew from his TV show <i>Alfred</i> <i>Hitchcock Presents,</i> coming on the heels of the proto-blockbuster <i>North by Northwest </i>nd was subversive in its plot structure, particularly the murder of its supposed main character almost an hour in. <i>The Birds</i> showed Hitchcock forgoing plot almost all together in favor of atmosphere and metaphorical/apocalyptic horror. </p><p>The first way Hitchcock experiments in <i>The Birds</i> (and <i>Psycho</i>) is how he subverts genre expectations. The thing is, people walked in to <i>Psycho</i> knowing there was going to be a character who was a psycho. They also walked in to <i>The Birds</i> knowing there were going to be bird attacks. The suspense comes from how long Hitchcock takes to get to the shower scene and the initial bird attack. What Hitchcock does mischievously is begin the films not as horror but as a noir crime film (<i>Psycho</i>) and a romantic comedy (<i>The Birds</i>) It's almost a hour before Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), a bank clerk who steals money from work to start a life with her boyfriend, is killed in the infamous shower scene. </p><p>In <i> The Birds </i>it takes a half hour before a gull attacks socialite Melanie Daniels. The film begins with her being spotted at a bird store by Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor), a lawyer whom recognizes her from court appearance regarding a practical joke. He pretends to mistake for a employee, giving her a taste of her own medicine. He thinks she should've gone to jail. She thinks he's "a louse." Basically, it's the "He's arrogant, she's stuck-up but they're obviously attracted to each other" romantic comedy set-up. Mitch inquired about some love birds for his sister Cathy (Veronica Cartwright's) birthday so Melanie gets two and travels all the way to his family farm in Bodega Bay. While she's watching Mitch discover them from her boat, a gull attacks her. The gull attack parallels the shower scene- a stroke of violence in the midst of water, in a moment of calm. It also puts the audience on edge for another instance of violence. </p><p><i>The Birds </i>also has something in common with one off Hitchcock's earlier film, <i>Shadow of a Doubt</i> (1943). In both, a small community is invaded by a sinister force. In the former it's a serial killer played by Joseph Cotton, in the latter it's, well...birds; but not only birds, but normally docile birds. In in the indispensable book <i>Hitchcock/Truffaut</i>, which transcribes interviews between Hitchcock and filmmaker Francois Truffaut, Hitchcock says "I think that if the story had involved vultures, or birds of prey, I might not have wanted it. The basic appeal to me is that it had to do with ordinary, everyday birds." Hitchcock contrasts these normal birds' usual docile nature with random bursts of violence. And like <i>Shadow of a Doubt</i>, the violence is juxtaposed with a low-key setting. </p><p>Truffaut later on in the interview says of <i>The Birds'</i> structure: </p><p><span> </span>The story construction follows the three basic rules of classic tragedy: unity of place, of time, and of <span> </span>action. All of the action takes place within two days' time in Bodega Bay, The birds are seen in ever <span> </span><span> </span>growing numbers and they become increasingly dangerous as the action progresses. </p><p>Screenwriter Evan Hunter and Hitchcock understand the need to make each attack bigger, until the film takes on apocalyptic overtones. By the climax it feels the like the world is ending. However, keeping the story in one setting and focusing on a small set of characters also makes the story intensely intimate. M. Night Shyamalan was clearly inspired by Hitchcock and this film when making his alien invasion thriller <i>Signs, </i>which I wrote about here: <a href="http://thenoirzone.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-essential-films-signs-2002.html">Davies in the Dark: The Essential Films: "Signs" (2002) (thenoirzone.blogspot.com)</a> </p><p>I want to take some time now to focus on the character dynamics which foreground much of the film, particularly the relationship between Melanie and Mitch's mother, Lydia (Jessica Tandy), whom she meets after Mitch has looked to her wound. Mitch invites Melanie over for dinner where she also meets Cathy, who takes a immediate liking to Melanie, clearly liking her present. Lydia, however is more aloof. Melanie is staying with schoolteacher Annie Heyward, who once had a relationship with Mitch. That night, Melanie and Annie discuss Annie's former romance with Mitch and her complicated relationship with Lydia.</p><p><i><b>Annie: I was seeing quite a lot of him in San Francisco, you know. And then, one weekend, he asked me up to meet Lydia.</b></i></p><p><i><b>Melanie: When was this?</b></i></p><p><i><b>Annie: Four years ago. Of course, that was shortly after his father died. Things may be different now. </b></i></p><p><i><b>Melanie: Different?</b></i></p><p><i><b>Annie: With Lydia. Did she seem a trifle distance? </b></i></p><p><i><b>Melanie. A trifle.</b></i></p><p><i><b>Annie: Then maybe it wasn't different at all. You know, her attitude nearly drove me crazy. I simply couldn't understand it. When I got back to San Francisco I spent days trying to figure out just what I'd done to displease her.</b></i></p><p><i><b>Melanie: And what had you done.</b></i></p><p><i><b>Annie: Nothing. I simply existed. So what was the answer? A jealous woman, right? A clinging, possessive mother. Wrong. With all due respect to Oedipus, I don't think that was the case at all.</b></i></p><p><i><b>Melanie: Then what was it?</b></i></p><p><i><b>Annie: Lydia liked me, you see. That was the strange part of it. In fact, now that I'm no longer a threat, we're very good friends.</b></i></p><p><i><b>Melanie: Then why did she object to you?</b></i></p><p><i><b>Annie: She was afraid.</b></i></p><p><i><b>Melanie: Afraid you'd take Mitch?</b></i></p><p><i><b>Annie: Afraid I'd give Mitch.</b></i></p><p><i><b>Melanie: I don't understand.</b></i></p><p><i><b>Annie: Afraid of any woman who'd give Mitch the only she can give him- love.</b></i></p><p><i><b>Melanie: Annie, that adds up to a jealous, possessive woman. </b></i></p><p><i><b>Annie: No, I don't think so. She's not afraid of losing her son, you see. She's only afraid of being abandoned. </b></i></p><p>On a sidenote, Hunter's dialogue is so good. While Hitchcock always believed in the idea of "pure cinema," telling the story strictly through the visuals, his films often had stellar dialogue passages. What I like specifically about this passage is it's all about small but significant differences. While everything points to Lydia being a "jealous, possessive woman," Annie doesn't feel it's that simple. She can't see Lydia as purely jealous, she even says Lydia liked her. Annie also makes distinctions between fear of giving vs. fear taking and fear of lost vs. fear of abandonment. Minute differences but they tell us about how Annie views things and maybe tells us something about Lydia as well.</p><p>We get to understand Lydia quite a bit in a later scene, which comes after Lydia's seen the dead body (with eyes gouged out by birds) of a neighbor. She's alone with Melanie and in a vulnerable position. She talks about the death of her husband, her reliance on his strength throughout the years and her wish to be a stronger person. It's the first time Lydia warms up to Melanie and she says something surprising to her, which is she's not sure if she even likes Melanie. A honest statement, and one that reflects Lydia's complicated feelings towards Melanie and her relationship with her son. It'd be easy to just have Lydia outright hate Melanie but her confession feels more nuanced and sympathetic.</p><p>Mitch also has his own complicated relationship with Melanie. His lawyer side dislikes her troublemaking side but when he spies her on the boat, he smiles, amused, and probably surprised she went though all that trouble to bring hum those birds. He's clearly concerned when she's attacked by a gull and invites her over for dinner. So, he's not completely hostile towards her. And I suspect there was likely already an attraction towards her. There's something playful already at play in the initial encounter, </p><p>And how are we, the audience, supposed to take Melanie? She's maybe not as easily "likable" as the main character is "supposed" to be. Hitchcock, Hunter, and Hedren allow us to feel our way through the character as we learn more about and spend more time with her. I personally find Mitch to be kind of a judgmental ass at the beginning, though as I said, he's compensating a little for his attraction to her.. Watching the movie this time, I quite liked Hedren's performance. She has the right amount of cool and warmth needed for a character who goes from socialite who glides through life to a more mature, deeper feeling person who becomes part of the Brenner family. Just before the first bird attack at Cathy's, Melanie and Mitch have a conversation where Melanie, like Lydia a few scenes later, shows her vulnerability. We learn Melanie's mother abandoned her when she was young and Melanie tells about the things she does with her life, including putting a Korean boy through school. Of course, it's obvious what's Melanie is missing in her life- a family. </p><p>Okay, let's come back to how Hitchcock is experimenting in this film. What I find notable about <i>The Birds</i> in contrast to Hitchcock's other work is it's virtually plotless. Hitchcock usually has a Macguffin (the thing every character wants but doesn't matter what it is, it's just there to get the ball rolling), a murder, or an innocent man on the run. According to Hunter there was almost going to be a murder mystery plot, with the birds being the culprits. Instead, there's no real mystery except when the birds are going to attack. Hitchcock once used the example of a bomb under the table to highlight surprise vs. suspense. You see two men at a table. A bomb suddenly goes off- that's surprise. What's suspense is seeing the bomb under the table and wondering when it's going off. The film goes for the latter approach and I think that's the proper choice. It also allows the film to foreground the characters more.</p><p>I mentioned earlier the escalation of the bird attacks gave the film apocalyptic overtones, which again shows Hitchcock playing with something new- a world ending scenario, as well as a "monster movie." Hitchcock's monster were typically serial killers or Nazis. But here, the monsters aren't really monsters. Mother nature is simply fighting back against humanity for taking them for granted, or at least this was Hitchcock's explanation. I believe the film is thematically more fascinating and starker if there isn't an explanation for the bird attacks. In his book, <i>Hitchcock's Films Revisited</i>, Robin Wood views the birds as </p><p><span> </span>a concrete embodiment of the arbitrary and unpredictable, of whatever makes human life and human <span> </span>relationships precarious, a reminder of fragility and instability that cannot be ignored or evaded and, <span> </span>beyond that, of the possibility that life is meaningless and absurd.</p><p>He also compares the bird attack to Marion murder in <i>Psycho</i>, in that they're both unprovoked and unearned. Horror often has a nihilistic streak to it. In horror we witness innocent people die and evil winning out. It's a ruthless genre and Hitchcock showed how ruthless he could be in <i>Psycho. </i>He further shows this mercilessness when Annie is unceremoniously killed by the birds offscreen. Annie's death is more painful because it's not seen and it demonstrates Hitchcock's preoccupation with placing us in the mind of his characters. We have to imagine Annie's end as Melanie and Mitch must do. </p><p>Aside from providing no clear explanation for the birds' war against humans Hitchcock also doesn't give us a neat ending either. Melanie and the Brenners live but the final shot is the car driving off in to an uncertain future, with the birds still covering the Brenner house, in what we already know is a short reprieve from the attacks. This is arguably the most ambiguous ending Hitchcock ever concocted, though <i>Psycho</i> and <i>Vertigo's </i>endings also create a sense of unease in the audience. The Birds was ahead of its time, for a Hollywood movie at least, in providing no clear finish for the story. The film end before it seems to end. </p><p>The only resolution the ending contains is the shared look between the injured Melanie and Lydia in the backseat of the car, suggesting Lydia has finally accepted Melanie and will care for her in her weakened state. Is the ending partly hopeful? I don't know. However, it does suggest that as the world is ending, people will stick together, that we need each other and must accept one another. It's also the resolution to Melanie's arc, where she starts out as an aloof loner but becomes part of a family. </p><p>Adding to the film's escalating terror is Hitchcock's choice to forgo an accompanying score, another experimental choice. During the bird attacks all you hear is the flapping of wings and squawking sounds. This accomplishes two things: giving you the felling of being in the middle of a bird assault, with your senses being overwhelmed. It's also another way the film sets itself apart from a traditional Hollywood feature. We may not first notice the absence of a musical score but when you realize it it's a brilliant way to an even stronger sense of fear in the audience. When Melanie is waiting outside the school for Cathy, the children's choir is the ironic soundtrack to the birds gathering behind Melanie on the jungle gym. George Tomasini's editing is so in tune with Hitchcock's dark sense of humour as the editing steadily builds the flocking of the birds behind the oblivious Melanie. Tomasini deserves recognition as being a key Hitchcock collaborator, editing several of Hitchcock's most famous films, including <i>Psycho, Rear Window</i>, and <i>North by Northwest. </i>He also edited the original <i>Cape Fear</i>, which I wrote about on this blog as having a heavy Hitchcock influence.</p><p>Why did Hitchcock move towards something more experimental, forgoing plot and certain Hitchcockian tropes. It may have something to do with Hitchcock's fascination with the international art house cinema of the 60s. Richard Allen, in his essay "Hitchcock and the Wandering Woman: The Influence of Italian Art Cinema on <i>The Birds</i>," argues that Hitchcock was </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span> <span> </span></span>challenged and provoked by the remarkable and rapid developments taking place in European art <span> </span><span> <span> </span></span>cinema. <i>The Birds</i> was conceived by Hitchcock in part as a response to this challenge, a work that <span> <span> </span></span>at once would continue continue his commercial success and confirm his status as an auteur on a <span> </span><span> <span> </span></span>par with the European directors he so admired. Hitchcock engaged with art cinema to inspire creativity and sustain his critical reputation</p><p>In an interview with Charles L.P. Silet, Hunter also makes the claim that Hitchcock want be seen as a serious artist: </p><p><span> </span>Hitch also told me later, and I learned later from other sources, that he was looking for some 'artistic <span> </span>respectability' with <i>The Birds</i>. This was something that always eluded him, and he deliberately chose <span> </span>to work with a successful New York novelist, rather than a Hollywood screenwriter.</p><p>Hitchcock was embraced by the French critics as a genuine artist, an auteur, whereas he wasn't as highly regarded in the states, seen as more of an entertainer than an artist. Of course, he wasn't one who was reclaimed by the French: Howard Hawks, another great mesher of entertainment and artistry, was another to whom the French applied the Auteur Theory approach of criticism, the idea that the director was the "author" of their films and had a singular visual style and consisitent themes running through their work.</p><p>Not only did Hitchcock go to a novelist for screenwriting duties, he chose a short story from Daphne Du Maurier, the author who wrote the basis of his first American film, and the only one of his that won Best Picture: <i>Rebecca</i>. While Hitchcock considered Rebecca as belonging to its producer, David O.Selznick, he may have felt the Best Picture victory and Du Maurier's literary pedigree could provide him with the basis for a true artistic picture. </p><p>As relating to the thesis of Hitchcock being influenced by European cinema, Allen argues that <i>The Birds</i> shares quite a bit in common with F.W. Murneau's 1927 silent film, <i>Sunrise</i>, where a woman enters a small town to seduce a man who lives with the family. Allen argues that Hitchcock drawing from Murneau displays a return to Hitchcock's roots in the 1920s as a young filmmaker, where he also took inspiration from directors he admired. Allen also sees a reverse influence by way of Michelangelo Antonioni recontextualizing <i>Rear Window</i> and <i>The Lady Vanishes</i> in the shape of his 1960 film <i>L'Avventura.</i> In that film a woman goes missing, after which her boyfriend and friend engage in an affair, which echoes the disappearing women plots of the former films.</p><p>Allen further develops the Antonioni connection by citing David Bordwell's classification of the art house protagonist, a wanderer who is in a passive relationship with the environment. "The wandering woman" walks without purpose, and is both observed and observing. This is a character that can be found Antonioni's films in the form of actress Monica Vitti. Allen relates Melanie to the archetype of the wandering woman but stresses that the difference between the women in Hitchcock's film have agency, whereas the women in Antonioni's film don't. In the early parts of the film, where Melanie travels to Bodega Bay show us a woman on a mission but by showing us every part of her journey suggests something distinctly European in terms of plot, or lack of plot I should say. It's all very banal, but in its banality it creates the proper contrast to the gull attack. </p><p>I'd say Hitchcock combined the art-house with the monster movie, but also blurring those lines, where the birds take on the same thematic weight as the environments do in Antonioni. Admittedly, it wasn't until this viewing of The Birds and reading up and thinking about the connection between the art-house and Hitchcock that I saw it as the experimental work it really is. While Hitchcock would eventually retreat in to familiarity with <i>Torn Curtain, </i>when looking at<i> Psycho, The Birds,</i> and his next film, <i>Marnie. </i>these films showcase what could be called Hitchcock's art-house phase- and I think you can certainly add <i>Vertigo</i> in there as well. While some see these films as quaint, I'd argue they represent an artist in his later years re-thinking of what he was capable. <i>The Birds</i> is singularly Hitchcock, however one looks at it, however, and one of his boldest experiments in suspense.</p><p><br /></p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-2983643868385962412023-09-23T16:42:00.006-07:002023-09-23T16:42:55.972-07:00"No One Will Save You"<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgOMCKC-U1YYKRD9HHFthwUkSCY54dpJbT16PLvnjOCeSyP6rt9iOo3zkNb9gUpfhaIEMc3qtwxhNfq4W7nEO-dIPBXwVuTx543joG_suKRrv4bb_HufNiqAi08TYB-LcOr8N7sPC_XhJnsIMJI6YABk1Gv114ryh4EHBVKvUIUlma7SjpwppX5KCsT5mc" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1365" data-original-width="2048" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgOMCKC-U1YYKRD9HHFthwUkSCY54dpJbT16PLvnjOCeSyP6rt9iOo3zkNb9gUpfhaIEMc3qtwxhNfq4W7nEO-dIPBXwVuTx543joG_suKRrv4bb_HufNiqAi08TYB-LcOr8N7sPC_XhJnsIMJI6YABk1Gv114ryh4EHBVKvUIUlma7SjpwppX5KCsT5mc=w400-h266" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p><b><i>Some spoilers below</i></b></p><p>My favourite director, Alfred Hitchcock, always believed in the concept of "pure cinema," which is basically telling of a film's story purely through the visuals. Hitchcock thought many films were "photographs of people talking" and that the silent cinema was more ideal than the "talkies.". Writer/director Brian Duffield seems to taken Hitchcock's commitment to pure cinema to heart for his sophomore film, <i>No One Will Save You, </i>which asks the question "What if <i>Signs</i> was a silent, one-woman show?" It's another ambitious venture for Duffield, whose 2020 film <i>Spontaneous </i>took a "How do you make out of that" premise and made an unexpectedly emotional love story out of it. As with Spontaneous, No One Will Save You is a character piece with a genre conceit as its background, grounding its fantastic premise in something authentically human and relatable.</p><p>Kaitlyn Dever stars as Brynn Adams, a woman who lives in a huge house all alone, doesn't really have any friends and is still mourning the loss of her mother from several years earlier. One night her house is invaded by alien...and that's pretty all I can tell, one- because that's pretty much what the movie is. As I said it's <i>Signs</i> but with one person, but also, where the film eventually goes is perhaps too vague on Duffield's part and honestly, I'm still not sure about what these aliens want or what happens in the film's final act and closing scene. It also feels like it has three big emotional climaxes, with Duffield not knowing where to end it or tie all three together. </p><p>But if the film doesn't completely live up to it's potential, it's a still worth seeking out due to its commitment to visual storytelling and also to is lead performance. Dever was so good in Olivia Wilde's <i>Booksmart</i> and last year's Shakespeare-inspired comedy <i>Rosaline,</i> and this is a great showcase for her underrated talents. She creates a sympathetic and dimensional character out of the sparsity of Duffield's script. From the very beginning, with Brynn waving to herself in the mirror, Dever reveals Brynn's awkwardness in social situations, and Dever carries herself as someone who's only really comfortable building model houses. Dever has such an appealing face and a down to earth to beauty that you have no problem watching her.</p><p>Though there are scenes with other people, the lack from Brynn to them or them to her gives us this isolating feel, putting us in Brynn's shoes and making everyone feel as much like an uncomfortable presence to us as they are to Brynn. Everyone feels...alien. The only time Brynn comes close to speaking to anyone, the parents of her friend Maude who died years ago, she's spit on by Maude's mother. Then, when Brynn's on a bus attempting to leave an the initial attack, a man sits behind her on the bus. We expect this is some kind of creep, but then it's revealed it's an alien in disguise who attacks her. Everyone feels like they could be a threat to Brynn and since Duffield so effectively puts us in Brynn's head, it's like a radical form of empathy. Coming back to Hitchcock, he was adept at putting you in the minds of his characters, good or bad. Remember when Norman is cleaning up the mess after "shower scene"? Remember how Hitchcock makes you worried Norman is going to be caught when the car doesn't sink in the river? Part of why Hitchcock's films are so suspenseful is because you're feeling the suspense the characters are feeling. </p><p>I want to talk a little about the aliens. Duffield and his VFX artists go for a retro look with the invaders, which I think works. A more original look would've put the focus more on them than on Brynn. There's also something humorous about this young woman killing aliens right out of a 50s B movie. On a side note, it's always hard not to think about <i>Home Alone </i>when you see someone preparing for a home invasion. Spielberg's shadow, like a mothership, will always hover over the alien visitor sub-genre, so Duffield was also likely thinking of Spielberg's own retro take on aliens in <i>Close Encounters of the Third Kind</i>, another film that's essentially a character piece. And if Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) was a family man who becomes a loner who runs away from his life, Brynn is a loner who has to deal with her past. </p><p>We admire Brynn for her resourcefulness in facing off against the aliens. There's a believability to how Brynn interacts with these creatures, a simplicity to how these kills them. It's close encounters in closed in spaces. While the aliens do have psyhic powers, it's the only advantage they really have. They're Kryptonian warriors from <i>Man of Steel </i>or even the terrifying tripods from Spielberg's <i>War of the Worlds</i>. Again, there's kind of a humorous touch to the proceedings, without dipping in to full comedy. </p><p>So yeah, I would say check this one out. Again, I think it needed a little more clarity in the final act to bring it together seamlessly but it's a worthwhile experiment. So, what's your favourite alien invasion/contact story. Comment and let me know.</p><p> </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-46199484865710012042023-07-05T14:43:00.001-07:002023-07-05T14:43:40.905-07:00The Essential Films: The Terminator (1984)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEil3bEaq3Wn_DyZO__YoAwCYLjsKnQmvdtMgw9M1n7MatYhHT6RprSZ1_Tag7Zy-MIqOlth0AmHZwstpHJ_BRc0WHVkgUgQSHiLpFXirTrak72t4_NLWuTibLBVs1xhzGfS9SIDTPWQKXHMJSAKT41TUIN3LvG9SbgpBZdYmM0SjXH13LXHfvpCGAph2_U" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEil3bEaq3Wn_DyZO__YoAwCYLjsKnQmvdtMgw9M1n7MatYhHT6RprSZ1_Tag7Zy-MIqOlth0AmHZwstpHJ_BRc0WHVkgUgQSHiLpFXirTrak72t4_NLWuTibLBVs1xhzGfS9SIDTPWQKXHMJSAKT41TUIN3LvG9SbgpBZdYmM0SjXH13LXHfvpCGAph2_U=w400-h224" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p><i>A series of writings on films that I feel are essential for film lovers, coupled with films that are important to me. Spoilers for those who haven't seen the film. </i></p><p><i>The Terminator</i> is maybe my favourite movie. Many people prefer <i>Terminator 2: Judgment Day</i> but I always go for the first one. <i>T2</i> is more of a crowd pleasing summer action film about a boy and his pet terminator (I like the movie but have complicated feelings about it) but <i>The Terminator</i> is much bleaker and dirtier, a mixture of sci-fi and horror which its writer and director James Cameron called "tech noir." Like most first films in a franchise there's a real purity to it. There's no formula or call backs, just an inventive story its director, like George Lucas with the original <i>Star Wars</i>, wanted to put on screen.</p><p>While Lucas had the success of <i>American Graffiti </i>to his name when he did Star Wars, Cameron had <i>Piranha 2: The Spawning</i>, which bombed with critics and audiences. It was during post production of that film where Cameron got sick and had a fever dream/nightmare about a robot skeleton dragging itself along the floor with kitchen knives. This obviously stuck with Cameron and became the basis for <i>The Terminator</i>. The film is often considered a horror film and of all the Terminator films it's the only one that feels like a pure translation of Cameron's nightmare on screen. The sequels go more for bombastic action than the pure terror of an unstoppable killing machine. And while Cameron could've just made a killer robot movie, he places the "slasher" element within the context of a intriguing time travel narrative that has, what I think, is one of the most underrated twists/payoffs in any movie.</p><p>In terms of the slasher genre, Cameron clearly took inspiration from John Carpenter's <i>Halloween</i>. Both Carpenter and Cameron show us ordinary women being stalked by hulking killers who feel out of place in the normal world. Tension is created through this unease and question of when they'll strike at the main character. Cameron's original conception of the Terminator was that of a normal looking guy who could come up to you in a crowd and kill you. But when he met Arnold Schwarzenegger, he rein-visioned it as what we see in the film. This is one of rare instances of Schwarzenegger playing a villain. The image we have of him is the goofy cartoon come to life but here Schwarzenegger is actually quite intimidating, a real beast. We see him kill a couple of innocent women point-blank. Before he kills the first Sarah Connor (he only knows the name of the woman he's after), there's that striking shot of him in the door frame, emotionless. Arguably, one can't call the Terminator evil. Rather, it's just a machine with a program. </p><p>At first we don't know why the Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) wants to Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), a waitress who's barely making it by. All we know is there's some future war between humans and machines and, as the opening text crawl tells, the final battle will be fought in the present day- with the Terminator , as well as another guy, Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn), coming from the future. We eventually learn that in the future her son John Connor will lead the human resistance against the machines and winning the war. In a last ditch effort the machines have sent back the Terminator back to kill John before he's even born. </p><p>The key to good exposition is to make the audience forget they're hearing an info dump. Cameron does this creating a sense of urgency during these scenes. When Reese tells Sarah about her son and the future war, they're on the run from the Terminator, hiding in a car and then attempting to get to another. Cameron also avoids using flashbacks during this scenes so we're allowed to imagine Connor leading the humans against the machines. And when Reese is being interrogated at the police station, talking about the time displacement field, he's talking to a psychologist who clearly doesn't believe him. We're sharing in Reese's frustration with Silberman (Earl Boen), since we know the Terminator is going to arrive at any moment. Reese is captive and Sarah is isolated. </p><p>A more routinely structured film would've given us all this information via Reese being told his mission at he film's beginning Reese would be this version's main character and the story would be that of a cool time-travelling action hero. Instead, Cameron takes a more subversive path, withholding the information regarding Sarah's significance from the audience until she learns it. Cameron wants this to be Sarah's story, a human story rather than just merely a time-travelling action movie.</p><p>Cameron also subverts the typical male action hero archetype of the time. Physically, Biehn is not a big guy but pretty skinny. And Biehn plays the character in the early parts of the film as very sketchy individual, possibly as dangerous to Sarah as the Terminator. He doesn't scresm "heroic" but makes Sarah nervous when she first sees him, thinking he's the ma who killed the other Sarah Connors (the Terminator doesn't know what Sarah looks like). It's only when Reese saves Sarah from the Terminator at the "Tech Noir" club that it becomes clear he's there to protect her. Cameron slows everything down as the Terminator approaches Sarah. In one of my favourite shots in the film- it points a laser target at Sarah. The suspense builds as Kyle takes out his shotgun and then everything goes back to normal speed as Kyle fires, almost as if the action has brought everything up to speed.</p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgaEbajMzkvBuqwjQC-VnSddZk6FZ4RYLPh8aFNQ2WA2GpcN11VBRmLwrFfqM3HD4mRCMxnr_S5s-nAg0ijdqFGqzAnn39MAvuxCx5aGw3ej9AfWFxAsZpokhf3WNz3k4_6JW5fjFvF7EAU2swfTMZlOVvpK4AsfchAq5pbo5bZ-D38o2FWKQj2VRlY9dQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="696" data-original-width="1280" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgaEbajMzkvBuqwjQC-VnSddZk6FZ4RYLPh8aFNQ2WA2GpcN11VBRmLwrFfqM3HD4mRCMxnr_S5s-nAg0ijdqFGqzAnn39MAvuxCx5aGw3ej9AfWFxAsZpokhf3WNz3k4_6JW5fjFvF7EAU2swfTMZlOVvpK4AsfchAq5pbo5bZ-D38o2FWKQj2VRlY9dQ=w400-h217" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p>Biehn's performance is all raw, gritted teeth, sweaty, fried out energy. It's the type of character the franchise never revisited, even when they brought back Reese in later sequels. With the sequels, it's always Schwarzenegger as the robotic protector who fight another Terminator. Here, it's two humans against a unstoppable killing machine. It makes things more intimate, especially when Sarah and Reese do have sex. It's implied that Reese is a virgin before this and I can't think of another action movie of this kind that infers this about the main guy. </p><p>Even barring the "mother of the future" thing, Sarah is understandably skeptical of Reese telling her there's a robot from the future trying to kill her. It's only when the Terminator mows down the police station that she truly and fully believes Reese is telling the truth. My favourite moment from the film is when Sarah thinks the Terminator is coming through the door but it's Reese. She's relieved it's him and the two share a brief moment before escaping. It's at this moment that the two are completely together, and will be for the rest of the film</p><p>Cameron knew he wouldn't have the budget to do a story set in the future so he wrote this smaller story which has big implications. The fate of the human race depends on the outcome of this chase thriller, and by the end we realize what has occurred is even more monumental and mind-bending, which is that Kyle is John's father. We can also put 2 and 2 together and realize Sarah trained John because she knew about the future. The whole thing is a time loop and this chase thriller takes on a more mythic quality. </p><p>Unlike most of the sequels, we never see John on screen. I prefer this because I believe John works better as off-screen presence, a symbol. "I'd die for John Connor," Reese tells Sarah, and I don't know if any of the actors who've played John have conveyed what we get from Reese talking about the guy. It also puts the focus on Sarah. She's the hero of the story, not John John can only become the man he is because of his mother's training and being told the truth about his father, the man Sarah loved. At the end she questions whether she should tell John this, if it'll influence his choice to send Kyle back. I believe it's because John Kyle is his father that he sends him back. "No fate but what we make" becomes the philosophy of <i>Terminator 2</i> but the original implies there can only be one path. Could Sarah ever have done anything different than tell John the truth. I don't know. </p><p>While the film concerns a future war, it's one of the great time capsule films of the 1980s. Sarah's hair is one of the most memorable images and the Tech Noir club, the music, the dancing, its just all drenched in 80sness. The film is also one of the great unsung L.A movies, especially L.A. at night. Cinematographer Adam Greenberg's shooting of the city at night has a Michael Mann-esque quality. I love the shot of the Terminator looking over the L.A cityscape, a city full of people who don't know of the coming apocalypse. And Brad Fiedel's score, that throbbing sound that's like the Terminator's mechanical heart, the mournful and metallic main theme, it's so good. </p><p>The biggest challenge Cameron when writing, casting and direction, was how to convincingly take Sarah from this timid waitress to a survivor who drives off in to a storm at the end, symbolizing, not subtly. the coming apocalypse and the dark days ahead. Even when Sarah accepts there's a terminator after her, she still can't see herself as the actual person it's after. I think we as the audience are also supposed to wonder how this person could ever train a child to become the leader of the human race. But by the end, when Sarah drives off, it feels like we've been on an epic journey with Sarah. Again, Cameron took a small story and makes it feel bigger through its implication. Hamilton is convincing as both the afraid young woman but also the woman at the end who says "You're terminated, fucker." Cameron puts Sarah through so much, and has her bond with so Reese so deeply, that it's completely believable she would harden and be able to save herself, as well as taking on the responsibility of training John. And as I argued earlier, the film is fatalistic. There's only one path for Sarah to take. </p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjUSs6zDsjCgWd2Agiw2d8iGdpkgTLIzzXT31TyaHgsy2mWTIu5vkUfyNN3UfRm_cmSLPBsMw3r1ItOsnfRPhgktunEgpFH1xSBbWe8pnw_VvqPmWB3EeeuRqTiduaO_0-Um5HDU-nScNTEWBypWbBWkNqTD62MwqPWvGZODjOGUu2BG6FCOIqN3BDfzEw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="165" data-original-width="305" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjUSs6zDsjCgWd2Agiw2d8iGdpkgTLIzzXT31TyaHgsy2mWTIu5vkUfyNN3UfRm_cmSLPBsMw3r1ItOsnfRPhgktunEgpFH1xSBbWe8pnw_VvqPmWB3EeeuRqTiduaO_0-Um5HDU-nScNTEWBypWbBWkNqTD62MwqPWvGZODjOGUu2BG6FCOIqN3BDfzEw" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;">What brings back me to the movie is Sarah and Reese's relationship, as short-lived as it is. This feels like the most intimate of the Terminator films because, as I said earlier, it's two humans up against a machine rather a machine against a machine as in the sequels. Reese dies tragically while destroying the Terminator's legs, a brutal hit to the audience but necessary for Sarah to eventually survive. That <i>The Terminator</i> ends up as a tragic but also triumphant love story is what makes this film stand out amongst other 80s action movies. While the Terminator is cold without feeling, the film itself, like the Tin Man has a real heart.</div></span><p></p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-81321455074557944702023-04-22T13:10:00.001-07:002023-04-22T13:12:26.513-07:00Oceans of Time: "Bram Stoker's Dracula"<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNiZGRp6VZHZuaYa55GGxy8JGdKY2-jrNPeKv74UMaJ07KAtbpPD6NBAf96No2Ig-wKojNqb9xubHgURpGDpdZ1Hxgd3DIOvplkPnmjoWVvU5Ns_NuswRMt1J5Z8HLcCfr63A_LufRpKF7eVPu1S4qwINJTexDMVwTouWUx85e_SWkFHgjP2tzbH7E/s860/Bram-Stokers-Dracula-gary-oldman-as-count-dracula-860x485.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="485" data-original-width="860" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNiZGRp6VZHZuaYa55GGxy8JGdKY2-jrNPeKv74UMaJ07KAtbpPD6NBAf96No2Ig-wKojNqb9xubHgURpGDpdZ1Hxgd3DIOvplkPnmjoWVvU5Ns_NuswRMt1J5Z8HLcCfr63A_LufRpKF7eVPu1S4qwINJTexDMVwTouWUx85e_SWkFHgjP2tzbH7E/w400-h225/Bram-Stokers-Dracula-gary-oldman-as-count-dracula-860x485.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Spoilers Below</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">We don't make films that look and like Francis Ford Coppola's<i> Dracula </i>anymore. It belongs to the era that also gave us Tim Burton's <i>Batman Returns</i> and Joel Schumacher's 2 Batman films, as well as</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">Baz Luhrmann's <i>Romeo + Juliet</i>, singular, director driven movies with big budgets and based on popular source material. <i>Dracula</i> and <i>Batman Returns</i> owe themselves more to German expressionism and silent movies than Hollywood conventions. </span><span style="text-align: left;">While we have auteur driven big budget films from the likes of Christopher Nolan and Denis Villeneuve it's hard to imagine either them making something as campy, avant-garde and erotic as this film. They're both too sexless to make an sexual film. Robert Eggers is doing his </span><i style="text-align: left;">Nosferatu</i><span style="text-align: left;"> remake but that's probably going to be a more somber affair without the camp humour of this film. But to be fair, the guy who put a decapitated horse's head in a guy's bed and had Marlon Brando talk about polio doesn't necessarily seem like anyone's idea of a sexy filmmaker. However, Coppola's career and style has always been varied and unpredictable. </span></div><p></p><p>Coppola's style is defined by its fluidity and adaptation, fitting his style to what the film needs- from the novelistic quality of <i>The Godfather </i>films, the surreal nightmarishness of <i>Apocalypse Now</i>, the chilly paranoia of <i>The Conversation,</i> and the lowkey fantasy of <i>Peggy Sue Got Married.</i> He also doesn't box himself by genre. He took the gangster film and put on a Shakespearean scale with both parts of <i>The Godfather</i>, combined the gangster and musical genres with <i>The Cotton Club,</i> and made a war film as strange and atmospheric as <i>Apocalypse Now</i>. <i>Dracula </i>is a horror film but it's also a gothic romance blended with the avant-garde and camp. It also wasn't the first time Coppola delved in to the gothic. When he enrolled in UCLA film school, he directed couple of short horror films, <i>Two Christophers</i>, inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's William Wilson, and <i>Ayamonn The Terrible</i>, about a sculptor's nightmares coming to life. In 1963 Coppola was one of several uncredited directors on Roger Corman's <i>The Terror</i>, starring Boris Karloff and a young Jack Nicholson. Coppola's first full length feature was the<i> Psycho</i>-inspired <i>Dementia 13</i>. And one can detect Coppola's horror roots in the horse's head and murder of the five families sequences from <i>The Godfather</i>. </p><p>Before <i>Dracula</i>, Coppola returned to this greatest financial and artistic success with <i>The Godfather Part</i> <i>III</i>. And thematically <i>Dracula</i> begins where that film ends. After seeking legitimacy throughout the film Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) witnesses his daughter Mary (Sofia Coppola) murdered by assassins meant to kill him. In 1462 Romanian knight Vlad Dracula (Gary Oldman) returns home from his war against the Ottoman Empire to find his wife Elisabetta (Winona Ryder) has committed suicides after the Ottomans reported him dead. Dracula is enraged that after fighting for God this same God didn't prevent his wife's death (and since it was a suicide she won't be allowed in to Heaven). Dracula renounces God and, in an expressionistic piece of storytelling. drinks the blood from a stone cross, making him in to a vampire. Both Michael and Dracula lose loved ones to their enemies and if <i>Godfather Part III's</i> ending reminds us of <i>King Lear</i>, <i>Dracula's</i> prologue brings to mind <i>Romeo & Juliet</i>, which Coppola does reference in one of the behind the scenes documentaries, as well as Ophelia's suicide from <i>Hamlet.</i> So, Coppola, as he did with the <i>Godfather</i> films, is taking a piece oggenre fiction and reinterpreting it as operatic tragedy. Dracula's howl of pain before cutting to the title is probably the film's most effective emotional moment, for me. </p><p>Coppola said in interviews he felt the other adaptations of <i>Dracula</i> never really did the book, so with his interpretation is was an attempt to follow Bram Stoker's novel more closely- the official title of this film is<i> Bram Stoker's Dracula </i>and Coppola always likes giving the author credit. However, I believe the love story element is something screenwriter James V. Hart added (Hart also did two other literary adaptations, Steven Spielberg's <i>Hook. </i>Kenneth Branagh's <i>Frankenstein</i> and, of all things, <i>Muppet Treasure Island). </i>I've never read Stoker's novel but I do know it's told via letters and journal entries, which Hart and Coppola reference throughout the film. And of course there's this great (practical shot of Jonathan Harker's (Keanu Reeves) diary in the foreground while a train runs across the screen in the background. The diary was an oversized book and the train was an actual miniature train. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4tllz3rLPsNjRR6GL5BuQ5NbWRfl-D6WASF4Z5m9vwU-xb0omDaFFFq53J57fWlF9yJyDgH2FcjRaIT6g3Y5XCWtp74fNenSel3u2JUmHYHsvpVrKpfODg3s3zKQGWwAViNTkRlY5hdWdf3mZOJIvviAeG4p7hAzknwJxBGUywp1ZGq3iMFg-iv9a/s1268/dracula_jul2012-a.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="689" data-original-width="1268" height="174" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4tllz3rLPsNjRR6GL5BuQ5NbWRfl-D6WASF4Z5m9vwU-xb0omDaFFFq53J57fWlF9yJyDgH2FcjRaIT6g3Y5XCWtp74fNenSel3u2JUmHYHsvpVrKpfODg3s3zKQGWwAViNTkRlY5hdWdf3mZOJIvviAeG4p7hAzknwJxBGUywp1ZGq3iMFg-iv9a/s320/dracula_jul2012-a.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p>Harker (Keanu Reeves) is the young solicitor who, in 1897, comes to Dracula's castle to arrange his real estate acquisitions in London. His fiancee, Mina Murray (Ryder, again), is the reincarnated Elisabeta and when Dracula sees her picture it becomes his goal to seek her out. Without the use of flashbacks, we're left to imagine the hundreds of years Dracula has been undead. He feels like the loneliest, most haunted Dracula to grace the screen. This was Oldman back when he really threw himself in to these offbeat villain roles and such a chameleon that I remember knowing someone who joked he wasn't sure what Oldman actually looked like. Oldman certainly knows what kind of movie he's in and is able to pull off the campy, gothic and theatrical side of the character while also bringing real pathos to his tragic longing, specifically when he transitions from decrepit count to handsome and seductive Prince Vlad. </p><p>Reeves. dodgy accent aside, is endearing as Harker, and works as a proper contrast to Oldman. Reeves' Harker is sexually non-threatening, kind of dull, as opposed to Prince Vlad, a more sexually exciting prospect, challenging the Victorian restrictiveness Mina she's used to. But the relationship between Dracula and is where my problems with the film begin. I just have a hard time getting swept up emotionally as much as I'd like with the film's love story. I'm not even sure if Oldman and Ryder even have chemistry. I do wonder what the film would've been like with a young Kate Winslet or Rachel Weisz. I also have a problem in general, I think with these kind of heightened love stories. I prefer lower-key, more developed and slower burn romances instead of the more melodramatic kind. for which the film is going. It's a little bit like what Coppola's friend and contemporary George Lucas was attempting in <i>Attack of the Clones</i> with Anakin and Padme. I liked the idea behind the romance but I don't believe it pulled it off that well. However, I think the romance in <i>Dracula </i>is better acted. </p><p><i>Dracula</i> is one of those films that leads with its aesthetics and mood rather than strong storytelling. If the first 2 <i>Godfather</i> films are like a great novel on screen than <i>Dracula</i> feels like an overproduced Broadway play. This isn't to say there aren't visual pleasures to be found here. The in-camera practical effects are terrific, and they make the film, especially with the stuff in Dracula's castle, reminiscent of a 1920s silent film. Honestly, I'd watch a whole film set in this film's version of late 15th century Transylvania, an expressionistic fairy tale where Dracula fights silhouettes of shadow puppets instead of actors. I also love Dracula's armour, which is like a sci-fi take on Japanese samurai armour. In Elizabeth Joy Glass' piece on the film's costumes (<a href="https://theartofcostume.com/2020/10/29/designing-fear-bram-stokers-dracula/">Designing Fear: Bram Stoker's Dracula - The Art of Costume</a>), she discusses how at the beginning of production, Coppola said "The costumes will be the set." Glass adds that Coppola "wanted the costumes to be visually exciting set pieces, and set the film's atmosphere." Coppola enlisted Eiko Ishioka, who had designed the Japanese poster for<i> Apocalypse Now,</i> and who at the time only had a couple of costume credits but she would go on to win the Oscar for Best Costume Design. <i>The Simpsons</i> homaged the film's most famous outfit, Dracula's red coat, along with his hundred-of-years-old white make up and what I once heard described as the "boob head." Lucy (Sadie Frost), Mina'a friend who Dracula turns in to a vampire also has a striking funeral/death dress that's a highlight "set piece Watching the film, it's clear what Coppola was going for. Moreso than the settings, the film's costumes- significantly Dracula's different looks, which rival Padme's in <i>The Phantom Menace</i>- define the film's mix of realism and stylization, where certain scenes feel like they're an authentic depiction of the period, while others, like the scenes in Dracula's castle, feel very theatrical and exaggerated. This helps create a distinction between Dracula's world and the more normal world of Victorian England, which then becomes invaded by Dracula's presence.</p><p>But coming back to what I was saying, the storytelling and character work does take a backseat to the costumes and the mood. Don't get me wrong, I'll all about visual style and I hate the expression "style over substance." And I do feel strong visual style and directing can overcome a film's other issues. But like Ridley Scott's <i>Legend</i>, a film that also draws me back because of its strong aesthetics (I know, I'm using that word a lot), I wish I could get more in to Dracula emotionally or at least on a entertainment level. There's some grade A Anthony Hopkins ham from his performance as Professor Abraham Van Helsing, who's brought in to the fray after Lucy is turned in to a vampire. Hopkins was right off his Oscar win for <i>The Silence of The Lambs </i>and one wishes the movie was just Hopkins vs. Oldman, in a similar vein to the Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing Hammer Horror Dracula movies. There's definitely a more entertaining film in here about Helsing and Dr. Jack Seward (Richard E. Grant), Lucy's fiancée, Arthur Holmwood (Cary Elwes), and Texan Quincy Morris (Billy Campbell) facing off against Dracula. </p><p>So, the film isn't emotionally engaging on the love story level, and it's not fun enough despite the Hopkins bits, so it ends up unsatisfying as both a romance and an entertaining horror film. The sincere romanticism and the camp are also never completely reconciled. Though the film's unwieldy nature gives it its beguiling and esoteric allure. Like Lucas, Coppola is a experimental director at heart, more so than his populist success would lead you to believe. I feel that if Lucas would've kept directing movies after the original <i>Star Wars</i>, he may have eventually become who Coppola is now, a director whose films are outside of the mainstream and experimental. <i>Dracula </i>is one of Coppola's last true commercial films, followed by <i>Jack</i> (1996) and the John Grisham adaptation <i> The Rainmaker </i>(1997). He has just completed production on his long-gestating project <i>Megalopolis</i>, a sci-fi film about an architect attempting rebuild New York in to a utopia after a disaster. </p><p><i>Dracula </i>is a film I always return to, wanting to love it more than I do and it has grown on me in certain respects, though I can't say it's a complete success. However, it's such an distinctive film of excess and theatricality that I'll always go back to for its strong visual design fun performances. A little over 30 years after its release, there's still never anything quite like Coppola's gothic, camp, whatever you want to call it, opus.</p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-31327884995243562732023-03-06T09:28:00.001-08:002023-03-06T09:29:40.563-08:00Normalcy, Psychopathy, and The Hitchcock Influence on "Cape Fear" (1962)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQXBuxZrHcAxn_8SNR02Tb1SBiGaYcmZvc6s2yOe_Qyqry6F7XLkTHVIAjvym5sMWx3fVstWgO7cEL51SN5f6YTioT12qgjSj5fwa-cUREmK3vnW3cCZmaMqxU6PHXjpJGs8ex7YmR8Sib36n_DmWP8BbMg_y77Vrzm4DReYqBntBrprVveb3J8cVa/s904/Cape_Fear_2.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="473" data-original-width="904" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQXBuxZrHcAxn_8SNR02Tb1SBiGaYcmZvc6s2yOe_Qyqry6F7XLkTHVIAjvym5sMWx3fVstWgO7cEL51SN5f6YTioT12qgjSj5fwa-cUREmK3vnW3cCZmaMqxU6PHXjpJGs8ex7YmR8Sib36n_DmWP8BbMg_y77Vrzm4DReYqBntBrprVveb3J8cVa/w400-h209/Cape_Fear_2.webp" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><i>Spoilers Below</i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">In 1961, after filming <i>The Guns of Navarone</i> under the direction of J. Lee Thompson, Gregory Peck hired Thompson to direct a film adaptation of novel for which Peck bought the rights for his production company, </span><span style="text-align: left;"> John D. MacDonald's' </span><i style="text-align: left;">The Executioners</i><span style="text-align: left;">. Not liking the title, Peck changed it to <i>Cape Fear</i>, since he believed films named after places did very well commercially. And just typing the words <i>Cape Fear</i> alone bring to mind Bernard Herrmann's classic score. While the film has bee overshadowed by its 1991 remake, directed by Martin Scorsese, Thompson's original is still a startling, tight-knit thriller of psychological torture. It's also one of the best riffs on Alfred Hitchcock ever made. This essay will delve in to the master's influence on the film in terms of style and narrative. </span></div><p></p><p>Like Hitchcock's films, <i>Cape Fear </i>explores the intersection of normalcy and psychopathy. Think of <i>Shadow of a Doubt,</i> where a serial killer returns to his quaint home town, or of <i>Strangers on a Train </i>where a tennis pro gets embroiled in the plot of a psychopath. In <i>Psycho</i>, Hitchcock showed us the darker side of seemingly ordinary people like Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), a bank clerk who steals money from a client. Her path crosses with hotel proprietor Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), another seemingly ordinary, if slightly strange man, who is eventually revealed as the titular psycho. Then there there's <i>Rope</i>, where a dinner party is taking place in the unknown presence of a corpse and two murderers. In <i>Cape Fear</i> a ordinary lawyer, Sam Bowden (Peck) had prior to the events of the film intervened in the attack of a woman by Max Cady (Robert Mitchum). Bowden acted as a witness and got him convicted. At the film's beginning, Cady, now out of prison has come to Georgia, blaming Bowden for his conviction. So, like in Hitchcock we have the ordinary (Bowden and his wife and daughter) and the preternatural evil (Cady). Cady brutally beats a woman before and during the events of the film. He wants to rape Bowden's daughter, Nancy (Lori Martin), and even attempts to blackmail Bowden's wife (Polly Bergen) into giving consent to sex in exchange for sparing Nancy. He's a vile animal, a smart animal, but an animal nonetheless. </p><p>Hitchcock's villains often had similar qualities to Cady, a sort of otherworldly evil, and a lack of remorse for the crimes they've committed: Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotton) in <i>Shadow of a Doubt</i> or Brandon Shaw (John Dall) in <i>Rope</i>. Brandon killed a college friend solely because he believed he was superior to him. And Charlie didn't think much of of his victims. Look at this exchange between him and his niece Little Charlie (Teresa Wright):</p><div class="sodatext" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 8px 12px 0px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 18.2px; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding: 0px;"><i><b><a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001072/?ref_=tt_trv_qu" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #136cb2; text-decoration-line: none;"><span class="character" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Uncle Charlie</span></a>: The cities are full of women, middle-aged widows, husbands dead, husbands who've spent their lives making fortunes, working and working. And then they die and leave their money to their wives, their silly wives. And what do the wives do, these useless women? You see them in the hotels, the best hotels, every day by the thousands, drinking their money, eating their money, losing the money at bridge, playing all day and all night, smelling of money, proud of their jewelry but of nothing else, horrible, faded, fat, greedy women.</b></i></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 18.2px; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding: 0px;"><i><b><a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0942863/?ref_=tt_trv_qu" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #136cb2; text-decoration-line: none;"><span class="character" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Young Charlie</span></a>: But they're alive. They're human beings.</b></i></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 18.2px; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding: 0px;"><i><b><a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001072/?ref_=tt_trv_qu" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #136cb2; text-decoration-line: none;"><span class="character" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Uncle Charlie</span></a>: Are they? Are they, Charlie? Are they human or are they fat, wheezing animals, hmm? And what happens to animals when they get too fat and too old?</b></i></p></div><div class="did-you-know-actions" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; padding: 8px 12px;"><br /></div><div class="did-you-know-actions" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; padding: 8px 12px;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Cady has this same hatred towards women. He got horrible revenge against his ex-wife for divorcing him and marrying a plumber, raping her, forcing her to write Cady a love letter than threatening to show it to the plumber if she ever phoned the cops. He views them as animals. Again, Cady has no remorse, blaming Bowden for winding up in prison. That's what makes him and the premise so terrifying. Interfere with evil and evil will bite you back. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">With Peck and Mitchum you have the perfect casting to represent these good and evil. Peck is the stalwart everyman, blandly likeable, conventionally handsome. Then you have Mitchum, a rougher kind of actor, whose face often seems drawn by someone rather than birthed. He often played anti-heroes but was capable of playing true, other-worldy, almost comedic evil, as in <i>The Night of the Hunter,</i> which I wrote about many years ago: </span><a href="https://thenoirzone.blogspot.com/2011/06/essential-films-night-of-hunter-1955.html">Davies in the Dark: The Essential Films: "The Night of the Hunter" (1955) (thenoirzone.blogspot.com)</a></b></div><div class="did-you-know-actions" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; padding: 8px 12px;"><br /></div><div class="did-you-know-actions" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; padding: 8px 12px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div class="did-you-know-actions" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; padding: 8px 12px;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRIXsNDB7hBmy5F39Iv22bHlBmH5Ky_0abyqExmiVDfXTqgoFsom1HQEOnhZkP1464nCfpHHfmLcShZXkXq8CG-J9X517h5Z9j3PjhMtOJ74EM6klRDO4V3NlWD0P8aHENta16txLQTSlEqHqXq0Qubysgo4uo0bHLHTEUKyBVHTKvvnulxbDSN1zH/s252/psycho.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="252" data-original-width="200" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRIXsNDB7hBmy5F39Iv22bHlBmH5Ky_0abyqExmiVDfXTqgoFsom1HQEOnhZkP1464nCfpHHfmLcShZXkXq8CG-J9X517h5Z9j3PjhMtOJ74EM6klRDO4V3NlWD0P8aHENta16txLQTSlEqHqXq0Qubysgo4uo0bHLHTEUKyBVHTKvvnulxbDSN1zH/s1600/psycho.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div class="did-you-know-actions" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; padding: 8px 12px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><b>Coming back to Hitchcock, the director always had a distrust of the police, which can be seen in his work, which is full of innocent men on the run, attempting to prove their innocence. The law can't protect you in Hitchcock's world, and it can't in <i>Cape Fear</i> either. </b></span><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">The film posits the law cannot protect you but can only respond to a crime. And even when Cady beats up Diane Taylor, she won't testify due to the fear of repercussions from Cady. Essentially, she wants to avoid being in Bowden's position. She can put him away but it won't stop him from coming back and exacting revenge. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">"No good deed goes unpunished" could've been the film's tagline.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> Bowden did the right thing in the law's eyes but now it can't remove Cady from Bowden's life. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Bowden is a fine upstanding lawyer who believes he can get rid of Cady pretty easily with the help of his friend and police chief, Mark Dutton (Martin Balsam). You'll be forgiven if you assume Dutton will be seen climbing some stairs before getting stabbed, since Balsam will always be associated with</span> <i>Psycho</i>. But no, Cady understands that he can psychologically torment Bowden and his family without breaking the law. . The only way the law will work in Bowden's favor is putting his family in extreme danger, putting them on a boat, so he can trap Cady in the act of attempted violence.</b></div><div class="did-you-know-actions" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; padding: 8px 12px;"><b>I've talked about the thematic connections between Hitchcock's work and <i>Cape Fear.</i> Now, I want to discuss the stylistic similarities between the two. First, Bernard Herrmann, a frequent Hitchcock collaborator, was brought on to do the score. Like his score for <i>Psycho</i>, his theme for <i>Cape Fear </i>has a stalking terror- something evil is coming for you. Herrmann's scores fitted Hitchcock's expressive style-Hitchcock always wanted to communicate things without dialogue, i.e. visually and auditorily, so Hitchcock provided the images Herrmann's provided the emotion. </b></div><div class="did-you-know-actions" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; padding: 8px 12px;"><b>On the DVD making of documentary, director Thompson discusses how he studied Hitchcock, actually working with him in England years prior. Thompson says he always approached a scene wondering how Hitchcock would do it. One thing Thompson highlights about Hitchcock's style is that he always liked to clue the audience in on something the character didn't know. The footage shown while Thompson is talking is when of Cady's victims, deputy Kersak, who's protecting the Bowden women on a boat, is being stalked by Cady. This is quintessential suspense, obvious, maybe, but it was crucial to Hitchcock's approach to storytelling, the camera being a character that saw things others didn't, and was unable to prevent things. </b></div><div class="did-you-know-actions" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; padding: 8px 12px;"><b>Thompson also says he only saw the film in black and white, that the blacks and shadows would enhance the story, that color would ruin it. Like <i>Psycho,</i> it's hard to imagine the film being as effective in color. The world of both films exist in the shadows. <i>Cape Fear's</i> stark cinematography is courtesy of Sam Leavitt. His work provides much of the film's unnerving atmosphere. And it's just styilized enough without drifting in to complete unreality. </b></div><div class="did-you-know-actions" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; padding: 8px 12px;"><b>Another Hitchcock collaborator working on the film was Robert Doyle, Due to his own relationship with Hitchcock, knew what Thompson was looking for in terms of production design. For example, the bed that becomes a cage for Diane Taylor. Then there's the sequence where Nancy is behind a gate, being stalked by Cady. Thompson wanted to the gates to be black. The gates Thompson found were painted extra black by Boyle. What makes this sequence truly Hitchcockian is the payoff at the end when who we think is Cady following Nancy is someone else. George Tomasini, who edited <i>Psycho </i>and<i> Vertigo</i>, obviously knew what he was doing with the editing of that sequence. </b></div><div class="did-you-know-actions" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; padding: 8px 12px;"><b>Paying homage can result in a wane amalgamation of that person's style, but while Cape Fear may not be <i>Rear Window</i> or <i>Psycho</i>, it's a respectable and effective thriller that stands well amongst Hitchcock's ouevre. It doesn't force the Hitchcockiness but comes by it organically. It subtly reminds us of Hitchcock, why creating its own unique personification of evil in Max Cady. Mitchum's performance is arguably up there with Anthony Perkins in <i>Psycho</i>, Joseph Cotton in <i>Shadow of a Doubt</i>, and Robert Walker in<i> Strangers on a Train.</i> Bowden lets Cady live at the end, knowing he can punish him more by sending him to prison than killing him. I can understand why this can strike some as a cop out, that the film should've had Bowden cross the line, having Cady win. But I'd argue Cady has won, permanently scarring Bowden and his family. He's shown Bowden the lengths how the law, the thing he's dedicated his life too, won't protect him unless he goes to the methods he's gone, almost killing a man. We don't see the family happy at the end as they're being escorted home. They're silent, worn down by the ordeal through which they've gone. Just like the psychiatrist's explanation at the end of Psycho doesn't really matter because Norman can't truly be summed up so neatly, neither can this so story wrap up so easily. Both Norman and Cady can't allow a truly happy ending for anyone in their stories. </b></div><div class="did-you-know-actions" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; padding: 8px 12px;"><br /></div>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-77836120782270064732023-02-03T13:51:00.001-08:002023-02-03T13:51:47.790-08:00My Favourite Best Picture Winners<p><i><br /></i></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja3QU5xtS_77Xu1Ztf0QSXqJiIeQdsFIZZSuyg_AoPQ14Stdlx8z6GXstr0TsyMuBydm1iHxueDjZMdCaZErjZ-WN_szzDXXVan6XadGKJYKFKA0A3v7NfcagSmYdvQ_xSvrk0nkIL7dkpxzEYUdn1pOSYCtbj7p5LsYuGzyCfc4yYxLBXsIZdJZMj/s627/Mrs.%20Danvers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="470" data-original-width="627" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja3QU5xtS_77Xu1Ztf0QSXqJiIeQdsFIZZSuyg_AoPQ14Stdlx8z6GXstr0TsyMuBydm1iHxueDjZMdCaZErjZ-WN_szzDXXVan6XadGKJYKFKA0A3v7NfcagSmYdvQ_xSvrk0nkIL7dkpxzEYUdn1pOSYCtbj7p5LsYuGzyCfc4yYxLBXsIZdJZMj/s320/Mrs.%20Danvers.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p><i>Spoilers Below</i> </p><p>In my last post I wrote about 10 films which didn't get nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. Now, I want to discuss my favourite winners in this category, ones where I think the Academy got it (pretty much) right. The Oscars are always a fascinating snapshot in time. They're reflective of what people liked in the moment more than what lasts. But these films certainly have. So, let's get on with the list.</p><p><br /></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjifGsEclWYBKvgCPhCzhLfQdAGXAWSkLHoScGuTfOErVnF0W4aqsAFLIF8Xqq2y-kiuC30IpRm8RcdvSg2GJrOWYxBP1wdrvgSUN2fN_qdeYi2UP1fsnDTQqBC_WawfQeVMpCxapBnra60Q3W-XDj9Wtjb8eD3vLk8SDBznpOm3hzgnNyce02TpDNo/s780/casablanca.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="439" data-original-width="780" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjifGsEclWYBKvgCPhCzhLfQdAGXAWSkLHoScGuTfOErVnF0W4aqsAFLIF8Xqq2y-kiuC30IpRm8RcdvSg2GJrOWYxBP1wdrvgSUN2fN_qdeYi2UP1fsnDTQqBC_WawfQeVMpCxapBnra60Q3W-XDj9Wtjb8eD3vLk8SDBznpOm3hzgnNyce02TpDNo/s320/casablanca.webp" width="320" /></a></div><br /><i><br /></i><p></p><p><i>Casablanca</i></p><p>The late Roger Ebert once wrote of Carol Reed's <i>The Third Man</i>, that more than any film he had seen it embodied the romance of going to the movies. I feel that way about <i>Casablanca</i>. From its witty and poignant script, to the intrigue, the romance and its heroic finale,<i> Casablanca</i> has everything. It's pretty much a perfect film, maybe the best film to come out of the golden age of Hollywood. Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman, even if they had never starred in anything else significant, would still be immortalizes forever as Rick Blaine and Ilsa Lund. Rick is the cynical cafe owner, Ilsa is the woman he loved and left him because she was secretly married to resistance leader Victor Lazlo, and whom walks back in to his life. Rick. who's in possession of stolen letters of transit, is the only one who can help Ilsa and Victor out of Casablanca. But will his torch for Ilsa stop him from doing so? Yes, we know he'll do the right thing but its how we get there that matters. </p><p><br /></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxM4ICjVt_MvuXFsiKBs3hJ55bp1UX6Rjg-Jcj3cBzlbcVjJnPgDSr79TqBpzwDB42_Io4HnVVPRCWX2hnA48ZYejd6UCEUCoVrp-eBa1UaTTVePZi7xQqw5HpP8au_5gFMs9qrEVR1IxQi6wvA2aXviKpfetpdRCt5S3RgcxAHIoBY97_FpTuOSm-/s768/lawrence%20arabia.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="365" data-original-width="768" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxM4ICjVt_MvuXFsiKBs3hJ55bp1UX6Rjg-Jcj3cBzlbcVjJnPgDSr79TqBpzwDB42_Io4HnVVPRCWX2hnA48ZYejd6UCEUCoVrp-eBa1UaTTVePZi7xQqw5HpP8au_5gFMs9qrEVR1IxQi6wvA2aXviKpfetpdRCt5S3RgcxAHIoBY97_FpTuOSm-/s320/lawrence%20arabia.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><i><br /></i><p></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>Lawrence of Arabia</i></p><p>The king of al epic movies, only rivaled by <i>The Lord of The Rings</i>, if you count that as one movie. The reason I call <i>Lawrence of Arabia</i> such is it's a great character study as well as a technical marvel. You have movies like the <i>Star Wars</i> prequels which are conceptually and technically impressive but character and story-wise needed some script refining. And then you have certain superhero films which have some great character stuff but are compromised by formula, weak spectacle and uninteresting direction- but with <i>Lawrence of Arabia,</i> neither the character work or the grand-scale filmmaking feel anything less than stellar.. Another thing thing that impresses about the film is how effectively it both romanticizes T.E Lawrence while also portraying him as a complex, sometimes terrifying figure whom the audience is free to interpret the character, the man, however they like. In the greatest screen debut in cinema history, Peter O'Toole is beautiful, almost feminine, giving a performance that combines grace and madness. This is a mythic and majestic film.</p><p><br /></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhikI0nu5URSBQbDx_wp9wFmmUcodjaMANooTD9tnBWthKwlgtF4FAUynl7UmKzJY2qOWTsTc4ZAV7mIzjBNve8UlFhMTah2DNB2dkQgZgabhiCcKAZ7awDSPmroPfUiFeYYE2eQ6jz_09W6mFdMQlZEIQVsKCTeT-xKtlHGt8bAMzH4tYylF0QSVea/s1080/The-Godfather-Part-II-HEADER-1.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1080" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhikI0nu5URSBQbDx_wp9wFmmUcodjaMANooTD9tnBWthKwlgtF4FAUynl7UmKzJY2qOWTsTc4ZAV7mIzjBNve8UlFhMTah2DNB2dkQgZgabhiCcKAZ7awDSPmroPfUiFeYYE2eQ6jz_09W6mFdMQlZEIQVsKCTeT-xKtlHGt8bAMzH4tYylF0QSVea/s320/The-Godfather-Part-II-HEADER-1.webp" width="320" /></a></div><br /><i><br /></i><p></p><p><i>The Godfather </i>and<i> The Godfather Part II</i></p><p>The great epic of American cinema, and still the only time a film and its sequel have both won Best Picture. It's hard to imagine that feat ever being replicated. I guess it's cheating to list both <i>Godfathers</i> under one heading but they compliment each other so well and tell one sprawling story that it makes sense to list them side by side. Michael Corleone's (Al Pacino) transformation from war hero and the good son who didn't want to become part of the family business to ruthless mob boss who will murder his own brother for his act of betrayal is possibly cinema's greatest character arc. That Pacino didn't win for either is one of Oscar's greatest travesties. Michael's arc is complimented by Part II's showing of how his father Vito went from orphan in Sicily to Don in turn of the century New York. These flashback add to the sprawling nature of the narrative, with Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro both winning Oscars for their performance as the Don. </p><p>Director Francis Ford Coppola and novelist Mario Puzo, working from Puzo's popular novel, took the gangster film and put it on a Shakespearean scale while creating a lived in world with authentic people. The films are operatic yet subtle and nuanced. They also transport us back in time to early 1900s New York, post war New York and late 1950s Havana, just before revolution. These are simply unrivaled feats of filmmaking from the Hollywood studio system.</p><p><br /></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt3C37bScjy2w-d_ocMJVXzqNq17yufS17oc6VbdLC2DqzYhdZel7rXKBfR_gqGGiuMbPhWP2XlI4hq5Auzj3pTXkS9_2ov31tsxbmKcN2J53S7qpM20qNvQTCLF6JJAvdx0kTK6ZGVoTk2r66H8sYCCtVGOUU-BfrAZRtlcuxKeVOOz1_xolNtlVY/s960/sol.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="960" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt3C37bScjy2w-d_ocMJVXzqNq17yufS17oc6VbdLC2DqzYhdZel7rXKBfR_gqGGiuMbPhWP2XlI4hq5Auzj3pTXkS9_2ov31tsxbmKcN2J53S7qpM20qNvQTCLF6JJAvdx0kTK6ZGVoTk2r66H8sYCCtVGOUU-BfrAZRtlcuxKeVOOz1_xolNtlVY/s320/sol.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i style="text-align: left;"><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i style="text-align: left;"><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p></p><p><i>The Silence of the Lambs</i></p><p>The last film to win the top five Oscars (Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Screenplay), and one that has only gotten better with age. While Anthony Hopkins is iconic as Dr. Hannibal Lecter, it's Jodie Foster as F.B.I trainee Clarice Sterling, on the trail of serial killer Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine) who gives this film its grounding and heart. The film's director, the late Jonathan Demme, was a master of the close-up, using them to show the perspective of characters looking at each other. The film blends the gothic and realistic in such a way that we accept them both as existing in the same world. And again, it's Foster who grounds the whole thing.</p><p><br /></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTS8cLTCW5VDNaYyeKzTFiOfw62BgYasADdhzmZBC1dNijuFNzRc-VYgl1kjEyInvxKB8TdvQ3bAX2FKZs7WrXbk77XUzHF01b6dnBjQ5t-vPupqDxIKci-90Up1Z4VSmqw2BHqiRvKr7Hlmq37gp0rIQ13muIqkxeie7Rn-lEzvILQ__t6yzV9RXF/s1200/the%20aparmtent.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1200" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTS8cLTCW5VDNaYyeKzTFiOfw62BgYasADdhzmZBC1dNijuFNzRc-VYgl1kjEyInvxKB8TdvQ3bAX2FKZs7WrXbk77XUzHF01b6dnBjQ5t-vPupqDxIKci-90Up1Z4VSmqw2BHqiRvKr7Hlmq37gp0rIQ13muIqkxeie7Rn-lEzvILQ__t6yzV9RXF/s320/the%20aparmtent.webp" width="320" /></a></div><br /><i><br /></i><p></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>The Apartment</i></p><p>The optimistic cynic, Billy Wilder, along with his longtime collaborator, I.A.L Diamond, crafted a perfect screenplay for <i>The Apartment</i>, the story of C.C. "Bud" Baxter, an office worker who lends his apartment to his superiors for their extramarital affair. It's already a difficult situation for Bud, having to spend nights out in the cold, getting him sick. Things get more complicated when he discovers his boss Jeff Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray) is having an affair with Elevator girl Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine), the object of Bud's affection. All of this could be contrived but Wilder and Diamond's script, along with Wilder's direction, create believable characters whose actions make sense, even in a scenario such as this. It's established that this whole apartment lending situation started out with just one guy wanting to use Bud's apartment and then escalated to many men at the office wanting to use the apartment, with Bud using it to his advantage, being granted perks by the higher-ups. Bud is selling his soul but Lemmon is such a likable and sympathetic everyman that we aren't immediately offput by his actions. Bud's not a bad guy and we can see how we could end up in a predicament like this. </p><p>I always feel that Wilder's dramas were very funny and his comedies very dark. <i>The Apartment </i>walks the line between comedy and drama so expertly that that it feels unbalanced. And like many other Wilder films, it ends on the perfect note.</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz5uy6T3ws7nNqgyDEqvb9_PFrBbF_SG-70jD8ZIBH0lkymDDP41CU6H0Nu8u9X3CF7SrEzvnTKdlKbMV9K2AgN328UlIOwDqkzxWACBDDIclgpVBuAhwOnSKXJWrc8jzHEOlNnvfhI5u_H9YIkf_uDBQrOW8OwzUvZLQj_JAibpt7R3fdd_lBqgRi/s485/no%20country.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="322" data-original-width="485" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz5uy6T3ws7nNqgyDEqvb9_PFrBbF_SG-70jD8ZIBH0lkymDDP41CU6H0Nu8u9X3CF7SrEzvnTKdlKbMV9K2AgN328UlIOwDqkzxWACBDDIclgpVBuAhwOnSKXJWrc8jzHEOlNnvfhI5u_H9YIkf_uDBQrOW8OwzUvZLQj_JAibpt7R3fdd_lBqgRi/s320/no%20country.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><i><br /></i></div><i>No Country For Old Men</i><div><br /></div><div>I just re-watched this and man does it hold up. This is a fantastic movie that's only gotten better with age. It's one of the perfect matches of source material (Cormac McCarthy's novel) and filmmakers (the Coen brothers). From their first film, <i>Blood Simple</i> (1984), the Coens have played around with genre conventions, creating films that both belong in their respective genres but also exist somewhat outside them. There's an offbeat quality to their work, with <i>No Country For Old Men</i> being populated by familiar types who are also different from anyone else we've encountered before. Hit man Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem in an Oscar winning performance), with his weird haircut and pre-occupation with a coin toss- a flip of faith- is one of the most unusual villains in recent memory, genuinely terrifying whenever he shows up. Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is the "good old boy" who's smarter than we may at first realize, a character who would be a supporting player, killed off pretty early in another film but takes center stage here. And then there's Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), who we assume is maybe going to be killed when he catches up to Chigurh, but narrowly misses him. <p>The movie sets us a up for a showdown between Moss (Josh Brolin), who has stolen 2 million from a drug deal gone bad, and Chigurh but Moss is killed offscreen, and the final scene is Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) talks to his wife about two dreams he had- "Then I woke up" is the final line, cutting to black. There's no satisfying resolution to anything. It's a bleak but it fits the noir style, where there are no heroes or heroic endings. The villain gets away and the survivor, Bell, retires because he doesn't know how to deal with the new kind of evil he's seeing in the world now, though ultimately this kind of evil, the evil Chigurh represents, has been forever, with Chigurh being a devil/grim reaper figure, haunting the whole film</p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFy60o1vGR8h7V2Sh_KiGYGx0EehxEoTRt--J5EHWoYV9xJ3tF8La8Z9e9PAKkBLWFEkHYwJ3adT6yIIAAjiVM6Q8qsEi_AyvAtOZMS-yi4wlDSIyZefKmahuYbYLK-INz24Ya5Xc09pimp_qoCtcKgppA_ZzZIbk81zMOQBsC_nCmxEhvlcmBiM7J/s291/amadeus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="173" data-original-width="291" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFy60o1vGR8h7V2Sh_KiGYGx0EehxEoTRt--J5EHWoYV9xJ3tF8La8Z9e9PAKkBLWFEkHYwJ3adT6yIIAAjiVM6Q8qsEi_AyvAtOZMS-yi4wlDSIyZefKmahuYbYLK-INz24Ya5Xc09pimp_qoCtcKgppA_ZzZIbk81zMOQBsC_nCmxEhvlcmBiM7J/s1600/amadeus.jpg" width="291" /></a></div><br /><i><br /></i><p></p><p><i>Amadeus </i></p><p>Maybe it's my own feeling of mediocrity that makes Amadeus the most relatable film to be, but I think it's also a brilliant idea to tell the story of a great artist through the perspective of the bitter rival who wasn't as great. Peter Shaffer's play was the basis for Milos Foreman's glorious film, one of the best of the 80s, a decade that's not one of my favourite, despite some great films. F. Murray Abraham, received a Best Actor Oscar for his performance as the proud but jealous and old-fashioned Antonio Salieri, while Tom Hulce was nominated for his performance along Abraham for his mischievous performance as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Mozart is childish but also serious when it comes to music. The fact that such an immature young man could be so talent enrages Salieri but he but he feels guilt for Mozart's death, believing he killed him.</p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIihoptjTviknk1ti3vCNqVIhpoU3rm5IsDu8wvMW4AW_ZHdqs1_9ETy7zlcCKtoDV2xlCEiYzzKl-aMfgS-TGGEYbvAVgmQdxKD6Vlw0CmGaBQVfGNzjcJjBu22FHL-b2M0lRvCEzTdFprKbTpYzMZuMSC99hvcZkuBuidNlHrykEwUqIYUF-ANGA/s251/onthewaterfront.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="201" data-original-width="251" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIihoptjTviknk1ti3vCNqVIhpoU3rm5IsDu8wvMW4AW_ZHdqs1_9ETy7zlcCKtoDV2xlCEiYzzKl-aMfgS-TGGEYbvAVgmQdxKD6Vlw0CmGaBQVfGNzjcJjBu22FHL-b2M0lRvCEzTdFprKbTpYzMZuMSC99hvcZkuBuidNlHrykEwUqIYUF-ANGA/s1600/onthewaterfront.jpg" width="251" /></a></div><span style="text-align: left;"><p style="font-style: italic; text-align: left;">On the Waterfront</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">If you were going to ask me what my favourite performance of all time is, I would say Marlon Brando's Oscar wining performance as Terry Malloy in Elia Kazan's </span><span style="text-align: left;"><i>On the Waterfront</i></span><span style="text-align: left;">. This is Brando at the peak of his physical beauty and acting abilities. While <i>A Streetcar Named Desire</i> established his image, and <i>The Godfather</i> his most iconic, <i>On the Waterfront </i>is his most sensitive and tender work, masculine but feminine. Movies are time capsules that can keep an actor forever young in their prime, and that's what this film is for me when it comes to Brando. </span></p></span><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Of course, the film's director, Elia Kazan, was the ultimate actors' director, his films being defined by a rawer, more naturalistic style of acting, and the film is full of other superb performances, including Eva Marie Saint (who won Best Supporting Actress), Lee J. Cobb, Karl Malden and Rod Steiger When Kazan won an honorary Oscar in the late 90s (on of Oscar's most controversial moments), Martin Scorsese called Kazan a poetic realist, and you can see why just by looking at this film, which blends realism with stylish flourishes. </p><p>The story is that of Malloy, who testifies against the mob boss (Cobb) who runs the docks. Malloy has to decide between loyalty to this father figure and doing the right thing, which could lead to redemption for Malloy after being involved in the murder of another dock worker.</p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo8zZ0BvHAT1g4BRce3VFzV89_odZrkdbOP6OgIsLfry7ONZF0HX9rBrOOFhKVcNWfmNx_MnWUt40qDPAuDLAe_sP7cpewRKMuZ0avV3QAB1FPU9r8zTjnj329smt1TdlroxschWuJ47pEpDpfOeguSULflpSippvONR0TT7A6ZFbo4VtNYNqYR6VV/s2000/Rebecca%20Danvers.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1135" data-original-width="2000" height="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo8zZ0BvHAT1g4BRce3VFzV89_odZrkdbOP6OgIsLfry7ONZF0HX9rBrOOFhKVcNWfmNx_MnWUt40qDPAuDLAe_sP7cpewRKMuZ0avV3QAB1FPU9r8zTjnj329smt1TdlroxschWuJ47pEpDpfOeguSULflpSippvONR0TT7A6ZFbo4VtNYNqYR6VV/s320/Rebecca%20Danvers.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><i><br /></i><p></p><p><i>Rebecca</i></p><p>Hitchcock's first film in America, and the only Hitchcock film to win Best Picture (Hitchcock's other 1940 film <i>Foreign Correspondent </i>was also nominated) and on Hitchcock attributed more to producer David. O Selznick than himself. However, the Hitchcock is not absent in this entertaining gothic melodrama, base Daphne Du Maurier's splendid novel (one of my favourites), about a unnamed woman (Joan Fontaine) who marries a rich widower, Max de Winter (Laurence Oliver), who former wife's presence still haunts his home of Manderley. Fontaine and Oliver were both nominated for their performances (Fontaine would win the next year for another Hitchcock film, <i>Suspicion,</i> with Cary . Grant) and Judith Anderson is sublimely creepy as Manderley's housemaid Mrs. Danvers, who still adores Rebecca. I wrote more about the film here: <a href="http://thenoirzone.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-essential-films-rebecca-1940.html">Davies in the Dark: The Essential Films: "Rebecca" (1940) (thenoirzone.blogspot.com)</a> </p><p>So, what are your favourite Best Picture winners? Comment and let me know. </p></div>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-31810183553469446272023-01-20T07:56:00.000-08:002023-01-20T07:56:32.022-08:0011 Great Films That Were Not Nominated For The Best Picture Oscar<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrXWaY4k3Lc_wnPXK4X2FS3jouu2vVFrYml_csgc27l2SyjAYKTI2d49dwVrX8qV0vx8Yb_bjkfMINSbxjG3T2rty006bfMNYLjNXHRvcFM7zzYA3DCt9hc3vnuQ_eXJFSnReFasq5rnQjxXJz5jVN0u-nIdylyHPlMD4WumPTx9oqbOEIYjT2MyZO/s800/Vertigo-1958.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="424" data-original-width="800" height="170" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrXWaY4k3Lc_wnPXK4X2FS3jouu2vVFrYml_csgc27l2SyjAYKTI2d49dwVrX8qV0vx8Yb_bjkfMINSbxjG3T2rty006bfMNYLjNXHRvcFM7zzYA3DCt9hc3vnuQ_eXJFSnReFasq5rnQjxXJz5jVN0u-nIdylyHPlMD4WumPTx9oqbOEIYjT2MyZO/s320/Vertigo-1958.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Spoilers Below</i></b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The history of the Oscars tell their own narrative regarding the greatest films in the history of the medium. While what we consider great is subjective, the Oscars, I would argue, provide a limited view of cinematic greatness. Genre films are often left out, actors of color ignored, great actors and directors never won. But specifically, I wanted to take a moment and look at 11 films that were not nominated for Best Picture, films which have lived on longer some winners. Some may surprise you, but I think it's important to understand why certain films were not appreciated in their moment, that it took time for them to attain classic stature. So, let's get started. These aren't in specific order, but I will be starting with three by a director who never got his due from Oscar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtcyoSFLPqDQDItdWACHguRvf_g3h2sfokwA2RDrlP1BsYfAWY20U6Z2EAY2Es_sE4SjuY7Xh64pNAFKAsHwxq2DU1Yn_Iwf32TO-5oPnu2dDEbWB2iivIahifc13LssJnoR5-PB58dun5RWXaJg0m7JOWzUa2Ch4bZjrmw_E0tG6215AHXn-RMmbp/s4780/MV5BOTJkN2U2YzEtMWRmYS00YzNkLTk0YjYtMGYzZjY4MzYwZDAyXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODk4OTc3MTY@._V1_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3071" data-original-width="4780" height="206" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtcyoSFLPqDQDItdWACHguRvf_g3h2sfokwA2RDrlP1BsYfAWY20U6Z2EAY2Es_sE4SjuY7Xh64pNAFKAsHwxq2DU1Yn_Iwf32TO-5oPnu2dDEbWB2iivIahifc13LssJnoR5-PB58dun5RWXaJg0m7JOWzUa2Ch4bZjrmw_E0tG6215AHXn-RMmbp/s320/MV5BOTJkN2U2YzEtMWRmYS00YzNkLTk0YjYtMGYzZjY4MzYwZDAyXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODk4OTc3MTY@._V1_.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p>1. <i>Rear Window </i>(1954)</p><p>Alfred Hitchcock is defined by his dark and twisted portrayals of human nature in the guise of entertaining Hollywood thrillers. One of the most purely entertaining of films, <i>Rear Window</i> isn't just about whether a man has killed his wife, it's about a peeping tom, kind of a pervert, and the human desire to watch. The film is essentially a meta commentary on cinema in general, on the need for excitement in our ordinary lives. </p><p>We're watching L.B "Jeff" Jefferies, a photographer who's in a cast, stuck in his apartment (after being injured taking a picture of a race car crash) watch his neighbours in the courtyard of apartments, everyone with a story, an entire universe in and of itself. He needs these stories the same way we need films, which give us the ability to view other peoples' lives (albeit fictional). When Jeff suspects businessman Lars Thorwold (Raymond Burr) of killing his invalid wife, his obsession with proving his guilt gives him the ultimate reprieve from boredom, even bringing him closer to his socialite girlfriend Lisa Friedmont (Grace Kelly). But as much as the film deals with the investigation of Thorwold, the other apartment dwellers are just as important. All these people become as familiar to us as they are to Jeff. </p><p>Hitchcock would get a Best Director nomination for the technical brilliance on display ( the whole film is shot on a set, with Hitchcock giving directions via earpiece to his actors), as well as nominations for Best Writing- Screenplay, Color Cinematography, and Best Sound Recording, but oddly not Best Picture. The five nominees were <i>On the Waterfront, The Caine Mutiny, Seven Wives For Seven Brothers, The Country Girl</i> (for which Kelly won Best Actress), and <i>Three Coins in the Fountain</i>.<i> On the Waterfront </i>was the winner, with its director, Elia Kazan, winning Best Director. For me, I would split the two, giving Hitchcock Director and <i>On the Waterfront </i>Picture. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheitkgy16zu6bsapS31hW2CzqUufRq_H-1c8g3uUessiB0qr7JAwa6oHNDsOBTSaxu2BXSn6fAZCoiDqT2zMkGWQQ0akXaNylNiTPLKXH976HBVKgUW2SaDpixkeww_GGSJhEtsqhbllC6HrTe5PJPyEuRk-kOUNIKt2d9F8ytLzS6Gb74rZQkxQJI/s500/MV5BZGQwMDQyZGQtMWI5ZC00ZjgyLWE3Y2MtMjZjZjQ4MDk4ZDNkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzU1NzE3NTg@._V1_QL75_UX500_CR0,47,500,281_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="281" data-original-width="500" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheitkgy16zu6bsapS31hW2CzqUufRq_H-1c8g3uUessiB0qr7JAwa6oHNDsOBTSaxu2BXSn6fAZCoiDqT2zMkGWQQ0akXaNylNiTPLKXH976HBVKgUW2SaDpixkeww_GGSJhEtsqhbllC6HrTe5PJPyEuRk-kOUNIKt2d9F8ytLzS6Gb74rZQkxQJI/s320/MV5BZGQwMDQyZGQtMWI5ZC00ZjgyLWE3Y2MtMjZjZjQ4MDk4ZDNkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzU1NzE3NTg@._V1_QL75_UX500_CR0,47,500,281_.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>2. <i>Psycho </i>(1960)</p><p>Hitchcock once again received a Best Director nomination (his last) for this proto-slasher film, but without the film getting in to Best Picture. And like <i>Rear Window</i>, it also received four nominations (Hitchcock, Best Supporting Actress for Janet Leigh, B&W Cinematography, and Best Art Direction-Set Decoration (B&W). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">While the film can be argued to be the first modern slasher film, pre-dating <i>Black Christmas </i>and <i>Halloween</i> by nearly 20 years, it starts out as a film noir about real-estate Marion secretary Crane (Janet Leigh) stealing a client's money so she can start a new life with her boyfriend. She winds up at the Bates Motel, where the whole dynamic shifts with the introduction of proprietor Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). The film seems to have- like Marion- taken a detour as we spend a lengthy conversation between the two over supper. Norman is a sad and lonely man who's only relationship is with his invalid mother. </p><p>When Marion is killed in the infamous shower scene it's the film's first interjection of horror, upsetting the narrative we thought we were watching. The sequence is still startling in its violence and impressive in its filmmaking. George Tomasini's sharp editing reflects the knife going in to Marion's body and Bernard Herrmann's screeching score has become synonymous with 'crazy.' The film has spent so much time with Marion that the sudden burst of violence unsettles. There's only 2 murder scenes in the film- this and the murder of Private Investigator Arboghast (Martin Balsam) bu the film relies more on atmosphere and build-up to create a sense of subtle horror in the audiences' mind. </p><p>It's revealed Norman killed his mother and her lover and took on a split personality- he and his mother. The film was never about the money or Marion, it was about Norman's psychosis, with every thing else being a distraction from the truth about Norman Perkins' performance is so convincing that he could never escape the role. Perkins is deeply sympathetic as Norman; I never view him as the film's villain but as a tragic character, despite the horrible crimes he commits. </p><p>Hitchcock's direction displays his mastery of visual storytelling and his ability to place us n the minds of both Marion and Norman, two people who are closer in spirit than either of them realizes, two people who are tragically torn apart by "mother." <i> </i></p><p>The Best Picture Nominees that year were <i>The Apartment, The Alamo, Elmer Gantry, Sons and Lovers</i>, and The Sundowners. The winner was <i>The Apartment</i>, which, like <i>On the Waterfront</i>, is one my favourite Best Picture winners. Again, I would give Hitchcock the directing Oscar (Billy Wilder won), while giving Best Picture to <i>The Apartment</i>.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKN55zSSijY2oy6e7noQSEr0VrEtsBkI2IjGZyiD2gnyURtQt4beAQ_5daq5F_T4XQ0fXbDbca1JQYHg4DGc6eNmC4aSyoFXMpib0NDRuvU2FU4EhWuwJf2fvU2mwPoPBGDPK4es7-lek5hvdXtVrWCwOjvF71oQrfXDLMUy5YeZ9Z7kmPgosLQp4p/s800/EB19961013REVIEWS08401010371AR.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKN55zSSijY2oy6e7noQSEr0VrEtsBkI2IjGZyiD2gnyURtQt4beAQ_5daq5F_T4XQ0fXbDbca1JQYHg4DGc6eNmC4aSyoFXMpib0NDRuvU2FU4EhWuwJf2fvU2mwPoPBGDPK4es7-lek5hvdXtVrWCwOjvF71oQrfXDLMUy5YeZ9Z7kmPgosLQp4p/s320/EB19961013REVIEWS08401010371AR.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p>3. <i>Vertigo </i></p><p>Yes, another Hitchcock, but probably the biggest one to be left out of Best Picture. Not surprisingly, since <i>Vertigo</i> took many years to earn the critical acclaim it now enjoys. The film which was voted the greatest of all time by Sight & Sound back in 2012, and holds at # 2 in 2023, only got two Oscar nominations, for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration and Best Sound. Bernard Herrmann's swooningly melancholic and romantic score, James Stewart and Kim Novak's layered performances, Hitchcock's visionary direction, all ignored. And I get it, I get in 1958 why this was seen as a misfire, why it takes a rewatch or two to really appreciate this film. It took me a second viewing to begin to embrace it. It's probably Hitchcock's most purely artistic and audacious film, one whose D.N.A can be found in other films like David Lynch's <i>Mulholland Drive,</i> George Sluizer's <i>The Vanishing</i>, and Brian De Palma's <i>Obsession</i>. But despite being the influence behind several films, the story remains fresh and unique in the way it moves from ghost story to romance and finally, to obsession. </p><p>It's the story of an acrophobic detective, Scottie Ferguson (Stewart). hired by a old college friend, Gavin Elster, (Tom Helmor) to follow his wife, Madeleine (Novak), whom he believes has been possessed by the ghost of her great-grandmother. Scottie falls in love with Madeleine but fails to stop his suicide. Afterwards meets another woman named Judy (Novak), who looks like Madeleine, whom he tries to make over in to the image of his dead love. </p><p><i>Vertigo</i> has an hypnotic power that brings me back time and again, and time is a big theme in the film. Scottie didn't get to Madeleine in time, the past is coming back to haunt Madeleine and then Scottie, near the film's end Scottie says he needs to do one thing to be free of the past. </p><p>The nominees that year were <i>Gigi, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Auntie Mame, The Defiant Ones,</i> and <i>Separate Tables,</i> with Gigi being the winner (its director Vincente Minnelli won Best Director), which I've still have yet to see.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvmtrHk95xzyYQenymkedXL4jKqHV8CQIbeXCalXFIbSeSD9z-ZUU06x5t3ZxoDcJHsOWJZfWEiqPT8mfCmUrIsHexQSw4yteR408vhWlnbIp1AzAW9j3g953iFq7DLiaIcYVLEO8FLo2aTxLJhwXI8AI-8sTI_cph_ZgnTkn19iJ72UFngQzJZOhP/s640/EB20011125REVIEWS08111250301AR.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="640" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvmtrHk95xzyYQenymkedXL4jKqHV8CQIbeXCalXFIbSeSD9z-ZUU06x5t3ZxoDcJHsOWJZfWEiqPT8mfCmUrIsHexQSw4yteR408vhWlnbIp1AzAW9j3g953iFq7DLiaIcYVLEO8FLo2aTxLJhwXI8AI-8sTI_cph_ZgnTkn19iJ72UFngQzJZOhP/s320/EB20011125REVIEWS08111250301AR.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>4. <i>The Searchers</i></p><p>John Ford had already won 4 Oscars for directing by the time he did the <i>The Searchers</i>, and a fifth one wouldn't have been out of the question, except Ford and the film were completely shut out at the Oscars (Ford did get a DGA nomination, however), which now seems inexplicable considering <i>The Searchers</i> stature as an American classic. It's a difficult film to reconcile, a story dealing with racism that also still has some racist leanings, but it nonetheless a great film, though I still prefer <i>Stagecoach</i>. John Wayne plays Ethan Edwards, a confederate soldier returning to his brothers' home after the Civil War. When his brother Aaron, and Aaron's wife are murdered by Comanche Native Americans,, Edwards, along with his adopted nephew Martin (Jeffrey Hunter) go off in pursuit of Ethan's kidnapped nieces. </p><p>The film, courtesy of Ford cinematographer of Winton C. Hoch, has some of the striking visuals of any western, capturing what director John Milius said felt to him what the real American west was like. And even with the many revisionist westerns that followed, <i>The Searcher</i>s still feels like the most realistic western of its time, especially in terms of its violence, which is still unsettling. The most disturbing aspect of the film is the notion that Ethan will kill one of his nieces Debby (Natalie Wood) after she's "gone native" living with the Comanches for several films (the other, Lucy (Pippa Scott) was killed). </p><p>Wayne plays his most complex role in a performance that, as Martin Scorsese said, makes you hate him but still love him when he returns Debbie home by film's end. And of course, there's that great closing shot of him walking away, as a door closes, bookending the opening door at the beginning. It's wistful and, honourable and poetic. </p><p>The nominees that year where <i>Around the World in 80 Days, Giant, Friendly Persuasion, The King & I,</i> and <i>The Ten Commandments. Around the World in 80 Days</i>, directed by Michael Anderson and produced by Elizabeth Taylor's then husband Mike Todd, who would die a year later in a plane crash. The extravagant film is probably one of the weaker Best Picture winners but is still worth seeing for the sheer scale of it, it's a fascinating time capsule. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPzjQgt8zCzBSB6aSJN_ZxHxes3haOnXF9U7wE7fRi7lJXR72TGcQhRLiFV2K0-f0fAFPNkieMzM5e7XXJv6bUlp6PVDr2OigbCTDgT2n9QCDqHxJuv1VK79uTE_hGTNhAdTOTSx43pp8N4RskUQncrf-fzCe2Sl-h4ZMtgKpDelPNkYekwxn421jm/s1100/days-of-heaven-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="619" data-original-width="1100" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPzjQgt8zCzBSB6aSJN_ZxHxes3haOnXF9U7wE7fRi7lJXR72TGcQhRLiFV2K0-f0fAFPNkieMzM5e7XXJv6bUlp6PVDr2OigbCTDgT2n9QCDqHxJuv1VK79uTE_hGTNhAdTOTSx43pp8N4RskUQncrf-fzCe2Sl-h4ZMtgKpDelPNkYekwxn421jm/s320/days-of-heaven-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>5. <i>Days of Heaven</i></p><p>After establishing his esoteric sensibilities in <i>Badlands </i>(1973), Terrence Malick came back with his voice and style fully formed with <i>Days of Heaven</i>, one of the most ravishing films of all time. It won the Oscar for Best Cinematography- given to Nestor Almendros, though Haxell Wexler took over after after Almendros had to fulfill his commitment to shooting Francois Trauffaut's <i>The Man Who Loved Women.</i></p><p>Taking what 20 years earlier what would've been a 3 hour plus epic, Malick strips down the story of a Chicago steelworker, Bill (Richard Gere) on the run after killing his boss, his sister Linda (Linda Manz), his girlfriend Abby (Brooke Adams), and the dying farmer (Sam Shepherd) Abby marries, in a compact 90 minutes, showing us the fragments of a story through an impressionistic visual style that favours mood and setting over complex characterization. </p><p>The nominees that year were <i>The Deer Hunter, Coming Home, Heaven Can Wait, Midnight Express, </i>and<i> An Unmarried Woman</i>. The Deer Hunter won, which I'm ashamed to say I still haven't seen.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY5Hlte8SLGhJAEhtGkn-jgtITnVzGwP0PqqMHl-EskhqNuEHyAB7mD-PnLx2NUfEz5YYNZulmvtLb2VGKe260566Eu6z9sggHfU-8VWP7NzjQqrTuO5V91cIKbYrVF8j5c4sLTG-D8HngDNOg-UMp6GADXvQ7Jims66wwqZA-8yPoeexNbdXg-fzy/s1200/alien-1979.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1200" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY5Hlte8SLGhJAEhtGkn-jgtITnVzGwP0PqqMHl-EskhqNuEHyAB7mD-PnLx2NUfEz5YYNZulmvtLb2VGKe260566Eu6z9sggHfU-8VWP7NzjQqrTuO5V91cIKbYrVF8j5c4sLTG-D8HngDNOg-UMp6GADXvQ7Jims66wwqZA-8yPoeexNbdXg-fzy/s320/alien-1979.webp" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p>6. <i>Alien </i></p><p>Ridley Scott's <i>Alien </i>has only gotten better in age, a genuine masterpiece of horror sci fi. The story is so simple but what it's doing is difficult, essentially blending the slow pace of <i>2001</i>, the lived in junky feel of<i> Star Wars</i>, and the grisliness of <i>The Texas Chainsaw Massacre</i>, all while updating a 50s sci-fi creature and placing it in an symbolic haunted house. The alien could've looked goofy, the setting cheap, the pace too slow, but this didn't happen. The pace is slow but with a great sense of dread. The alien is kept in the shadows so we only get glimpses of it and the production design is immaculate, making us believe in the film's unglamorous vision of the future.</p><p>A brilliant choice by the film's screenplay- by Dan O'Bannon, with a story by Ronald Shusett- is conceiving the ensemble of characters as "truckers in space" rather than explorers or scientists. The characters have a lived-in-ness, a believability as blue collar workers. Them being truckers is also why the Nostromo is so junky- this isn't supposed to be the Enterprise. Michael Seymour's production design and Derek Vanlint's cinematography make the Nostromo one of the most atmospheric settings in horror cinema. </p><p>Like the shower scene in <i>Psycho</i>, the chestburster sequence hasn't lost its shocking impact. Both scenes happen just when things feel like they're getting better, in moments of peace. When Captain Dallas (Tom Skerritt) is killed, it really feels like things are at their worst. And then Ash (Ian Holm) is revealed as an android who has been working against them, leaving only Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), Parker (Yaphet Khotto) and Lambert (Veronica Cartwright), the feeling of claustrophobia is palpable. </p><p>Weaver became a star for her performance as Ripley, giving her assertiveness, sternness but also vulnerability. Her fear during the final stretch of the film feels authentic and her decision to go back and save the cat is a relatable human moment Her ultimate survival is almost surprising, given this was the decade of the downer ending but it's not completely triumphant either. She's lost her ship and crew, and has found out she was viewed as expendable by the company for which she works. Still, there is a sense of peace for Ripley at the film's end, as she goes back in to cryosleep, going back in to a dream after a nightmare</p><p>The nominees that year were <i>Apocalypse Now, Kramer vs. Kramer, All That Jazz, Breaking Away</i>, and <i>Norma Rae</i>. I personally would go with <i>All That Jazz.</i></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixCqyUChfcvbZo-0sHou2llOfV3dEvpX_JyplCqBXMlc5qPdMNzYFbn0K63WAi3lceqgkNoEDo9EUw-rNwFTfTxh1Wqd0P3Cxaznwv69Dw_NrQt-p2V0JK5A4lFlLEKwvJBdw-ZaEItyPOhyzFI4aPR5GfHq32t_l7r0-miIP3k32D_ZYaE5hNvKF2/s750/TheInnocents-750x400.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="750" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixCqyUChfcvbZo-0sHou2llOfV3dEvpX_JyplCqBXMlc5qPdMNzYFbn0K63WAi3lceqgkNoEDo9EUw-rNwFTfTxh1Wqd0P3Cxaznwv69Dw_NrQt-p2V0JK5A4lFlLEKwvJBdw-ZaEItyPOhyzFI4aPR5GfHq32t_l7r0-miIP3k32D_ZYaE5hNvKF2/s320/TheInnocents-750x400.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>7. <i>The Innocents</i></p><p>Completely shut out of the Oscars, though nominated for the Palme d'Or, this is the spookiest film ever made, as well as the best haunted house movie. Governess Miss Giddens? (Deborah Kerr, in a performance that should've earned her an Oscar nomination) is sent to look after two orphaned children , Miles and Flora, whose uncle has no use for them. After learning about the influence of the late Peter Quint and Miss Jessel on the children, Miss Giddens begins to see apparitions that match their descriptions. She soon comes to the conclusion these ghosts are controlling the children. </p><p>The ambiguity surrounding whether Miss Giddens is actually seeing the ghosts or imagining them is what keeps <i>The Innocents</i> so fascinating 60 years after it premiered. Cinematographer Freddie Francis' Widescreen black and white compositions are immaculate and director Jack Clayton captures a certain Victorian-era Britishness in the performances and characters. The film's chilly atmosphere also makes it-like Stanley Kubrick's <i>The Shining</i>- a perfect alternative Christmas film.</p><p>The nominees that year were <i>West Side Story, The Hustler, Fanny, The Guns of Navarone</i>, and Judgement at Nuremberg, with <i>West Side Story</i> winning, along with nine other wins. I prefer Spielberg's new West Side Story (My thoughts here :<a href="https://thenoirzone.blogspot.com/2021/12/tonight-tonight-west-side-story.html">Davies in the Dark: Tonight, Tonight: "West Side Story" (thenoirzone.blogspot.com)</a> and if I were picking from these nominees I would go with <i>The Hustler</i> (which I wrote about here: <a href="https://thenoirzone.blogspot.com/search?q=the+hustler">Davies in the Dark: Search results for the hustler (thenoirzone.blogspot.com)</a></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBOtNMdwNgQNWiE1cE5sp6WvtBn7xnGPTjAGPXxWu5dgNDvwDAERRfkrg5nCTZyJSFkHg25-GRb-W-5x8AOgX-ov51QdDHXRnb1s5atZa1hlFkr4oE0mKOj2NHBjVWMK2HrE7oO7OtRPt2cuNGdr2W1Oxnqm1Q7GAoG5mZ8EnFHvkxUDx2gqs9UkFj/s1000/Sissy-Specek-as-Carrie-009.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="562" data-original-width="1000" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBOtNMdwNgQNWiE1cE5sp6WvtBn7xnGPTjAGPXxWu5dgNDvwDAERRfkrg5nCTZyJSFkHg25-GRb-W-5x8AOgX-ov51QdDHXRnb1s5atZa1hlFkr4oE0mKOj2NHBjVWMK2HrE7oO7OtRPt2cuNGdr2W1Oxnqm1Q7GAoG5mZ8EnFHvkxUDx2gqs9UkFj/s320/Sissy-Specek-as-Carrie-009.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>8. <i>Carrie</i></p><p>Brian De Palma's masterpiece is also the first Stephen King adaptation and one of the best. A hallucinatory film, but one that has moments of sweetness that only make the tragedy of its climax hit even harder.</p><p> Carrie may be the best film about teenage isolation ever made. Despite being incredibly stylized the film finds emotional truth through Sissy Spacek's nominated performance as Carrie White. What stood out watching it this time is how Spacek makes Carrie both incredibly unusual but also very sweet and nice. We see her coming out of her shell as things being to go- and then when she's humiliated she really comes out of her shell as she unleashes her telekinetic powers against her tormenters. </p><p>The whole prom sequence and how it leads to the pig blood pouring over Carrie is virtuoso filmmaking. In De Palma fashion it feels like he's showing off but you don't mind because it's so impressive. Then there's Carrie's return home and her final confrontation with her religious zealot mother, Margaret (Piper Laurie, in the film's other nominated perfomances), another amazing stretch of filmmaking. This is one of those films you could watch on mute and still understand what's happening. The emotions and story are all communicated through the visuals. </p><p>Mario Tosi's cinematography gives the film a hazy dreamlike quality that turns in to a nightmare during the prom sequence- and Carrie covered in blood is one cinema's indelible images. </p><p>The nominees that year were <i>Rocky, Taxi Driver, All The President's Men, Network, </i>and<i> Bound For Glory. Bound for Glory</i> is the only one I haven't see but it's a pretty strong line-up overall. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV1rx-Vr0PxNgLsP2KhJu4JW2mOR5ChMg98ayO7c0Qf05gpwBLdqAqDmcu4kk95wLWa56gV_4Dne43Jpmi5M22lyN4SH2Y2rgnbaI01VL8PqmJ-pRgk3uYKQ1QmbSK95VHRAIkNzd-PVtuxrtQoX5KVd2juGyGLx-4w64IuCv7owycferdtiD28Bsz/s1920/closeencountersofthethirdkind.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhV1rx-Vr0PxNgLsP2KhJu4JW2mOR5ChMg98ayO7c0Qf05gpwBLdqAqDmcu4kk95wLWa56gV_4Dne43Jpmi5M22lyN4SH2Y2rgnbaI01VL8PqmJ-pRgk3uYKQ1QmbSK95VHRAIkNzd-PVtuxrtQoX5KVd2juGyGLx-4w64IuCv7owycferdtiD28Bsz/s320/closeencountersofthethirdkind.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>9. <i>Close Encounters of the Third Kind</i></p><p>My second favourite Spielberg, right behind <i>Jaws</i>. This is also the ultimate Spielberg film, made a couple of years after<i> Jaws</i>, with his voice fully formed. He received his first Best Director nomination (the only time he and pal George Lucas were nominated alongside each other- Lucas was nominated for <i>Star Wars</i>). The film was beat out in most categories by <i>Star Wars</i>, though it won Best Cinematography for Vilmos Zsigmond's stellar work on the film and won a special award for sound effect editing.</p><p>It's a darker film then you may remember, with Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) becoming obsessed with U.F.Os after a close encounter with one and alienating his family. But it's also awe-inspiring and wonderous, encapsulating what Spielberg does better than anyone else. It's hard to imagine a blockbuster movie like this getting made now, given it doesn't have a big action climax, but a climax involving the attempt to communicate with an alien mothership. Denis Villenueve's <i>Arrival</i> is the only equivalent I can think of.</p><p>Dreyfuss won for <i>The Goodbye Girl</i> (which I haven't seen) but I also would argue he could've been nominated for this instead, making Roy a relatable and likable character even as he becomes more unhinged.</p><p>The nominees that year were <i>Annie Hall, Star Wars, The Turning Point, Julia, </i>and <i>The Goodbye Girl. Annie Hall</i> was the winner, with Woody Allen winning for direction and screenplay. The film has plenty of baggage attached to it, but it's a very fine winner overall </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjOtewimQUbvoaCfXUywX8VZclF1LLsYVbSkDpIETJaDSPl8rGFlWpaxMyMoj2xgWxtwrpQwvVgR5ijoPh4n6EToZt589ZYR4IM0f44D0dG1OWRwZPp0fY9F1yESd7sEOkyvXEcQZGIUE7yOW54c5kcciw3dNA31eJHOJBDAeDLqcZKjVtQNiOr0Gx/s780/6f4b6682-e93e-4e32-939b-6905252a6fbe.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="520" data-original-width="780" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjOtewimQUbvoaCfXUywX8VZclF1LLsYVbSkDpIETJaDSPl8rGFlWpaxMyMoj2xgWxtwrpQwvVgR5ijoPh4n6EToZt589ZYR4IM0f44D0dG1OWRwZPp0fY9F1yESd7sEOkyvXEcQZGIUE7yOW54c5kcciw3dNA31eJHOJBDAeDLqcZKjVtQNiOr0Gx/s320/6f4b6682-e93e-4e32-939b-6905252a6fbe.webp" width="320" /></a></div><p>10. <i>2001: A Space Odyssey</i></p><p>Maybe the greatest film not to be nominated for Best Picture, and the best film about contact with alien beings, mostly because we never see them. Stanley Kubrick (who was nominated for Best Director) keeps them mysterious and kind of spooky. The film is a visual marvel (it won Best Visual Effects and it still feels ahead of its time, even as we've long since passed the year in which it takes place. The nominees that year were <i>Oliver!</i>, <i>The Lion in Winter, Funny Girl, Rachel, Rachel, </i>and <i>Romeo & Juliet.</i> <i>Oliver!</i> was the winner, with Carol Reed winning Best Director. I feel Reed should've won for <i>The Third Man</i> instead. <i>Oliver!</i> is okay but I think I would go with The Lion in Winter or Romeo & Juliet</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWtlUWZokTur_10oi1qCWZkOBFvO-0J02QZCTnCnxxr-iKuDAtyoM5IcMnjsPKcQRh9b56bRKVgPJRiKg73I8BjxrXHCOFZwgr9krVvVHGX1Wy8xygD0phxigp1NTPIBz-jKtYIffqP23cwPutHILYNC0GDcoohXolKjNN1SUynMS8LiShY9XnjFAE/s500/MV5BZTJiYWE0YzAtNDNjYi00NzE0LWEyNWItNTA2MDcyZmIyMTdmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXN3aWZ0dw@@._V1_QL75_UX500_CR0,47,500,281_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="281" data-original-width="500" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWtlUWZokTur_10oi1qCWZkOBFvO-0J02QZCTnCnxxr-iKuDAtyoM5IcMnjsPKcQRh9b56bRKVgPJRiKg73I8BjxrXHCOFZwgr9krVvVHGX1Wy8xygD0phxigp1NTPIBz-jKtYIffqP23cwPutHILYNC0GDcoohXolKjNN1SUynMS8LiShY9XnjFAE/s320/MV5BZTJiYWE0YzAtNDNjYi00NzE0LWEyNWItNTA2MDcyZmIyMTdmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXN3aWZ0dw@@._V1_QL75_UX500_CR0,47,500,281_.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p>11. <i>Singin' in the Rain</i></p><p>The greatest movie musical of all, and a great film about Hollywood, Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly's <i>Singin' in the Rain</i> is superior to the previous year's Best Picture winner, another Kelly musical, An American in Paris. The film is about Hollywood's transition from silent films to talkies, with movie star Don Lockwood falling in love with chorus girl Kathy Selden (Debby Reynolds), while his screen partner Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen in an Oscar nominated performance), whose shrill voice doesn't make the cut when it comes to talkies, becomes jealous. Donald O'Connor lends support as Don's friend Cosmo Brown, a performance that also should've garnered a Oscar nomination. </p><p>The dancing is off the charts great, the songs funny and poignant, Kelly is at his most charismatic, Hagen is hilarious, and Reynolds becomes a star right before our eyes. It's a truly joyous film, technically brilliant and with a lot of heart. A great example of Hollywood studio filmmaking done right.</p><p>The nominees that year were <i>The Quiet Man, The Greatest Show on Earth, High Noon, Ivanoe, </i>and<i> Moulin Rouge</i>. <i>The Greatest Show on Earth</i> won, with John Ford winning for <i>The Quiet Man</i> (his fourth Oscar). The film is usually considered one of the worst- if not the worst film to win Best Picture, though I haven't seen it. For me, I would go with <i>The Quiet Man,</i> maybe my favourite of Ford's films, along with <i>Stagecoach.</i></p><p><br /></p><p>So, what films do you think should've been nominated for Best Picture? Comment and let me know.</p><p><br /></p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-16399765598744702122023-01-17T07:15:00.000-08:002023-01-17T07:15:56.670-08:00The Essential Films: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnVZ1g-y12RMv4I9ihNaR5kETWZgLwzE0vKYStiLr9VwPj_X53kFecRYjl_xOCEvcuZzrETq72GugqJCThKzbNY5zUJcHAJrzgdFEgCY7e7cT7XiLN68JbpLT_ilHOSQSCUYTE77VSe9-YwS-VqoltGFgbfA3QVr31GnDGVwyYRDtk9Gx7PBNS5wsU/s3500/thetreasureofthesierramadre1948.2852.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2280" data-original-width="3500" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnVZ1g-y12RMv4I9ihNaR5kETWZgLwzE0vKYStiLr9VwPj_X53kFecRYjl_xOCEvcuZzrETq72GugqJCThKzbNY5zUJcHAJrzgdFEgCY7e7cT7XiLN68JbpLT_ilHOSQSCUYTE77VSe9-YwS-VqoltGFgbfA3QVr31GnDGVwyYRDtk9Gx7PBNS5wsU/w400-h260/thetreasureofthesierramadre1948.2852.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; text-align: justify;">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</span></p><p>Director John Huston needed Humphrey Bogart, and Humphrey Bogart needed John Huston. By writing <i>High Sierra</i> and <i>The Maltese Falcon</i> (both 1941-he directed the latter, while Raoul Walsh directed the former), Huston took Bogart from supporting player to movie star. And Bogart would provide Huston (who was making his film debut with <i>The Maltese Falcon</i>) provided Huston with the perfect new kind of (anti) hero. Bogart and Huston would collaborate on four more movies, <i>Across the Pacific</i> (1942, directed first by Huston and then Vincent Sherman when Huston joined the United States Army Signal Corps), <i>The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Key Largo</i> (both 1948), <i>The African Queen</i> (1951, for which Bogart won his Best Actor Oscar) and <i>Beat the Devil</i> (1953). Of these, <i>The Treasure of the Sierra Madre</i> is perhaps their greatest collaboration, and maybe Huston's finest film overall. It won Huston two Oscars for writing and direction- and he directed his father Walter Huston to a Best Supporting Actor Oscar (he also directed Claire Trevor in <i>Key Largo</i> to a Best Supporting Actress Oscar). Bogart was not nominated (Laurence Olivier won Best Actor for <i>Hamlet</i>, which also won Best Picture.) </p><p><i>The Treasure of the Sierra Madre</i> sets itself up as an adventure film but eventually becomes a cautionary tale, a psychological horror film about the almost supernatural quality gold has to lead men in to madness and violence. This is one of the darkest films to come out of the Hollywood studio system, one that subverted the image of its star and in which he gives his greatest performances. It's also one of the first Hollywood films to shoot outside the USA (in in Tampico and Durango), providing a rugged authenticity to the story. This is the kind of film where you can smell the sweat and feel the dirt. </p><p>The opening shots quickly establish the film's themes of desperation. The first image is that of a poster with winning lottery numbers, the camera panning to a man's hand ripping up a losing ticket. We cut to Fred C. Dobbs' (Bogart) grizzled face.. Dobbs is in Tampico where he meets another American, Bob Curtin (Tim Holt), both of whom are hired by a man named Pat McCormick (Barton MacLane) to do some labor. When the job's done, McCormick flees without paying them. Dobbs and Curtin go to a flophouse for a night, where they meet prospector Howard (Walter Huston). The next day Dobbs and Curtin encounter McCormick, who pretends he's going to pay them later and then tries to escape. Dobbs and Curtin beat him up (in an effectively staged brawl) and they take what's owed them. They get the idea to prospect for gold, so they decide to get Howard to go along with them. At first, they don't have enough money to buy supplies but then Dobbs is told by a child from whom he bought a lottery ticket that he has the winning number. A great example of the script setting up something early and paying it off after you've forgotten about it. When Dobbs and Cody shake hands, solidifying their partnership, the camera shows their hand with Howard in the background, looking unsure, reminding us of what he said in when we first met him: "....the noble brotherhood will last but when the piles of gold begin to grow...that's when the trouble starts." </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgblKfLSCOKPtqXkQpSMETquBRLTN-7ztpv019DD8vktU90p2zqzTQbFTM1HCJyNC01jDZD5LoOCkKTgkLgQwIjkVeOD6pcK4Yyp7JVKNvRwSyMDmuy39LZ48lx5nW4H8vR7QDhPm12-0mN380tA1rB3AyaEluI3T4UmcDTpgDtN7hCVj0TPA7vnzzY/s740/13b669_dac504ddd315440fa8463cd3a9adc3be_mv2.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="416" data-original-width="740" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgblKfLSCOKPtqXkQpSMETquBRLTN-7ztpv019DD8vktU90p2zqzTQbFTM1HCJyNC01jDZD5LoOCkKTgkLgQwIjkVeOD6pcK4Yyp7JVKNvRwSyMDmuy39LZ48lx5nW4H8vR7QDhPm12-0mN380tA1rB3AyaEluI3T4UmcDTpgDtN7hCVj0TPA7vnzzY/s320/13b669_dac504ddd315440fa8463cd3a9adc3be_mv2.webp" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p style="text-align: justify;">Dobbs doesn't believe gold inherently changes a man- he feels it all depends on the man. And he's right. but it will be Curtin who retain his sanity, while Dobbs quickly becomes paranoid and angry towards Curtin and Howard. But even Curtin has to make a hard choice when a fourth man named James Cody (Bruce Bennett) follows Curtin after he came to town for provisions. The other three have to decide whether to kill Cody or let him join. Curtin makes the call, reluctantly, to kill Cody. But all three are going to do it so the other two won'thave anything to use against the third man. Cody then alerts them to Mexican bandits, led by Gold Hat (Alfonso Bendoya) and during a shootout Cody is killed. The three find a letter on Cody from his widow, and it's the most painful part of the film, re-contexualizing how we may have felt about Cody, and reminding us these guys were going to make his wife a widow. These three men had the capability to kill another because he jeoparized their exploit. Gold can be pure but men can't.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Now, let's talk a little bit more about Bogart. He's one of the greatest of movie stars, one with an incredibly strong filmography. Throw a dart and you'll hit a classic. James Stewart and Cary Grant are the same. All three are in movies I just really like and they're amongst the first classic movie actors to which I was introduced. I'll also say they were underrated as actors. I think in general people underrate and undervalue movie star acting, not considering it "real acting" and an actor "playing themself." What many consider great acting is often the more showy, "give me an Oscar" kind of acting, which has its place, but the more effortless movie star acting that Bogart exemplified is arguably just as, or more effective. Yes, he was always Bogart, with the unmistakable nasally voice and wolfish grin- but watch him in <i>The Maltese Falcon.</i> Watch how he glides through that film, completely in control of what's happening, only pretending to lose his temper, only pretending to be corrupt. Now watch him here, quick to paranoia, desperate, and eventually psychotic. He starts out as Bogart but his image of a cool, collected person who will ultimately do the right thing is subverted. Along with Nicholas Ray's <i>In A Lonely Place</i>, this is the darkest Bogart goes psychologically. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Of course, it's not just a subversion but coincidentally a return to when Bogart was the villain in films. Bogart was perhaps the first character actor turned movie star, and is the are leading man who can genuinely look sinister. That wolfish grin never looked more, well wolfish, or more terrifying than here, with his dirty beard and face giving him a an animalistic look. Cinematographer Ted McCord (who also photographed <i>The Sound of Musi</i>c and <i>East of Eden</i>) makes Bogart look like the Wolf Man in shots that wouldn't be out of place in a horror film. The film does become a psychological horror film in one of the last stretches of the movie where Dobbs and Curtin are alone without Howard, who had previously saved an ill Mexican child and is now being called back to the village to be honored. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaHGmYYTubc9qSKLqnGR6GMLVRlJ6G_tBG24kHFjpDjnNSOQrVD2MJhnZMxmEXwTSAJkCd9U3rlBTIor1rTb2myi9WnPATrY3trRu1KUk1HRnjM9vnGHxwwsL0Dn8JZfR3VEGANJryt7Yy0UlcWLinD3LRvDIE-d6ZXsvVSBHtGpJlTOWfMhguSLzB/s600/13b669_ff2ac19e29cd4270b6f6518ba5b5e235_mv2.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaHGmYYTubc9qSKLqnGR6GMLVRlJ6G_tBG24kHFjpDjnNSOQrVD2MJhnZMxmEXwTSAJkCd9U3rlBTIor1rTb2myi9WnPATrY3trRu1KUk1HRnjM9vnGHxwwsL0Dn8JZfR3VEGANJryt7Yy0UlcWLinD3LRvDIE-d6ZXsvVSBHtGpJlTOWfMhguSLzB/s320/13b669_ff2ac19e29cd4270b6f6518ba5b5e235_mv2.webp" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: justify;">Walter Huston's Best Actor Supporting Oscar, a deserved win for his portrayal of Howard, giving him a slightly eccentric but wizened quality. He's a little bit weird you can tell he knows what's he doing. Huston was a Canadian actor who started on stage before appearing in movies when "talkies" took over. One of his earliest roles was the sinister, self-righteous missionary in the pre-code film Rain (1932), starring Joan Crawford. <i>The Treasure of Sierra Madre </i>would be one of Huston's final films, with his last being <i>The Furies</i> with Barbara Stanwyck (1950). Huston would die in 1950 at the age of 67, of an aortic aneurysm. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Tim Holt is the film's unsung performance, probably because Curtin is the blandest of the three main characters. But Holt right kind of likability and sincerity befitting of the character who's the heart of the film. We fear for him when he's alone with Dobbs but we remember how he made the call to kill Cody. Bogart is clearly no longer our hero, and the whole movie has set us up for this confrontation. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">When Dobbs believes he has killed Curtin, he runs off and eventually runs in to the bandits. They kill him and mistake the bag of gold he had for sand. It is scattered, with the bandits taking the burros and s supplies. When Howard and Curtin find the empty bags and the gold scattered, all Howard can do is laugh, with Curtin eventually joining in. The whole movie has been a set up for a punchline to a cosmic joke- but it's not a bleak ending. Curtin sums up the situation pretty nicely when he remarks </p><p style="text-align: justify;">"<span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;">You know, the worst ain't so bad when it finally happens. Not half as bad as you figure it will be before it's happened. I'm no worse off than I was in Tampico. All I'm out is a couple hundred bucks when you come right down to it. Not very much compared to what Dobbsie lost."</span> </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: center;">Howard reminds Curtin of what he mentioned earlier in the film, of buying land and growing fruit. And he also tells Curtin to visit Cody's widow. So there's still a dream, and there's still decency in this world. And for Howard, who is has been invited to stary in the village, there's a home. And g</span>etting to live another day, perhaps that it is something, perhaps that's everything. </p><p></p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-3558385042960076482022-12-16T11:29:00.001-08:002022-12-16T11:29:52.338-08:00The Essential Films: "The Spy Who Came in From the Cold" (1965)<p> </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQHN_11hveB0TIvoFGMlEnZ34RCctoCUH6y_94r5KIKCaBZXYtpOndrDKWtCjqohr-srBXB-fUx4raLRw2JVS79_t3qwC4r2l_4gj02IyJ_hkhPOP3U3Zbn2ra0QDhku2iT0XpMiLVlZZhdnHfHo54FXTACL7G29Deee-wO0N9UY_lgKL06nwij5e7/s1280/spy%20who%20came.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQHN_11hveB0TIvoFGMlEnZ34RCctoCUH6y_94r5KIKCaBZXYtpOndrDKWtCjqohr-srBXB-fUx4raLRw2JVS79_t3qwC4r2l_4gj02IyJ_hkhPOP3U3Zbn2ra0QDhku2iT0XpMiLVlZZhdnHfHo54FXTACL7G29Deee-wO0N9UY_lgKL06nwij5e7/w400-h225/spy%20who%20came.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i style="text-align: justify;"><i style="text-align: left;">A Series of Writings on Films that I feel are essential for film lovers, coupled with films that are personal to me. Spoilers for people who haven't seen the film.</i></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">At the height of the James Bond craze, as well as amongst shows like <i>The Avengers</i> and <i>Get Smart</i>, 1960s audiences were offered a bleaker, chillier alternative: Martin Ritt's <i>The Spy Who Came in From the Cold,</i> based on John Le Carre's third novel, his breakthrough success, which Graham Greene called the best spy story he ever read. Nearly 60 years after the book was published and the film was released the story still holds up- due to the cynical brilliance of its plot. This may be the best representation of the government agent's life- the loneliness, the unglamorous lifestyle, the realization you're a pawn in a larger scheme that you can't help but bitterly admire. The film is ultimately a tragedy, but not of the Shakespearean kind. The tragedy here feels more mundane, but still inevitable. </div></div></div><p></p><p>At the film's beginning one of British agent Alec Leamas' (Richard Burton) operatives is killed at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin. Leamas is called back to London by agency chief Control (Cyril Cusack), where he is supposedly dismissed from the service. Leamas gets a job at a library where he meets Nan Perry (Claire Bloom), with whom he begins a relationship. One day Leamas drunkenly assaults a grocer (Bernard Lee, funnily enough the original James Bond "M") and briefly goes to jail. When he is released, he's approached as a possible defector by East Germany. </p><p>It's revealed this is all been set up by control so Leamas can implicate an East German agent- Mundt (Peter van Eyck)- as a British spy and have him killed. That we do not learn of this mission until after spending time establishing Leamas' relationship with Nan and seeing him approached to be a defector, makes the revelation more satisfying. The audience get to say "Oh, I get it," which is always very rewarding. It also establishes that the story requires patience. And by film's end I think everything pays off brilliantly. Paul Dehn and Guy Trosper's screenplay also has these events play out in a naturalistic way, giving you the feeling of a real spy story unfolding before you.</p><p>Leamas is no Bond. He's not a fun character to be around and doesn't seem to being having a lot of fun himself, unless he's being sardonic. His relationship with Nan doesn't have the sexual excitement of the Bond films- it feels more paternal Burton was never the warmest of actors, which makes him perfect for the role of a standoffish, burnt-out spy. In a performance that's as bitter as a cyanide pill, Burton makes you feel that weariness from years of service in your own bones, playing a part that's not really much of a part. It feels there's a very thin line between the role Leamas is playing and the man he is. As Michael Sragrow says in his essay for the Criterion Collection release of the film, pertaining to when Leamas is first sent on his mission,</p><p> "...those who haven't read the book must wonder whether Leamas becomes a drunken has-been or <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>is merely playing one...it's hard to know when Leamas is putting everyone, or where the put-on<span> </span> <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>ends and the real Leamas begins."</p><p>When Leamas tells Fielder, Mundt's second-in-command, and who's suspicious of Mundt, that becoming a spy was just about the money, I don't think Leamas is lying. It's easy to pretend to be a defector when you are genuinely fed up with the job. Fielder stands in contrast to him, he believes in the communist cause, and feels Leamas should believe in something. Leamas says he holds the right to be ignorant, the "Western way of life," as he calls it. </p><p>This isn't the first time in the film Leamas is confronted with a person whose passion clashes with his dispassion. Nan is also a communist, which Leamas takes as Nan being naive. He says that when it comes to things like communism and capitalism, it's the "innocents who get slaughtered. This calls forward to the conversation with Fielder where Fielder states he would kill innocent people to achieve his goals- but that if innocent people are to die, if should be for something.Maybe Leamas did believe in something once- perhaps all cynics are reformed optimists- but even if he did, it wouldn't stop the events of the story. Leamas is ultimately a pawn in a larger game, one in which he unknowingly dooms both Nan and Fielder. </p><p>Fielder puts Mundt on trial for being a double agent, but when Nan is brought to the tribunal and admits to having received payments by British Intelligence, Leamas had to admit he's a British agent. Fielder is arrested and will probably be killed. Mundt frees Leamas and Nan, which leads to Leamas explaining what just happened. Mundt actually is a double agent and Leamas' mission was ultimately to discredit Fielder, with Nan being part of that plot. And it all comes back to philosophy, with Leamas answering Nan's question of who this operation helped, stating</p><p><span style="background-color: #fbfbfb; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><b>"What the hell do you think spies are? Moral philosophers measuring everything they do against the word of God or Karl Marx? They're not! They're just a bunch of seedy, squalid bastards like me: little men, drunkards, queers, henpecked husbands, civil servants playing cowboys and Indians to brighten their rotten little lives. Do you think they sit like monks in a cell, balancing right against wrong? Yesterday I would have killed Mundt because I thought him evil and an enemy. But not today. Today he is evil and my friend. London needs him. They need him so that the great, moronic masses you admire so much can sleep soundly in their flea-bitten beds again. They need him for the safety of ordinary, crummy people like you and me."</b></span></p><p>Leamas could have believed in philosophy he wanted throughout this story, but he still would've come to the same conclusion he comes here. All that's changed for Leamas is, as he says, Mundt is now his "friend." </p><p>Leamas is, by design, a difficult character to work with because he's blase about things and not necessary the most exciting guy to be around. He's not traditionally and his lack of belief system (which maybe in itself is a belief system) doesn't really change over the course of the film but is rather confirmed. When Nan gets killed by one of Mundt's henchmen while she and Leamas are attempting to climb the Berlin Wall, it calls back to what Leamas said about innocents get slaughtered. </p><p>If Nan is the innocent victim than Fielder is arguably the closest thing the story has to a hero (though there are no true heroes in this world). He wants to expose a traitor in the Communist party, and Werner makes Fielder surprisingly likable and charming. And the fact that he's right about Mundt means he has to be killed. "London made us kill him, Kill the Jew," Leamas tells Nan. Mundt is a former Hitler Youth, which is a big reason Fielder doesn't like Mundt. This makes Fielder a more sympathetic character than Leamas, whose final statement about him, as complimentary as Leamas gets, is he was a "clever Jew." </p><p>Now, I want to talk a little about the film's director, Martin Ritt. Ritt, like Fielder, was Jewish, born in Manhattan, and who started out as an actor in the theatre, where he eventually met Elia Kazan. Ritt worked as playwright and director of plays before turning to television. He became a victim of the Hollywood blacklist in 1952, after which he returned to the theatre. When things died down, he made his film debut with <i>Edge of the City </i>(1957), starring Sidney Poiter and John Cassavetes. It based on a true story about corruption on the docks, similar to <i>On the Waterfront</i>. (1954). It was Ritt's experiences playing football in North Carolina, seeing the contrast between the deep south and his Manhattan upbringing that made him to do socially conscious films. He would direct Poitier again, alongside Paul Newman, in <i>Paris Blues</i> (1961) Newman and Ritt would collaborate again on <i>Hud</i> (1963), <i>The Outrage</i> (1964, a remake of Akira Kurosawa's <i>Rashomon</i>) and <i>Hombre </i>(1967). Ritt received a Best Director nomination for Hud. </p><p>He won the BAFTA for Best British Film for <i>Spy</i> but would not receive an Oscar nomination for his elegant direction. Neither did Oswald Morris for his beautifully stark black and white cinematography, which provides much of the film's aptly chilly atmosphere. The film would only receive two Oscar nominations, Burton for Best Actor, and Best Art Direction- Black and White (Hal Periera, Tambi Larsen, Ted Marshall, Josie McAvin). Burton is my pick for Best Actor (though I haven't seen Lee Marvin's winning performance for<i> Cat Ballou</i>). Werner got a Golden Gloe nomination for Best Supporting Actor and I feel he should've been nominated for the Oscar (he actually was up against Burton in Best Actor for <i>Ship of Fools</i>). <i>The Sound of Music</i> was the Best Picture winner that year. That's no doubt a beloved and remembered film, and it's not a surprise the stark reality of <i>Spy </i>wasn't embraced by the academy. However, <i>Spy</i> has only grown in esteem and still feels like an uncommonly austere portrait of a spy's life.</p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-67487843797338961922022-09-29T16:17:00.000-07:002022-09-29T16:17:20.376-07:00Some Thoughts on The 2023 Oscars<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiyywK0N6ZPdFumj0ELo5EI9mPAXAGpnIljSqsS1maYyYSs7wLBk1_k00kRcUiQpLYCkNw-Eub4yna-2zk3jumeb0z2maIrHN5WAcqvia40Ri096k4zh6bgqzbyoN-sL1h1y7s0A0gWvia3O_r5fJVeyzG8gH7R_xEQs0b8Frb1JeNepC6IV0nFzJ_i" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiyywK0N6ZPdFumj0ELo5EI9mPAXAGpnIljSqsS1maYyYSs7wLBk1_k00kRcUiQpLYCkNw-Eub4yna-2zk3jumeb0z2maIrHN5WAcqvia40Ri096k4zh6bgqzbyoN-sL1h1y7s0A0gWvia3O_r5fJVeyzG8gH7R_xEQs0b8Frb1JeNepC6IV0nFzJ_i=w400-h266" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p> I don't want to do too much pre-amble, so let's get to the categories</p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi5y_h0qthVco51H9ZuOBjOkg-orT8xmjH9vlH2-2y_hzEq9hSm4Lxk_Q-7UYkjvFj5mq2s6_CI5m5W6O5CCAyhjOvPGXVUCMdOulrTdaZ8T1OQKWb7msbFF9SrCWIaBZOSaCdDoW4NrCDmE6GGQMIWN5maw_vXUG66RzyGfchhlKPPGL8YVXrOgBX4" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1200" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi5y_h0qthVco51H9ZuOBjOkg-orT8xmjH9vlH2-2y_hzEq9hSm4Lxk_Q-7UYkjvFj5mq2s6_CI5m5W6O5CCAyhjOvPGXVUCMdOulrTdaZ8T1OQKWb7msbFF9SrCWIaBZOSaCdDoW4NrCDmE6GGQMIWN5maw_vXUG66RzyGfchhlKPPGL8YVXrOgBX4" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p><b>BEST PICTURE</b></p><p>I've found the last couple of Oscars pretty quiet in terms of the Best Picture line-up. The films nominated- while several of them great- haven't been the films I think general audiences were really interested in. We haven't had a <i>Joker, Black Panther, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood</i> or even <i>Little Women</i> or <i>1917. West Side Story</i> didn't do well at the box office and Dune isn't really a crowd-pleaser. This year, I think that could change. If I was running the Oscar campaign for Paramount, I'd definitely being pushing <i>Top Gun: Maverick</i> for Best Picture, putting a emphasis on the "Movies are back" narrative and it being the biggest movie of the year. I'm wondering if <i>Wakanda Forever </i>and <i>Avatar: The Way of Water</i>- sequels to Best Picture nominees- could also get in. We usually don't have follow ups to Best Picture nominees but with sequels in general there's always the "Can you do it again?" challenge. If the Academy wants to go for the Indie blockbuster, then <i>Everything, Everywhere, All at Once</i>, is right there. I don't see the older members of the Academy taking to it but with the Oscars trying to be more adventurous in recent years there's a good chance it'll be there.</p><p>If they want to go safe, then Steven Spielberg's autobiographical <i>The Fabelmans </i>is right there. Sam Mendes' <i>Empire of Light</i>- about a romance taking place in old movie theatre- also seems a like safe choice. That one stars Olivia Coleman and Colin Firth</p><p>Darren Aronofsky's <i>The Whale</i>- starring Brendan Fraser and Andrew Dominick's<i> Blonde</i>- with Ana De Armas as Marilyn Monroe could get in but they may be more acting contenders than Best Picture ones. <i>The Wonder </i>(that other Florence Pugh movie), about an 1800s Irish village where a girl has supposedly not eaten for three months without perishing, is maybe taking the prestige period piece spot though that may also only be an acting play. It won't happen but it would be funny if <i>Don't Worry Darling</i> actually got a Best Picture nominee (and become fourth film to win the top five.) <i>My Policeman</i> (Starring Pugh's <i>DWD</i> co-star Harry Styles) has gotten mixed reviews so I'm not feeling it for Best Picture. </p><p>I just saw <i>The Woman King</i>- a historical action film about the all-woman unit of warriors who protected an African Kingdom in the 1800s. It has the right blend of strong story and rousing action- think Gladiator or Braveheart- that could help get in. </p><p>Then there's <i>Elvis,</i> one of the most popular films of the years about one of the 20th Century's most popular entertainments. I think it could be the<i> Bohemian Rhapsody</i> of the year- especially with Austin Butler being a frontrunner for Best Actor. Like <i>Top Gun: Maverick</i>, the "People are going back to the movies" narrative should be pushed. I don't know if Jordan Peele's<i> Nope </i>has much of a chance in Best Picture (I think it's hard to replicate the impact of <i>Get Out</i>) but it could if campaigned right.</p><p>The reviews for Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's <i>8 1/2</i> inspired <i>Bardo</i> have been mixed but the Academy does like him so I think it could make it, especially since they T do love films about filmmaking. Florian Zeller's <i>The Son</i> is his follow-up to <i>The Father</i> and definitely has the credentials for a Best Picture nominee (a more traditional one compared to Zeller's previous film) though I have a feeling it's a more of a potential acting player.</p><p><i>Knives Out</i> didn't get in for Best Picture but the reviews for its sequel <i>Glass Onion</i> are just as good or better than its predecessor and the good-will towards the original could push it in to the line-up.</p><p><br /></p><p><b></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgWmVLk9VUMdOWwyPFCyPHAUAWUFlr2MkgAvR2wOLmpaw_4p-migVAxRn9f6H6ILrTXUCTUDwFSarZ96vv9sp6NmFp_1uCm6WommxiX8UA8OTqcZnyCO8tQfQeBcV2x6NfwHlSMvvErbDO7T2nRPBL45-B2i84qupIBeTR9Qu7qZxe__ufWvOLbj7cu" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="3248" data-original-width="2416" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgWmVLk9VUMdOWwyPFCyPHAUAWUFlr2MkgAvR2wOLmpaw_4p-migVAxRn9f6H6ILrTXUCTUDwFSarZ96vv9sp6NmFp_1uCm6WommxiX8UA8OTqcZnyCO8tQfQeBcV2x6NfwHlSMvvErbDO7T2nRPBL45-B2i84qupIBeTR9Qu7qZxe__ufWvOLbj7cu" width="179" /></a></b></div><b><br /><br /></b><p></p><p><b>BEST DIRECTOR</b></p><p>I already mentioned Spielberg, who may be looking at his third Best Director Oscar. Can you imagine if James Cameron gets in? That'd be quite the battle of titans. If Top Gun: Maverick gets in I don't see its director, Joseph Kosinki gets in. Ryan Coogler is due a nomination one of these days but I don't know if he's getting in either. Sam Mendes has a shot for Empire of Light seems but the reviews have been mixed- this could just end up being a showcase for the actors to get in.Darren Aronofsky hasn't gotten a nomination since Black Swan but I think The Whale has a strong possibility of bringing him his second nomination, though as I said earlier it may just be an acting contender, similar to Andrew Dominick's chances for <i>Blonde. </i></p><p>Sarah Polley could become only the eighth woman to be nominated for Best Director for Women Talking. Gina Prince-Bythewood could be the ninth if she gets in for <i>The Woman King. </i>It won't happen but Olivia Wilde for <i>DWD</i> would be an exciting inclusion</p><p>Previous Best Director winner Damian Chazelle (the youngest winner in history) is in contention for Babylon, which has been compared to <i>The Wolf of Wall Street.</i> Chazelle didn't get in for <i>First Man, </i>but he'll probably be back in the race for this one. The reviews for <i>Glass Onion</i> are looking good so does Rian Johnson (nominated for Best Original Screenplay for the first film) have a shot at it his first Best Director nomination? It definitely would make certain peoples' heads explode. </p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgFQNTGCd6yJRs1YSOUl4IozleyXe1D1sX1ZQ6st-wxD5cx60UzoEfLLgdxjKnZN1acyHA3RzPc7Kx9UMnOAezqmr812fMy-mo2dS6g_nzGG0TunxE17IVh_sxs1hZXZ0zWTFv87aD-1UGRR4sxzhDQNeCsPFI7cwDj-CwMDgFvcgAmr3U0rF5DlIpE" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="730" data-original-width="1296" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgFQNTGCd6yJRs1YSOUl4IozleyXe1D1sX1ZQ6st-wxD5cx60UzoEfLLgdxjKnZN1acyHA3RzPc7Kx9UMnOAezqmr812fMy-mo2dS6g_nzGG0TunxE17IVh_sxs1hZXZ0zWTFv87aD-1UGRR4sxzhDQNeCsPFI7cwDj-CwMDgFvcgAmr3U0rF5DlIpE" width="320" /></a></div><br />BEST ACTRESS<p></p><p>Despite the weak reviews Florence Pugh has been praised for her performance in <i>DWD</i>. However, she probably has a better shot with <i>The Wonder</i>, though<i> DWD </i>seems like the showier role (and Pugh no doubt can be a showy, actorly and gimmicky performer). I did think it was Pugh's year earlier this year but I'm wondering if she gets left out this year. There's a risk of vote if both performances get plenty of votes. </p><p>I've read that it's Cate Blanchett's Oscar to lose for <i>Tar</i>- Todd Fields' first film since 2006's Little Children, in which she plays a brilliant music conductor. Even without seeing the film, I get why people are saying that. Like Daniel Day-Lewis, Blanchett is unstoppable when she gets a role like this. However, Blanchett might have a challenger in Michelle Yeoh for<i> EEATO.</i> It'd be such a unique performance and performer to win. </p><p>As I've been working on this piece something major happened, which is Michelle Williams going lead for <i>The Fabelmans</i>. I think she had a pretty easy win in Supporting Actress whereas Best Actress is perhaps too competitive. Katy Rich's article on the switch made a satient point that mom characters often get sidelined in to Supporting Actress and Williams going for Best Actress makes a statement that the mom can be a leading character. Whatever happens Williams going lead makes both Actress categories more interesting now. </p><p>I'm hearing <i>Blonde</i> is a really rough watch, so I wonder if that'll hurt Ana De Armas' chances if academy voters switch it off before finishing it. She is the most consistently praised thing about the film and hopefully for her get in the top 5. </p><p>Olivia Coleman is coming for fourth nomination (third in Best Actress) for Empire of Light. She's becoming a staple of the ceremony and one of our most reliably great actresses. Amsterdam is getting very negative reviews, so Margot Robbie has a better shot with <i>Babylon.</i> I'm thinking <i>The Woman King</i> gets into Best Picture and if that's true than I have to predict Viola Davis will get in for Best Actress, </p><p>Jennifer Lawrence may also be back in the race for Causeway, in which she plays a soldier with a brain injury attempting to incorporate back into civilian life. The reviews for her and Brian Tyree Henry have been strong, and it sounds like this may be one of Lawrence's more subtle and least affected performances. Then there's <i>Women Talking's</i> Rooney Mara, whom if she gets in, will be the second actor Sarah Polley has directed to an Oscar nomination- after Julie Christie in <i>Away From Her. </i></p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhh2Ka_9RxVkFihSe-PkrbO4DmEGraUjhmuYxQP7ojbD0SERHlBMrIRtEDGt3JadTv3ZSZqOlItjS6SHSklY0yiImXKhjBs-kDEcMCPtFxwXL1LBZebkSxw7qYBsbek29ekj1m1s2jYGzBiDEG79WRrZilquwTIlmnyHqyUVI_TDnTv45SWqdR9w6WR" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1333" data-original-width="2000" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhh2Ka_9RxVkFihSe-PkrbO4DmEGraUjhmuYxQP7ojbD0SERHlBMrIRtEDGt3JadTv3ZSZqOlItjS6SHSklY0yiImXKhjBs-kDEcMCPtFxwXL1LBZebkSxw7qYBsbek29ekj1m1s2jYGzBiDEG79WRrZilquwTIlmnyHqyUVI_TDnTv45SWqdR9w6WR" width="320" /></a></div><br />BEST ACTOR<p></p><p>This year definitely feels like it's between Brendan Fraser and Austin Butler for <i>The Whale </i>and <i>Elvis</i>, respectively. This could be Fraser's moment, but it also has the feeling of a Mickey Rourke/Michael Keaton situation where the comeback narrative gets derailed by an actor playing a real person (Sean Penn, Eddie Redmayne).</p><p>Colin Farrell is arguably one of our most due actors when it comes to Oscar, and he'll be getting his first nomination for Martin McDonagh's <i>The Banshees of Inisheran. </i>The other Colin, Firth, is also aiming for his third nomination for<i> Empire of Light</i> (he was nominated for<i> A Single Man </i>and<i> The King's</i> Speech back-to-back, winning for the latter.)</p><p>What could shake up the race is the inclusion of Tom Cruise for <i>Top Gun: Maverick</i>. Cruise may be the last movie star without an Oscar so, again, if I was running Paramount's Oscar campaign, I'd be pushing that narrative. I'm not certain he's getting in this year, but it'd be one of the year's most significant acting nominations since he hasn't been nominated since Magnolia.</p><p>I'm also not certain Hugh Jackman is getting in for <i>The Son</i>. same goes for Daniel Gimenez Cacho for Bardo- due to both films' polarizing reactions, though it's best to remember that the Academy aren't critics. I don't know if Daniel Craig is being pushed for Best Actor for <i>Glass Onion </i>or Supporting. Either way, I'd like to see him get in, <i>Knives Out</i> didn't get in any of the acting categories (though I think Craig was my Best Supporting Actor winner that year) so maybe that can change this time.</p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiYvWweqJbG9yV5-_z9xT4fZI0H3JmNNmFmHzTmm4xIkElAe6KQFBGSrPD9CHDSVDeEzLIsJs1y4EJ6kWZHPt4mgpnECB2BVQf43G4knDY8X1380Sl1nJ_kbNTgTsLJfYwqz3gFQFysaCDxndVYlna2bu3vdGMD2UT3yvsn5EW0c7-mG5HO64KGnq_H" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="730" data-original-width="1296" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiYvWweqJbG9yV5-_z9xT4fZI0H3JmNNmFmHzTmm4xIkElAe6KQFBGSrPD9CHDSVDeEzLIsJs1y4EJ6kWZHPt4mgpnECB2BVQf43G4knDY8X1380Sl1nJ_kbNTgTsLJfYwqz3gFQFysaCDxndVYlna2bu3vdGMD2UT3yvsn5EW0c7-mG5HO64KGnq_H" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p>BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS</p><p>As I discussed earlier, Michelle Williams is being campaigned for Lead, so it leaves this race open for someone else to win. I assumed Williams was going to do a Patricia Arquette/Laura Dern this year, winning for her career. </p><p>Jessie Buckley will ride her nomination for Maggie Gyllenhaal's The Lost Daughter in to another one for Women Talking. Claire Foy had one of those "supposed to be nominated" performances for <i>First Man</i>). We also have Nina Hoss and Noemie Merlant in <i>Tar</i>. </p><p>Sadie Sink will get the "Welcome to the club" nomination for playing Brendan Fraser's daughter in <i>The Whale</i> and possibly be the upset winner, as well as one of the youngest winners at 20. I'd love to see Stephanie Hsu in for <i>EEATO</i>, one of the more complicated villain roles in recent memory and arguably the film's heart. Her co-star in the film, Jamie Lee Curtis, is low in the rankings but that'd be an amazing first nomination for the legendary Curtis. </p><p>Jaenelle Monae is said to be the standout in Glass Onion and has already starred in a Best Picture winner and nominee in the same year (Moonlight and Hidden Figures, respectively) so she already has some cred with the Academy. No one from Knives Out made it into the acting categories (though Craig was my supporting actor winner that year I believe) but that could change with its sequel. </p><p>After seeing The Woman King, Viola Davis' co-star Thuso Mbedu is perhaps the film's standout performance. While she arguably belongs in lead, younger and newer actors typically campaign in the supporting categories </p><p>I recently saw Ruben Ostalnd's<i> Triangle of Sadness</i> at The Atlantic Film Festival and Dolly De Leon as the cleaner of a luxury cruise that becomes shipwrecked- giving her the opportunity to become the leader- is a dark horse contender that I also want to happen. </p><p>I'm surprised there isn't more buzz around Kila Lord Cassidy for <i>The Wonder</i>- the story is so much about Pugh's relationship to that girl. If Pugh is getting buzz, so should she. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhdhHSh4qpAj8bAxe8s4xSQILr69NPYzbzUF1FQSdjhU64k4xjvEI5rQLWsFbrDfa7Hs0iM19RhtZA1S_bh1ihpJjchrhVU3pW4QAFqS7e2tCzDFopNQkXR88-2w1UXkVGrom16VR9PYxs6lhFk3NQ0TiuvP-qtQmderg_LhDcqV0_SU_aArQkhbvwN" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhdhHSh4qpAj8bAxe8s4xSQILr69NPYzbzUF1FQSdjhU64k4xjvEI5rQLWsFbrDfa7Hs0iM19RhtZA1S_bh1ihpJjchrhVU3pW4QAFqS7e2tCzDFopNQkXR88-2w1UXkVGrom16VR9PYxs6lhFk3NQ0TiuvP-qtQmderg_LhDcqV0_SU_aArQkhbvwN" width="320" /></a></div><br />BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR<p></p><p>Ke Huy Quan is terrific in<i> EEATO, </i>and I want to see him win. Brendan Gleeseon, like Farrell, is getting his first career nomination for <i>The Banshees of Inisheran. </i>Gleason is a wonderful actor, so it'll be great to see him amongst the nominees. Paul Dano and Tobey Maguire are also possibly in contention for their nominations for <i>The Fablemans </i>and <i>Babylon</i>, respectively. A Tobey Maguire comeback wouldn't be a surprise now after the latest Spider-Man movie. </p><p>Speaking of <i>The Fablemans</i>, Judd Hirsch is pretty high in the predictions for the film. Hirsch is a beloved icon and was nominated in this category for <i>Ordinary People</i> over forty years ago. He could be the sentimental, career recognition winner this year. Brad Pitt won in this category in the last pre-Covid Oscars for <i>Once Upon a Time in Hollywood </i>could be back here for another Hollywood-themed film in <i>Babylon. </i> </p><p>So, is Tom Hanks getting in for his oddball performance as a real-life oddball, "Colonel" Tom Parker in <i>Elvis</i>? Maybe so. It's one of those "Is this is good or bad" performances where the entertainment factor outweighs whatever actual quality there is to the work.</p><p><br /></p><p>OTHER CATEGORIES</p><p>Original Screenplay- <i>The Fablemans, Triangle of Sadness, Bardo, EEATO, The Banshees of Inisherin, Babylon, Amsterdam, Tar, Elvis </i></p><p>Adapted Screenplay- <i>Glass Onion, The Son, Blonde, The Whale, The Wonder, My Policeman, White Noise</i></p><p>Cinematography- <i>Bardo, Avatar: The Way of Water, The Fabelmans, Blonde, Babylon, EEATO, The Whale </i></p><p>Production Design: <i>Wakanda Forever, Babylon, Don't Worry Darling, Elvis, Babylon, The Fabelmans,</i></p><p>Score: <i>Don't Worry Darling, The Fabelmans, The Whale, Blonde, Avatar: The Way of Blonde</i></p><p>Make-Up: <i>The Whale, Blonde, Elvis, EEATO</i></p><p>Editing: <i>Blonde, Top Gun: Maverick, Elvis, The Fabelmans, EEATO </i></p><p><br /></p><p>So, what are your thoughts on this year's Oscar race? Do you even care? Comment and let me know.</p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-87869120944046266902022-09-12T07:19:00.003-07:002022-09-12T07:19:41.757-07:00The Essential Films: "Jaws" (1975)<p><i></i></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjciAhJ1gwNSB9pZ21XyIKAtvvQKhC2zgK-5QJB_FbxSRj10uXgn1qAJidx7MEHJpnFXNAzqI4Yhn_OBrpXX1LJdrSCuzbiM8-4pAPByAafPOtL9icxm88RTN9eOD5eHT9aUNRWJCbA7R-gV5U9OpcbkgHimv1qfsmQX8vP34T3w-mXe8w4jPUGGlka/s1200/jaws-1200-1200-675-675-crop-000000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1200" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjciAhJ1gwNSB9pZ21XyIKAtvvQKhC2zgK-5QJB_FbxSRj10uXgn1qAJidx7MEHJpnFXNAzqI4Yhn_OBrpXX1LJdrSCuzbiM8-4pAPByAafPOtL9icxm88RTN9eOD5eHT9aUNRWJCbA7R-gV5U9OpcbkgHimv1qfsmQX8vP34T3w-mXe8w4jPUGGlka/w400-h225/jaws-1200-1200-675-675-crop-000000.jpg" width="400" /></a></i></div><i><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><i><i style="text-align: left;">A Series of Writings on Films that I feel are essential for film lovers, coupled with films that are personal to me. Spoilers for people who haven't seen the film.</i></i></div></div><p></p><p><i>Jaws</i> is a masterclass in filmmaking. It ranks amongst films like <i>Die Hard, The Exorcist</i>, and the original <i>Star Wars</i>, as one of those films which started out as popular entertainment but can be seen as a masterpiece of its genre. This was only Spielberg's third film; he had done the TV movie <i>Duel </i>and then his first theatrically released feature,<i> The Sugarland Express</i>-starring Goldie Hawn. Duel and The Sugarland Express are impressive films bur <i>Jaws</i> was a huge step forward for Spielberg in terms of his filmmaking abilities. While the film was a difficult- to say the least- shoot, Spielberg's filmmaking is so assured that when I'm watching it I'm hardly thinking of the behind the scene issues. Of course, credit has to go to Bill Butler's gorgeous and warm cinematography (he still with us at 101 years old) as well as Verna Fields' Oscar winning editing, which contributes mightily to the film's fluid pacing. Spielberg took that assuredness in to his next film <i>Close Encounters of the Third Kind</i> and later<i> Raiders of the Lost Ark</i>, becoming the king of blockbuster movie making. Much like <i>Jaws</i> itself, Spielberg has grown in my estimation as a filmmaker over the last several films. I always liked/loved his films but I guess I took him for granted, didn't realize just how good he is. Now I rank him in my top ten filmmakers.</p><p>All you need to do is watch the first scene of <i>Jaws</i>, where Chrissie Watkins (Susan Backlinie) is screaming for life before disappearing under water and everything going silent, to know the film still kills. There's a reason this movie still makes people afraid to go in the water. John Williams' theme- which opens the movie, was originally thought by Spielberg to be a joke, and I get why. It's hard not to find it a little amusing, but like Bernard Herrmann's screeching violins from<i> Psycho </i>are synonymous with "psycho killer," Williams "Duh Duh" is inseparable from "a shark is coming to get you."</p><p>After the first shark attack we're introduced to the first of the film's main trio, Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) who has moved to Amity Island recently with his family. I think he's an underrated actor, good at being the lead or supporting player. He was never the intense Pacino/DeNiro kind of actor but he had a physical presence and the ability to be a regular guy, which works well for Brody, who isn't a tough action hero type. </p><p>Brody begins the investigation in to Chrissy's death and has the beaches shut down. However, the Mayor of the town, Larry Vaughn (Murray Hamilton), convinces him to keep them open due to the summer season being the biggest money-earner of the year for the community. Brody reluctantly agrees but then a boy, Alex Kitner (Jeffrey Voorhees), gets eaten and Brody brings in Oceanographer Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) to investigate. Meanwhile Alex's mother (Lee Fierro) puts out ads promising a reward for killing the shark, bringing in a lot of amateur shark hunters. The only professional on the island, Quint (Robert Shaw), promises to kill the shark for a much larger reward. While at first the shark is thought to be caught, another shark attack brings Brody, Hooper and Quint together to hunt the shark.</p><p><i>Jaws</i> is actually two films in one. The first film is a damning critique of capitalism and political leadership, the second is an almost <i>Moby Dick</i>-esque adventure at sea, with Quint being a kind of Captain Ahab. I know some may find the film too slow and talky getting to the shark-hunting stuff but I believe it's crucial to this movie's success that we spend the time we do on the island and with the community before going off to sea. The transition from island to sea feels more significant and weighty because of what's happened- Alex's death, Brody's guilt, his dynamic with Hooper and the injection of Quint in to that dynamic. Then there's the three shark attacks. The first one is ignored, the second is addressed and supposedly resolved, then the third is the breaking point where we see some humanity from the Vaughn, who mentions his kids were on that beach. We don't like Vaughn anymore than we did before, but Hamilton plays his revelation beautifully. The way Carl Gottlieb and Peter Benchley (who wrote the novel) structure the three shark attacks and Vaughn's arc is the kind of good screenwriting that seems too rare these days.</p><p>I do love the subtle bromance between Brody and Hooper. Instead of the screenplay creating a forced antagonism between them Brody and Hooper are friendly with each other from the outset. However, Hooper gets angry with Brody when he's examining Chrissy and finds out this was never reported to the coast guard. Brody is a little naive and thinks the captured and killed shark is the shark who who Chrissy and Alex. Hooper calls him out on his naivete but when he comes to Brody's house that night, he shows that he respects Brody's rationality compared to everyone else. He also knows Brody had a rough day after Mrs. Kitner slapped because she found out he didn't close the beaches earlier. Hooper tells Brody he's out to tell his superiors that there's still a shark problem, leading him and Brody to cut open the dead shark to see what it's ate. The dinner scene is the real beginning of Brody and Hooper's partnership. When they're both trying to convince Vaughn to close the beach and talking over each other, Brody is telling Hooper to tell the mayor about shark stuff, and it's organically funny, indicative of Brody's earnestness as a man. He obviously respects and is excited by Hooper's knowledge and authority. </p><p>The more I've watched <i>Jaws</i> the more apparent it's become how the characters really make the movie. Not just our main trio but all the islanders as well- Vaughn, Bad Hat Harry, Mrs Taft. Similar to <i>Raiders of the Lost Ark</i> or the original <i>Star Wars</i> trilogy, you remember these supporting and minor characters, and they make the world feel lived in. I'd argue the best scene in the film doesn't feature the shark- it's is the scene where Hooper and Quint are bonding over scars, which leads in to one of the great film monologues - Quint talking about the sinking of the USS Annapolis and the death of most the crew from sharks. Shaw's delivery of the monologue and the vivid imagery it creates in the audiences' minds is perhaps more horrifying than anything we see on screen. It tells us so much about Quint and makes his death even more cruelly ironic- it's one of the most painful deaths I've ever seen in a film. Shaw should've gotten an Oscar nomination just for this monologue. </p><p>I also love how each of the three men relate to the other two. Hooper is the nerdy scientist compared to the more masculine cop and hunter. Brody is the one most uncomfortable at sea next to Hooper and Quint, and Quint is the loner figure, the outsider. It creates an uneasy dynamic between the three and the point of the bonding/monologue is that this is first and last time all three will be at peace with each other. It's right before the final stretch of the film, which doesn't let up until that shark is blown up. </p><p>I saw Jaws on IMAX just a few days ago and seeing it with a audience highlights just what a funny film this is, largely due to Dreyfuss, whose laugh alone is hilarious. I think this where Dreyfuss first established his persona as the intellectual smart-aleck. Some of his best lines- "They're all going to die"- after he's been mocked by the fishermen going out to hunt the shark-, referring to the mayor as wanting to be a "hot lunch," and "That makes a lot of sense" when water-fearing Brody says Amityville is only an island if you look at it from the water. </p><p>But it's not that big of a surprise that the film has plenty of humour. It wouldn't have become what many consider the first summer blockbuster if it was without the levity to contrast with the horror. It's an incredibly entertaining film but the fun never undermines the horror of the film, never makes those moments of terror less impactful. While Spielberg went too far with the darkness with <i>Indiana and the Temple of Doom</i>, <i>Jaws</i> perhaps best shows Spielberg managing both the light and dark. Spielberg has often gotten flak for being too sentimental but I feel he's much darker than the image people have. He's capable of being incredibly nasty and remorseless when he wants to. I don't think anyone forgets seeing those Nazis' faces being burnt off for the first time. </p><p>Spielberg is also able to do some technically impressive stuff without you really thinking about it. The Aforementioned scene with Brody and Hooper attempting to the convince Vaughn to close the beaches is one shot, with Spielberg moving the actors and reframing the shot effortlessly. The first scene between Brody and Vaughn is similarly one shot that has the actors move in a way that changes the focus of the show.. But you're not thinking of these scenes too much on a technical level, you're just watching the story. Spielberg is able to use his technique to draw you in to a scene without noticing the technique -very hard to do. But then he can also emphasize his shots, as with the "vertigo" shot on Brody on the beach. He employs it better than Hitchcock and there's no doubt Spielberg is a student of Hitchcock. Hitchcock always believed in the concept of "pure cinema," where the visuals did most of the storytelling, and Spielberg takes that approach here, making sure you can understand what's happening, even if the sound was off. </p><p>In a piece on Spielberg's <i>War Horse</i> (2011), critic Michael Phillips recounts Hitchcock's quote on Spielberg: "Young Spielberg is the first one us who doesn't see the proscenium arch." Phillips explains that Hitchcock is describing Spielberg's filmmaking as "fluidity cinematic," adding he has "Old style craftsmanship with a new spontaneity." Hitchcock's last decade of films can seem behind the times, with the possible exception of Frenzy (1972), especially compared with what Spielberg is doing here. . As much as Spielberg, along with George Lucas, are blamed for destroying what many see as the adult driven nature of 70s films, Jaws did raise the bar for filmmakers, and even Spielberg himself had to attempt to top himself. While he arguably did with <i>Close Encounters</i> and even his latest, <i>West Side Story</i>, blows away all modern movie musicals, <i>Jaws</i> may remain as close to perfect as anything Spielberg's done. <i> </i><i>Jaws </i>is the first true Spielberg film, where his specific sensibilities feel pretty much fully formed, contradictory as they may seem. He takes the lessons of Hitchcock and perhaps surpasses his master, changing pop culture forever. </p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-11021525916964550632022-08-10T11:31:00.002-07:002022-08-10T11:31:32.623-07:00The Essential Films: "Signs" (2002)<div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhWqkxb3USKtInNvWKxChd5gUh0IPbMahZ8sIRAVYGg2NVAGajJ14Jmj_MctAWxXUYFl9wRBwQcvCcXVcZkexXycJoEe9ZNiW5IVzZr__8hnOHkK1Vs5etQDINtVGgUrVqEok30qs0KtLI3ZkcngQ1m2RP-BJ0D71xXkOHVSu0DXjhwBxojCUZCQsVB" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="323" data-original-width="485" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhWqkxb3USKtInNvWKxChd5gUh0IPbMahZ8sIRAVYGg2NVAGajJ14Jmj_MctAWxXUYFl9wRBwQcvCcXVcZkexXycJoEe9ZNiW5IVzZr__8hnOHkK1Vs5etQDINtVGgUrVqEok30qs0KtLI3ZkcngQ1m2RP-BJ0D71xXkOHVSu0DXjhwBxojCUZCQsVB=w400-h266" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; text-align: justify;">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</span></div><div><br /></div><div>20 years ago the cover of Newsweek proclaimed writer/director M. Night Shyamalan "The Next Spielberg," ahead of his latest film, the alien invasion drama<i> Signs</i>. While many laugh at this proclamation now, considering the rough road Shyamalan's career went down, if you rewind your mind back to 2002 it's not a surprise he gained this moniker. Like Spielberg, Shyamalan was a filmmaker with an seemingly innate understanding of filmmaking language whose made genre films about ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, imbued with the kind of sentiment often seen in Spielberg's work. Re-watching <i>Signs,</i> I found it's Shyamalan's most Spielbergian film, the closest to a modern day <i>Close Encounters of the Third Kind</i> in that both are intimate family dramas in disguise as alien arrival stories. While I'd argue <i>Unbreakable</i> is his best film, <i>Signs </i>is the one closest to my heart. This may sound funny but <i>Signs</i> was an important film for me on my journey as a cinephile. I think this was the first film I analyzed on a filmmaking level, where I started to think about shot composition and framing. I know you're laughing but hey, I was 13. </div><div><div><br /></div><div><i>Signs</i> centers around the Hess family: Graham (Mel Gibson), a former priest who left the church after his wife was killed after being hit by a car, Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), a failed Minor League baseball player, and Graham's two children, Bo (Abigail Breslin) and Morgan (Rory Culkin). They all live on a farm in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and one morning they wake up to discover a crop circle in their corn field. Things get stranger when an intruder is seen on the property and lights appear in the sky over Mexico. While there are several other characters present in the film, including police officer Caroline Paski (Cherry Jones) and Ray Reddy (Shyamalan), the man who killed Graham's wife Colleen (Patricia Calmeber), the story is told through the eyes of the Hesses. Shyamalan eventually leaves behind the other characters, isolating the Hesses. This is similar to Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds, where Hitchcock also isolates Melanie Daniels and The Brenner family by the film's end. Also, when the Hesses board up their house is a direct reference to <i>The Birds'</i> climax.</div><div><br /></div><div>As I mentioned earlier, Shyamalan as innate filmmaking sense. There's a preciseness to his compositions and camera movement. There's a Kubrickian feel to this shot:</div><div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhZqEY78HDVP2kcwSv11qu_8nw21orVourCxJa6W2VpXdSIDfCRoN1ghpsuWKPJoUZAZ-0GrzCTo0htszj6rkG5XpBNI-kSeJvIQpglaYTSLPY0Xsr8HeWv_DxYm5AQLlcL-4iDGPfeso8pE3oPR-g32LXBwdpd8IGUh2Rj6ZPfFAo2cxiKrANJ-yXL" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="428" data-original-width="824" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhZqEY78HDVP2kcwSv11qu_8nw21orVourCxJa6W2VpXdSIDfCRoN1ghpsuWKPJoUZAZ-0GrzCTo0htszj6rkG5XpBNI-kSeJvIQpglaYTSLPY0Xsr8HeWv_DxYm5AQLlcL-4iDGPfeso8pE3oPR-g32LXBwdpd8IGUh2Rj6ZPfFAo2cxiKrANJ-yXL=w400-h208" width="400" /></a></div><br /> </div><div>And the way the camera pans to the knife, foregrounding it, is funny and tense in exactly the right way.</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhFF5yFXSU-5pOa-a2dv0b4mkulgdV1cE6mjyTaPN-CXeAVq747BJGAxMGL1Tuspfi93kBV92y8OPjyP3njHYj0sxns4xatEzwpQuVOT_KVLf3pNfJTzdjYu3vhwFUhOcKfIY1iH5D1VRkU4U1rDpZfF8LH1W3_lpwXiD_dNnojQrMeZhHro6vBFShG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="380" data-original-width="650" height="187" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhFF5yFXSU-5pOa-a2dv0b4mkulgdV1cE6mjyTaPN-CXeAVq747BJGAxMGL1Tuspfi93kBV92y8OPjyP3njHYj0sxns4xatEzwpQuVOT_KVLf3pNfJTzdjYu3vhwFUhOcKfIY1iH5D1VRkU4U1rDpZfF8LH1W3_lpwXiD_dNnojQrMeZhHro6vBFShG" width="320" /></a></div><br />I also love the reveal of the alien still being in the house at the end through the TV screen<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhDVT2FGFGYAKORvd7Yb6ULHrPqgEOE3TxA73pgWOQCeULXdZwayZc2xjqCcJBE_MqEaFd6XW1i5Wyzk7vkS5CclMkHgcmHenetrmgenQqIcHE4DUS9vqrED5OdTK3plleGVSLPOr5D5mMNxIkLrwFOlDCf4MaPe342MbC9rj5HOGa6Ye-ZYEZNcKbd" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="690" data-original-width="1280" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhDVT2FGFGYAKORvd7Yb6ULHrPqgEOE3TxA73pgWOQCeULXdZwayZc2xjqCcJBE_MqEaFd6XW1i5Wyzk7vkS5CclMkHgcmHenetrmgenQqIcHE4DUS9vqrED5OdTK3plleGVSLPOr5D5mMNxIkLrwFOlDCf4MaPe342MbC9rj5HOGa6Ye-ZYEZNcKbd" width="320" /></a></div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Coming back to Spielberg, the scene where the Hesses are using a walkie-talkie to hear the aliens talking is perhaps the most Spielbergian in the film:</div><div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiy33vsoOYoUAzSpuLcjVB85K8DwyzvyG5s5VGUcYUL119lqkcfvYGleE5VMgJvQUgajp7BEVIbLITZ6YXq65Mi22hS1X4lkeXL9moTOAdOnTT8wx_8cQIrRVUtJZU-ug6-CHrKouUhnFRjlUd4MgMIyQ4iqsw0xREdokYUXBoqGTgEM5m9Cney4uUr" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiy33vsoOYoUAzSpuLcjVB85K8DwyzvyG5s5VGUcYUL119lqkcfvYGleE5VMgJvQUgajp7BEVIbLITZ6YXq65Mi22hS1X4lkeXL9moTOAdOnTT8wx_8cQIrRVUtJZU-ug6-CHrKouUhnFRjlUd4MgMIyQ4iqsw0xREdokYUXBoqGTgEM5m9Cney4uUr" width="320" /></a></div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>The Sixth Sense </i>and <i>Unbreakable</i> were films about coming to accept the incredible, whether it be the ability of a young boy being able to see ghosts, or that you're a superhero. Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis), at first doubts that Cole Seer (Haley Joel Osment) can see ghosts, realizes he's telling the truth after discovering his former patient had the same ability. David Dunn (Willis again), comes to accept he has superhuman powers. In <i>Signs, </i>Graham eventually can't deny there are aliens ready to invade. These films are about faith and belief, as well as accepting your purpose- Cole as the helper of the deceased, David as a superhero vigilante. Shyamalan takes these themes further in Signs by having Graham not just realize these aliens are real but there's a greater design to the universe, something he may have once believed in but turned his back on after his wife was killed. In perhaps <i>Signs'</i> best scene, Graham tells Merrill that there are two groups of people: people who see those lights in the sky and think they're seeing a miracle; the other believe that whether good or bad, there's no higher power looking out for them. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I think Gibson gives what may be the best performance of his career in this film. Like with Willis, Shyamalan casts Gibson against type as a non-confrontational former priest who can't swear convincingly. When Graham and Merrill are attempting to scare off the intruder Graham awkwardly says "I'm losing my mind." It's hard not to imagine Gibson having fun playing a guy *pretending* to lose his mind rather than genuine loose cannons like Martin Riggs and Mad Max. This role also allows Gibson to be the most emotionally vulnerable he's been since the first two <i>Lethal Weapon</i> movies. There's a scene where Graham encounters Ray, whose trapped an alien in his house and leaving for a safer place, in which her tells Graham he's sorry for the pain he caused him. Gibson's reaction to that-the pain, the anger, but the acceptance of Ray's apology, displays how stronh he can be as actor. Overall it's a great movie star performance and perhaps the last time Gibson was without baggage as an actor/star.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Instead of casting another huge movie star as Merrill Shyamalan went for a more offbeat choice with Phoenix. Phoenix was coming off his first Oscar nomination for <i>Gladiator </i>and <i>Walk the Line</i> was a few years down the road. This was the film that turned me in to a Phoenix fan. He's so funny here. His reaction to the alien walking across the TV screen and the image of him sitting with the children, all of them wearing tinfoil hats, is likely the funniest thing Shyamalan has put on screen. Merrill is sort of a loser but he's got a good heart and is pretty endearing. I love that when Graham asks Merrill if he believes in miracles Merrill tells of the time he avoided being vomited on a girl he wanted to kiss because he had to take a piece of gum out. This is the same scene where Graham outlines the two groups of people and Shyamalan really gives us a good sense of how these two guys approach life. Gibson and Phoenix don't look a thing like brothers but I really enjoy their chemistry.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Coming back to the themes of faith and belief, Shyamalan's twist ending her- along with the Village- is his most audacious conceptually and thematically. I remember when I first the saw <i>Signs</i> I was expecting a twist along the lines of<i> The Sixth Sense</i> or <i>Unbreakable,</i> more of an "Oh my God!" than a slow realization of what has been set up over the course of the film. Shyamalan is going less for shock than for quiet realization. Bo's leaving glasses of water around for various reasons (supposed contamination, tastes funny), Morgan's asthma, Merrill's bat hanging in the living room, and Colleen's final words to Graham about telling Merrill to swing away, are all part of a grand design, calling back to Graham's question, "What if there are no coincidences?" Morgan's asthma protects him from the aliens' poisons and the glasses of water kill the aliens. Graham's faith is restored and the final shot shows him months later getting ready to go to church. He's found his purpose again. I find the ending I find little too pat. If Shyamalan had made things more ambiguous regarding whether certain things were coincidental or not it would've provided some great discussion. Instead, there's not much room for questioning these things. If we're going to continue the Spielberg comparisons, it's the kind of easy ending for which, Spielberg often gets criticized. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Ultimately, I don't think<i> Signs </i>is a particularly deep movie but I still think the movie overall works on an emotional and technical level. After using Eduardo Serra on Unbreakable as his cinematographer, Shyamalan brought back his <i>The Sixth Sense</i> cinematographer Tak Fujimoto (who photographed no less than Terrence Malick's debut feature <i>Badlands</i> as well as <i>The Silence of the Lambs</i>) for <i>Signs</i>. Fujimoto bring an eerily cozy feel to the film, the same way he did with <i>The Sixth Sense</i>. There's a paradoxical cold and warmth to these early Shyamalan films. James Newton Howard's elegant and elegiac scores also bring a beautiful autumnal melancholy this film and Shyamalan's other work. There's a little bit of Danny Elfman too in Howard's main theme for <i>Signs</i>. If not for Shyamalan's name you'd be forgiven if you thought maybe you were about to watch a Tim Burton alien invasion film. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Like H.G.Wells' <i>War of the Worlds </i>and its cinematic interpretations, the aliens are defeated pretty easily at the end of story, which I'm okay with because the story isn't really about a war against aliens. It's a home invasion thriller which just happens to be set against a backdrop of a world invasion. <i>The Birds</i>, which I referenced earlier is also a smaller, almost apocalyptic story that's focused on this small town and its inhabitants. Shyamalan goes even smaller than Hitchcock, creating an almost chamber drama feel to the certain parts of the film. I almost wish there no other characters in the film other than the Hesses. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The next Spielberg moniker obviously didn't stick, with <i>The Village</i> getting mostly negative reviews and Shyamalan getting worse and worse reviews over the next several films, though he's made a comeback or the last several years. However, I don't think Shyamalan has ever recaptured what made people deem him the heir to Spielberg. The specific atmosphere of his early work has never completely returned for me unfortunately. Still, Shyamalan has always stayed true to his own particular sensibilities, similar to George Lucas, who's also gone through a reappraisal regarding his specific quirks. Maybe because we're at a place where pop culture lacks vision and spark it's easier to appreciate people like Shyamalan more now. <i>Signs</i>, along with <i>The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable </i>and yes, <i>The Village</i>, represent a filmmaker unafraid of being laughed at for his earnestness, whose pretentiousness oddly feels like genuine sincerity. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's weird to think of <i>Signs </i>as a 20 year old film but it makes sense- it does feel like a film from another era, a star and director driven blockbuster, the kind that would feel like a throwback if released now. I never know how to end these things so I'll say that despite it losing some of its luster for me over the years, I still think <i>Signs</i> is a beautiful, if somewhat reductive, film, which represents a filmmaker who at the time seemed unstoppable as a pop culture force, even if calling him the next Spielberg ended up being a curse. So, what are your thoughts on <i>Signs </i>and M. Night Shyamalan's career. Comment and let me know. </div><div><br /></div></div>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-12675612375809408102022-05-25T15:51:00.003-07:002022-05-25T15:51:39.284-07:00Begun, the Clone Wars have: "Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones" at 20<p> </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhjyFumYfSRZgidSvXW0xn-st0OprA1Ekk1__PALuYw6maAU30qLcKPHvM-uR3rm8b1bXl0Hks2Y1OZ4hyhGBUlFBNfWFK3pCtS7VNQCj2jeHHF2sW7LMNvkGKnpGcqlg2FkHtOH7d5FLlkyvgL3g8crI-kc-CZQwrqC9vs_0nQu9ffVokoBbmo75e0" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="960" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhjyFumYfSRZgidSvXW0xn-st0OprA1Ekk1__PALuYw6maAU30qLcKPHvM-uR3rm8b1bXl0Hks2Y1OZ4hyhGBUlFBNfWFK3pCtS7VNQCj2jeHHF2sW7LMNvkGKnpGcqlg2FkHtOH7d5FLlkyvgL3g8crI-kc-CZQwrqC9vs_0nQu9ffVokoBbmo75e0=w400-h225" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Spoilers Below</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">For a while I've wanted to talk more about Star Wars on this blog, since along with James Bond and <i>Planet of the Apes</i>, it's probably the most important film franchise for me. With the second installment of the Prequel Trilogy, <i>Attack of the Clones</i>, turning 20, I've decided this was a good opportunity to discuss more of my feelings on the series. <i>Attack of the Clones</i> is perhaps the most maligned of George Lucas' maligned trilogy, though the trilogy now has the same nostalgic reverence of the Original Trilogy. If the older generation hated these films then the younger generation, people my age or younger, really took to them. I still consider myself an OT fan but I was at the right age to like these films when they came out. However, over time my feelings have grown increasingly complicated. I like things about the PT and dislike others. And you know what, often they're the same things. The PT have great ideas and are conceptually brilliant but the execution of the story is were many of the problems lie. It feels like the scripts are all a couple of rewrites from being really solid, especially the first 2. However, I don't want to focus too much on the PT overall. Instead, let's talk about <i> Attack of the Clones</i>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As Scott Mendelson points out in his retrospective piece, by the time Attack of the Clones was released, there were challengers to Lucas' blockbuster throne such as the first <i>The Lord of the Rings </i>and <i>Harry Potter</i> films. The first <i>Spider-Man</i> came out several weeks before Attack of the Clones and became the highest grossing film of the year, the first time a Star Wars film wasn't the number one grosser. <i>Attack of the Clones</i> also didn't have the novelty of being the first Star Wars movie in 16 years like <i>The Phantom Menace</i> had. That, and since <i>Phantom Menace</i> burned people so badly there was trepidation about this film. Moreover, during the whole prequel era these aforementioned were better received by critics and audiences. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">For those who need a refresher on the plot, it goes like this: Former Queen of Naboo, now senator, Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman) survives two assassination attempts and is taken back to Naboo to hide by Jedi Padawan Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), who has grown infatuated with Padme over the last ten years and is struggling with being so close to her again. Meanwhile his master Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) tracks the dart that killed the would-be assassin to the cloning facility on Kamino, where they've been creating a army using the bounty hunter Jango Fett (Temuera Morrison) as a DNA donor. Jango even had the Kaminoans make him a son, Boba, who we know will be the future bane of Han Solo's existence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If <i>Phantom Menace</i> was an ensemble piece then then <i>Attack of the Clones</i> is the closest the Star Wars series has gotten to a character study. It asks the question we came to prequels to find out: who is Anakin Skywalker, the future Darth Vader. The answer wasn't what fans expected. Making Anakin a nine year old boy in <i>Phantom Menace</i> was Lucas' first subversion of fan expectations. Then in <i>Attack of Clones</i>, instead of a noble, good-head on his shoulders young man with some personal flaws, this Anakin was all flaws. He's petulant, whiney (though I guess that's where Luke gets it from), disobedient, overly infatuated with Padme, and in one scene, murders a bunch of people. Lucas doesn't portray Anakin as a mythic, larger than life hero, the badass warrior who becomes a badass villain. Instead, Lucas saw Anakin as a "pathetic individual." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">I'm conflicted about Anakin's portrayal in this film. It's certainly a unique characterization and psychologically complicated. Anakin definitely had psychological issues which demanded serious therapy. The characterization does a make certain kind of sense. Unlike the other Jedi who were taken from their parents before they grew attached to them, Anakin left his mother when he already formed a bond with her. He grew a crush on Padme and then spent the next 10 years being taught to suppress his emotions. He was never in a relationship with a woman so I can see how his crush grew until it became an obsessive infatuation. Anakin has no idea how to talk to women so his creepy/stalkerish behaviour towards Padme is fitting. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The problem lies in the execution. Lucas could've gotten away with Anakin being immature and angry if we saw him mature throughout the film and become the noble warrior and friend Obi-Wan looks back on fondly in the original film. That, and if his infatuation towards Padme was examined and called attention to as being unhealthy. Either that or you establish Anakin as a heroic warrior, albeit a little arrogant. Then you show him crumbling upon meeting Padme again. Despite his confidence in every other area, when it comes to romantic feelings he's very awkward but in a charming and un-stalkerish way. Padme would deal with her romantic feeling in a more diplomatic (since she's a politician). Lucas also could've fleshed out the idea that neither of them had a normal upbringing, having sworn themselves to their duties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The romance would've made more sense if Anakin was a little older in <i>Phantom Menace</i>. We could've seen more of Anakin and Padme's friendship grow, allowing Padme to have similar romantic feelings towards him. Since he was a little boy in the she could've never had those feelings; and she definitely wouldn't have feelings for Anakin now, not the guy who extolls the virtues of fascism. That's a weirdly handled scene. It's supposed to be cute and is set against the backdrop of hills from <i>The Sound of Music</i> but when he says "If it works" as a response to Padme saying his preferred style of government sounds like a dictatorship it's very dark foreshadowing for what is laughed off and forgotten.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Then there's Anakin's murder of the sand people for the death of his mother, Shmi (Pernilla August). Anakin going off to save Shmi is one of the strongest parts of the film, with Anakin on a speeder bike set against Tatooine's twin sunsets being a visually potent image. It's a shame Lucas is a such a flat visual stylist when he's shooting dialogue scenes. Shmi's death is honestly effective, showing us hints of an emotionally stronger and better film. Anakin's Kubrickian stare before he murders the sand people also showcases Christensen's acting ability which are often lost under Lucas' dialogue. But what I want to get at is Padme's reaction to Anakin telling her about killing "Not just the men, but the women and the children too." She's way too relaxed and even more so than him championing fascism, it makes usus question how Padme could fall in love with Anakin. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">I also feel like Anakin pretty much becomes Darth Vader when he kills the sand people. When you give in to hate and anger is when you turn to the dark side. In <i>Return of the Jedi</i> Luke's pivotal moment is when he almost kills Vader but then grants him mercy. I understand Shmi's death is crucial to Anakin's choices in <i>Revenge of The Sith. </i>His dreams of her dying which came true and he's scared of his dreams of Padme's coming to fruition as well. However, the murdering of the sand people just feels like too much too soon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjj_v9bl8F2twB4cxl6UgsbZRM-j9ooaw41zNj2iOjY2gGEl7DRGZS-LuGKgLodNcmMNhkgL7Xb98_IAlYBE-ICfggEtQI0E2FzaNjvtEgT5hH5QDCeQVuXfwIMevsJwsQIlUoAcomJk2cJrSaN3vRCcHHwVU-JI02fqV7PcDJhFvBDvF4YpsqgAtpT" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="689" data-original-width="1000" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjj_v9bl8F2twB4cxl6UgsbZRM-j9ooaw41zNj2iOjY2gGEl7DRGZS-LuGKgLodNcmMNhkgL7Xb98_IAlYBE-ICfggEtQI0E2FzaNjvtEgT5hH5QDCeQVuXfwIMevsJwsQIlUoAcomJk2cJrSaN3vRCcHHwVU-JI02fqV7PcDJhFvBDvF4YpsqgAtpT=w400-h275" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Coming back to the romance (there's a lot to talk about regarding the romance), David Lean's<i> Doctor Zhivago</i> was an influence on the film. Lucas even wanted the poster for <i>Attack of the Clones</i> to mimic the poster for Lean's epic romance about the Russian Revolution and Russia's role in WWI, the backdrop for a romance between a Doctor Yuri Zhivago and Nurse Lara Antipova. While Lean was a director who was able to make the scenes between his characters as powerful and memorable as his grand compositions (he also directed one of the great romances with the smaller scale <i>Brief Encounter</i>), Lucas' scenes between characters are often his weakest, due to the dialogue, blocking and compositions lacky dynamism. I know the dialogue in the Star Wars was always intended to be hokey and melodramatic but since this is more complex story, I think the dialogue and the performances should've been on a higher level than in the OT.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The PT is at its most powerful when Lucas allows the images and music to tell the story The image of Anakin and Padme in silhouette being led out to an arena to be executed, with John Williams' love theme playing, says more than Lucas' words could ever do. I wish Lucas did rely less on dialogue to sell us on this romance. Anakin's and Padme's actions should have spoke for them as we saw them grow closer because of the threat on her life. They never feel in danger though, not until they're led out to die with Obi-Wan on Geonosis.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Speaking of Obi-Wan, we unfortunately don't get to see enough of his friendship with Anakin in this movie. I always feel <i>Phantom Menace</i> could've focused on Anakin and Obi-Wan becoming friends, ending with them becoming master and apprentice. <i>Attack of the Clones </i>would then show us how that affects their relationship. There are moments of warmth between Anakin and Obi-Wan but it'd been nice to see more of that great friendship. It's important to remember that Obi-Wan was never supposed to train Anakin. Obi-Wan's master Qui Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) was going to train Anakin against the council's wishes. When he was mortally wounded by Darth Maul his dying wish was for Anakin to be trained, to which Obi-Wan agreed. Both Obi-Wan and Anakin lost a father figure, and father/son relationships are obviously an important theme in Star Wars. So, both Anakin and Obi-Wan are both living in Qui-Gon's shadow and attempting to live up to his high hopes for both of them. I think it was a missed opportunity not to mention Qui-Gon at all in this film. It would've been a good bonding moment if these men reminisced about their surrogate father. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Obi-Wan gets more to do in this film since he got the shaft in<i> Phantom Menace</i>, with arguably Qui-Gon taking on some of what his role originally supposed to be. His sub-plot in this film ties more in to the larger story of the film, the beginning of the Clone Wars. The Clone Wars were name dropped in the original film but we never knew exactly what they were about. Essentially they were a piece of world-building that made the Star Wars universe more alive, that it was a piece of history everyone knew about. It's established Attack of the Clones and paid off in <i>Revenge of the Sith</i> that the Clone Wars were the beginning of the end for the Jedi. There was something insidious (Darth Sidious) about the creation of the clones but the Jedi were too-shortsighted to truly to see it. It's an idea that I wish was better presented. The way Lucas portrays it makes us question the Jedi's intelligence. It shouldn't have been so obvious how shady the cloning operation was. However, I love the Imperial March playing over the Clones getting ready for battle at the end. It's another example of how great a filmmaker Lucas can be when he's not relying on dialogue to tell the story, just images and music.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhw7u3wUPvpEbccX1ivPUSeAwE3YUbSv_CoLhpvVqtYxDzNsLgWhXUp2HY6wjbQ30OUmhDmw2vLaa1AYm5a-I3_-tsdRMtrG34bvF_19WGyyf5bqAhc5DM83Mi-sfkm-FrBW5ndOnQj_p2N5dUfXm-cKHJ0AswuR4JWKOEeW2hEslWHYge8ES_Dng_j" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="506" data-original-width="900" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhw7u3wUPvpEbccX1ivPUSeAwE3YUbSv_CoLhpvVqtYxDzNsLgWhXUp2HY6wjbQ30OUmhDmw2vLaa1AYm5a-I3_-tsdRMtrG34bvF_19WGyyf5bqAhc5DM83Mi-sfkm-FrBW5ndOnQj_p2N5dUfXm-cKHJ0AswuR4JWKOEeW2hEslWHYge8ES_Dng_j=w400-h225" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I think Lucas is often a better conceptual director than he is a narrative one. He always been an experimental filmmaker at heart, from his early film school films, including <i>THX 1138</i>, which became the basis for his first feature film of the same name. However, he's not always great at crafting character or story arcs, The plot is driving things rather than the characters' choices. Anakin doesn't really have a character arc here. He doesn't mature and he's already so infatuated with Padme from the beginning there's not much room for him to go anywhere regarding his feelings, at least not how Lucas goes about it.. Stuff happens in <i>Attack of the Clones</i> but it doesn't feel like there's a real arc to the story. Lucas creates a sound structure but doesn't always know what to do in that structure. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Attack of the Clones</i> does at least give us a clearer picture of how things will connect to the OT, with the beginning of the Clone Wars and Anakin's romance with Padme. The film in several ways is the key to understanding Anakin's story, the middle chapter and heart of the PT in the same <i>The Empire Strikes Back is</i> the heart of the OT. Though I'd argue <i>Attack of the Clones- </i>as I did earlier- suffers from having to re-introduce Anakin. It would've made the flow of the story from <i>Phantom Menace </i>to <i>Attack of the Clones </i>tighter and stronger if we had the same actor continuing their performance from the first film. So, in cloning, I mean closing, <i>Attack of the Clones</i> is the awkward first step towards Anakin's downfall in <i>Revenge of the Sith</i>. We see the beginning of man's obsession with preventing those he loves from dying, which will lead to death of whom he loves and his own spiritual death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">So, is <i>Attack of the Clones</i> an underrated masterpiece or does it rank low on your list of Star Wars films? Comment and let me know.</p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-15807901358216629652022-05-03T13:26:00.000-07:002022-05-03T13:26:15.245-07:00The Essential Films: "Sunset Boulevard" (1950)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiDhx654cJA2NW5WoHzrTxInNKnGkI5esvd0SWVkGKlv-V-IRqIsd_9BjLIl4-kjPxeoF2S9saomZhlr3-37Q_dTef0VZLKnhQnj21N8VYiFAJVSgqeRTmVeApzYOwEZKeyFpwqy9odeUEUmkZDvWp_1kj56RCCgWtHXYrp6lnKXBseNlY-aJQtVlm-" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="991" data-original-width="1280" height="310" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiDhx654cJA2NW5WoHzrTxInNKnGkI5esvd0SWVkGKlv-V-IRqIsd_9BjLIl4-kjPxeoF2S9saomZhlr3-37Q_dTef0VZLKnhQnj21N8VYiFAJVSgqeRTmVeApzYOwEZKeyFpwqy9odeUEUmkZDvWp_1kj56RCCgWtHXYrp6lnKXBseNlY-aJQtVlm-=w400-h310" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><i>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 who haven't seen the film.</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">What happens to those whom Hollywood leaves behind? What happens when their star has faded and, for women, when they get older? Director Billy Wilder, who was born in Austria in 1906 but came to L.A. in 1933, always wondered what happened to the silent film stars who still lived in the mansions from the 1920s. This gave birth to the idea which became <i>Sunset Boulevard</i>, one of his greatest films, which delves in to the life of a silent movie star who still desires to be famous </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">Wilder always railed against easy genre categorization in his films. <i>The Apartment </i>(1960) is a romantic comedy that's also a drama about adultery and selling your soul for a promotion.<i> Double Indemnity (1944)</i> is a film-noir about helping a woman murder her husband </span><span style="text-align: left;">that's also an incredibly funny and occasionally warm story about male friendship; and <i>Some Like It Hot</i> (1959) is a 1920s set comedy about two men in drag</span><span style="text-align: left;"> being pursued by gangsters because they</span><span style="text-align: left;"> witnessed the St. Valentine's</span><span style="text-align: left;"> Day Massacre. </span><span style="text-align: left;"><i>Sunset Boulevard</i> is his most daring tightrope act when it comes to genre and tone. It's a film noir, a dark comedy, a Hollywood satire, a gothic melodrama, and a tragedy. Film critic Richard Corliss called it "the definitive Hollywood horror film" and director John Landis also called it a murder mystery. .</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><i>Sunset Boulevard</i> was Wilder's and writing partner Charles Brackett's 17th and final collaboration. Wilder ended the partnership due to a fight over a montage in the film though they ended up winning writing Oscars for the film. Wilder and Brackett began writing a script in 1948 but it didn't please either of them. To help with the script they hired D.M Marshman, Jr., a film critic for Life Magazine whose review for Wilder's <i>The Emperor Waltz</i>- co-written with Brackett- impressed them. Marshman came up with the idea of the main character being a gigolo to a silent film star. </span><span style="text-align: left;">Wilder was afraid of the censors because it was an expose on Hollywood and dealt with the subject matter of an relationship between an younger man and an older woman. The script was actually submitted a few pages at the time. When they began shooting only one third of the script was completed.</span></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The film aptly starts with a screenwriter having his own writing problems. Joe Gillis (William Holden) needs work and money. He's also got repo men on his tail for his car. While on the run from these men he hides his car in the garage of a mansion belonging to aging silent movie star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson). Joe goes in to the house and is mistaken for an undertaker (her monkey has died). When she discovers he's a screenwriter she asks his opinion on her script which will serve as her comeback vehicle (though she prefers to call it a return). While Joe's voice-over narration (more on that later) tells us the script isn't very good he needs the money so he gets Norma to hire him to work on the script. Norma also insists he lives in the mansion with her. Later Joe realizes she had romantic feelings for him. Out of disgust he leaves but comes back when he learns she's attempted suicide. He also eventually becomes Norma's gigolo.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Sunset Boulevard</i> is about desperation. Joe needs money and Norma is desperate to hold on to the fantasy she can stage a comeback and be relevant again. And you know what? I understand Norma's desperation to be famous and to be loved. It can be a poison that rots you inside and makes you bitter at what you can't have. You are so desperate for it you feel you are going insane. In Norma's case, she has. And that poison has not only rotted her inside but outside as well. Despite only being 50 she appears 20 years older. While Norma can appear as a grotesque and sexist caricature of an aging actress- and in some ways she is since she was written by two men in the 40s- she's also a deeply tragic as well as funny character. That's largely due to Swanson's performance, who gives a hellish and hilarious performance, one of the seminal screen performances of all time. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Before Swanson was considered Wilder reached out to several other silent film actresses, including Mary Pickford, who didn't like the theme of a older woman in a relationship with a younger man. And Clara Bow declined because she wanted to stay retired. It was director George Cukor who suggested Swanson. This was a comeback role for Swanson who had, after her career waned in the 40s, quit movies and worked on stage, TV, and radio. Swanson was intrigued when she was offered the part but didn't want to do a screentest for <i>Sunset Boulevard </i> since she had been such a big star. Cukor joked that he would shoot her if she didn't. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Montgomery Clift was cast as Joe but dropped out supposedly because the role reminded him of his part in <i>The Heiress </i>(1949), where he played a man having a relationship with an older woman. But the the suspected real reason was him actually being in a relationship with an older women, singer Libby Holman. Clift didn't want people thinking Holman was like Norma so he gave up the role. It worked out pretty well for Holden, who became an A-List star after this performance, which also earned him an Oscar nomination. He lost to Jose Ferrer for<i> Cyrano de Bergea</i>c (1950) but would win several years later for another Wilder film,<i> Stalag 17 </i>(1953). I'm glad Holden got the part. Clift was a strong actor but I think he was a little too serious for the wise-cracking Joe. Holden's much better with sarcasm and playing a likable jerk.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Coming back to Swanson, what's integral to her performance, beyond being grotesque, funny and tragic all at once, is how she contrasts with Holden. Holden is giving a mostly naturalistic performance but Swanson is more theatrical in her gestures and facial expressions. This creates plenty of humour- Joe's sarcasm against Norma's non-ironic claim of "I am big. It's the pictures that got small." It also creates the feeling that Norma is always giving a performance never being completely in reality, and this just solidifying how's she losing her mind. I'm reminded of Vivien Leigh's performance in <i>A Streetcar Named Desire </i>(1951), where her theatrical style of acting juxtaposes with Marlon Brando's method acting. Blanche, like Norma, is mentally unbalanced and this style of acting, pitted against naturalistic acting, makes that clearer to the audience. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">There's a clear separation between Norma's world and the "real" world, which is how the film manages its different tones. The gothic horror and film-noir elements don't intrude when Joe's outside the mansion. Things always feel normal. Film historian Tom Stempel wrote about how the lighting (courtesy of cinematographer John F. Seitz) blends the two worlds of the film together.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"In both </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Double Indemnity</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> and </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Sunset Boulevard</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">, Seitz does something that has always impressed me. Both are films noir, and he finesses the fact that both are set in the sunniest of locales, Los Angeles... he brings together the light and the dark in the same film without any seams showing... he brings together the realistic lighting of Joe Gillis out in the real world with the gothic look of Norma Desmond's mansion. Again with no seams showing."</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The contrast between the darkness of Norma's world and the brightness of L.A is important. Her world is the dark underbelly of Hollywood. I'd argue Joe is the bridge between the two worlds. If he's not completely destroyed by Hollywood he's at least on his way. He could become like Max Von Mayerling (Erich von Sroheim, playing a version of himself), a former silent film director and Norma's former first husband, now butler. He couldn't bare it when Norma left him so he turned his back on directing and became her servant. He even writes fake fan letters to her, feeding her delusions. Stroheim gives a drolly comic performance as Max but there's something haunted in his eyes. This is a man who has fallen very far and has had to watch his ex-wife descend in to madness. Through him we see that Norma wasn't always like this and he acts as a reminder of what Joe could become if he doesn't cut Norma out of his life completely.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Norma's opposite is Betty Schaefer (Nancy Olson), a script reader who once wished to be an actress. It didn't work out but unlike Norma she isn't bitter about not being famous. She sees the merit of working behind the scenes and wishes to be a screenwriter. She's also the counterpoint to Joe due to her belief that a story should have a message. She also isn't as cynical-minded as Joe. She criticized one of his stories early in the film as trite and formulaic, believing he's too good of a writer to waste his talents on overdone stories. However, she sees potential in another of Joe's story and wants to work on it together. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Joe and Betty fall in love though she has a fiancee, Artie Green (Jack Webb). When Joe's leaving Norma he pushes Betty away emotionally so Norma won't hurt her and because Joe knows she deserves better, which is Artie. Joe is then shot by Norma and falls in to her pool. We were shown this corpse at the beginning. I'm not sure how much of a twist it is that Joe's been narrating this whole time from the dead. but the image of Joe's corpse in the pool is a brilliant and spooky shot, created by having a mirror at the pool's bottom.</p><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhv_kL2eVAKuhrxj1aWsqCYAHwDtZL8B0UKto1k6pvB3n7rt-dtG82tujvaLghk5QYyWlGuoBIxpT7aI8wMzuzVIyJRcXvd3F5zU1F_1ucZ1PXstdmg1e4_H30KSHxYBwBrdFCn0bgy-uH5BV_sxJDXw8Mq-A_Zg62PC1N0yUkjWC2LZ7sFUlji4tIo" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="259" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhv_kL2eVAKuhrxj1aWsqCYAHwDtZL8B0UKto1k6pvB3n7rt-dtG82tujvaLghk5QYyWlGuoBIxpT7aI8wMzuzVIyJRcXvd3F5zU1F_1ucZ1PXstdmg1e4_H30KSHxYBwBrdFCn0bgy-uH5BV_sxJDXw8Mq-A_Zg62PC1N0yUkjWC2LZ7sFUlji4tIo" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The original opening had Joe in a morgue recounting his death to other corpses. The preview audience laughed at it and it was removed for the finished film, which I think was a good choice. I think the narration from a dead man is morbid enough without going too far. I think it's a great bit of sardonic humour, though film critic Thomas M. Pryor of the New York Times didn't care for. I think it works as subversion of the bodyless voice narrating, literally making that voice detached from a dead body. The murder mystery bookends and narration are also part of how the film incorporates film-noir tropes</div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the film's final and most famous scene Norma is to be arrested but she believes the cameras are there to shoot the film with DeMille. Max returns to the directors' chair as he calls action. She comes down the stairs and thanks the crew, ending with the iconic line, "Alright Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up," coming towards the camera, and essentially us, with the image blurring and fading to black. Norma gets an oddly happy ending. In an anonymous essay for the film the writer comes to the conclusion that Norma has been completely absorbed by the glory of her past:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #4d4d4d; font-family: Futura, "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> In the final shot of the film as Norma stares directly into the camera, we see the soft-focus glow that was a trademark of the silent film era increase in intensity before enveloping her completely as the film fades to black. Norma’s mind has finally been wholly consumed by the past that she’s long yearned for, but her hollow, wide-eyed gaze lives on in the minds of all who beheld it, pleading with us to consider our own role in her descent</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Norma said earlier that she abandoned her audience but it was the audience who left her behind. <i>Sunset Boulevard</i> is about the ones who Hollywood and we leave behind and how fame fading away is often worse than never being famous. To know glory and then to lose it becomes a living death for Norma. Wilder was cynical but not uncompassionate. The film is a damnation of the system that created Norma Desmond and then threw her away because audiences got bored. Hollywood and audiences could never see the real person behind the star and what may happen when they were abandoned. Without stardom, some of these people feel they have nothing. What do audiences owe these stars? Maybe nothing. Maybe just some compassion. I think I relate to Norma too much. She may not be easy to love but it's easy to part of ourselves in her, the desire to be loved and comfort that hope brings us, even if's a delusional hope that'll eventually swallow us up. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-78072409911144448742022-03-07T19:23:00.000-08:002022-03-07T19:23:00.157-08:00"Diamonds are Forever" and "Live and Let Die" as Films of Transition<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj9P38LDVwGXSogzPJcs61hkU-RDxRwtYGVZbPRsf6T7VHuAxo3zMgclRidXr_Vv5b9kD1Ph8NU6dO4Nx6FVtyGnm4nY3Jw_S5jZ0c1qjv7uh2R1YQaAFO9OUxbCX-dZj4pLL2E9roemXb5OavjGU8ss8Ik2lMatxE57aXfP8EorA_LV8OZSGeSMf9m=s229" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="229" data-original-width="220" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj9P38LDVwGXSogzPJcs61hkU-RDxRwtYGVZbPRsf6T7VHuAxo3zMgclRidXr_Vv5b9kD1Ph8NU6dO4Nx6FVtyGnm4nY3Jw_S5jZ0c1qjv7uh2R1YQaAFO9OUxbCX-dZj4pLL2E9roemXb5OavjGU8ss8Ik2lMatxE57aXfP8EorA_LV8OZSGeSMf9m=w384-h400" width="384" /></a></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgZLjITdT4GnY0P8xtHgV9jiWFrz5zuvxxdnu81mFxUEzi8ByzopkGO32pg8s8IhEKaI3qCTh4NB_SU8mj5fr5C0Ial2UH-rYTtIDcetBKC-leE4Ov0D-l6UBFXS4PKRMOtxSLmzu-l15SYtVTronomZFPZxbRNfIe_Tf-7ZXdDFyrmj-DWtItiCcrz=s1529" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="1529" height="261" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgZLjITdT4GnY0P8xtHgV9jiWFrz5zuvxxdnu81mFxUEzi8ByzopkGO32pg8s8IhEKaI3qCTh4NB_SU8mj5fr5C0Ial2UH-rYTtIDcetBKC-leE4Ov0D-l6UBFXS4PKRMOtxSLmzu-l15SYtVTronomZFPZxbRNfIe_Tf-7ZXdDFyrmj-DWtItiCcrz=w400-h261" width="400" /></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">After George Lazenby made </span><i style="text-align: left;">On Her Majesty's Secret Service</i><span style="text-align: left;"> he was convinced by his agent that James Bond was fast becoming a relic of the 60s and would not last in to the 70s. This led to Lazenby leaving the role, which would prove to be big mistake since the series did last in to the 70s and beyond. But the series transition from the 60s in to the 70s is a conspicuous one, with </span><i style="text-align: left;">Diamonds are Forever</i><span style="text-align: left;"> and</span><i style="text-align: left;"> Live and Let Die</i><span style="text-align: left;"> showing the struggle to remodel the franchise for the 70s. These films took the James Bond series from the glamorous 60s to the rougher, grittier 70s, from cloak and dagger to camp, from Japan to Las Vegas, from baccarat to blaxploitation. This is when the series pretty much shifted from Ian Fleming's original conception to something more offbeat and strange. </span></div></div></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">After Lazenby left the role Bond producers Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli persuaded Sean Connery to return to the role he abdicated after <i>You Only Live Twice</i>. Connery was paid 1.25 million (the most any actor was ever paid at the time) and came back for what is essentially a one-off before Roger Moore inherited the role, playing it for 12 years and 7 movies. It's perhaps appropriate that after beginning the character's cinematic legacy in the 60s, Connery would bring us in to the 70s before passing the torch to Moore, the Bond of the 70s. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The contrast between <i>Diamonds are Forever</i> and its predecessor <i>OHMSS </i>is important when examining the transition the series made from the 60s in to the 70s. <i>OHMSS</i> was grand and romantic, hopeful and happy until it turned tragic at the conclusion with the death of Bond's wife Tracy (Diana Rigg) After the shattering of Bond's world, <i>Diamonds are Forever's</i> world is a marked departure from the universe of <i>OHMSS </i>and the other previous Bond films. It's sleazier, grittier, chintzier. But it's not just Bond's world that has changed, it's that the real world because increasingly more cynical and morally uncertain as we transitioned in to the 70s.As Xan Brooks discusses in his essay on why <i>Diamonds are Forever</i> is his favourite Bond film: </p><p><i style="text-align: justify;">Cubby Broccoli's franchise started out in the early 60s fired by a sleek moral certitude, prowling a world of clearly defined good and evil before slipping into a jokey self-parody during the mid-to-late 70s. Diamonds, though, is the missing link, the crucial transition; ideally placed at the turn of the decade and implicitly haunted off in the nation at large. Here is a Bond film in which the old glamour has lost its sparkle and resolute hero has lost his way. It's jaded, uncertain and disillusioned.</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I'd argue the self-parody begins here and gives way to what the Moore films became. Blofeld (Charles Gray) is in drag in one scene and Bond drives a moon buggy. There's even a sheriff who may have been the model for Sheriff J.W. Pepper (Clifton James in <i>Live and Let Die</i> and <i>The Man With the Golden Gun</i>. But I do agree with Brooks that there is a more cynical feel to the film and Connery's portrayal. The death of Plenty O'Toole (Lana Wood)- drowned at bottom of a pool- feels cruel even by the standards of the previous Bond films. And Bond may not be having as much fun as he was in <i>Goldfinger</i>. Part of that is because Connery was pretty much here for a paycheck. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Another way <i>Diamonds are Forever</i> is transitional film is it puts a capper on the Blofeld/SPECTRE storyline that ran through the first five Connery films, with the exception of <i>Goldfinger</i>. This would be Blofeld's last official appearance in the series until <i>Spectre</i> in 2015. This is due to a legal battle with producer Kevin McClory, who worked with Ian Fleming on a screenplay that would be the basis for the book <i>Thunderball</i>. McClory was able to attain the rights to the Blofeld character but an unnamed version of the character would appear in <i>For Your Eyes Only</i> and be killed by Bond as revenge for the death of his wife. And Max von Sydow would appear as the character in the McClory produced <i>Never Say Never Again</i>, a remake of <i>Thunderball </i>starring Connery. Blofeld was the villain in three straight Bond films- <i>You Only Live Twice, OHMSS</i> and <i>Diamonds are Forever</i>. But moving in to the Moore films and beyond, Blofeld and SPECTRE do not officially appear. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After Connery declined the offer to return once again for <i>Live and Let Die,</i> Moore was chosen and established his Bond as the proper English gentleman to Connery's more rough-and-tumble version. After Lazenby left and Connery brought it felt like the producers saying "Well we tried with a new guy and it didn't work so here's the real James Bond again." But Moore's distinct take on the character helped the series flourish through the 70s and 80s. I'd argue the main reason <i>Live and Let Die</i> is a transitional film because is it proved Bond could survive beyond Connery. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As I mentioned before the Moore films also marked the transition away from Blofeld and SPECTRE being a ongoing threat throughout the series Moreover, the villain's scheme is on smaller scale than the last three plots. Dr. Kanaga (Yaphet Kotto) plans to distribute 2 tonnes of heroin free of charge through his restaurants, putting drug dealers out of business and increasing the amount of addicts, which he would exploit for his new monopoly. The series was going smaller; Even <i>Diamonds are Forever's</i> climax feels miniature compared to <i>YOLT</i> and <i>OHMSS</i>. It wouldn't be until <i>The Spy Who Loved Me</i> that we got back to epic Bond.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Live and Let Die </i>would also be where the Bond series started to borrow from different genres. It is often said that the Bond series went from being a trendsetter to being a trend follower. The next film, <i>The Man With the Golden Gun,</i> would have a kung-fu sequence due to <i>Enter the Dragon</i> and other such films. <i>Licence to Kill</i> is often compared to other 80s action films and the Craig films took inspiration from Jason Bourne (<i>Casino Royale</i> and <i>Quantum of Solace</i>) and <i>The Dark Knight </i>(<i>Skyfall</i>). And <i>Spectre</i> has been theorized to be an attempt at something equivalent to the Marvel Cinematic Universe in regard to connecting the previous three Craig films together. But <i>Live and Let Di</i>e is where we begin to see Bond being influenced by popular culture.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the case of <i>Live and Let Die,</i> the filmmakers looked at the blaxploitation films of the era, a subgenre that had black characters as the leads and black communities as the settings. Harlem is a setting in this film. Bond being white provides a juxtaposition between Bond's race and the black communities in which he occupies. And even more so than <i>Diamonds are Forever, Live and Let Die</i> has a gritty aesthetic that stands in contrast to the cleaner and more glamorous look of the 60s films. This also makes Moore's very polished feel even more of an outsider when he's in New York and Harlem. It's a little awkward placing a white character as the lead in what is a black subgenre, especially with the introduction of the aforementioned J.W. Pepper as comedic relief, which relies on his racist nature. All in all, the experiment in genre appropriation doesn't completely work. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Diamonds are Forever</i> and <i>Live and Let Die</i> show the Bond series awkwardly entering a new era, and it wouldn't be until TSWLM that the series would truly find it's footing in the decade with a more authentically feeling 70s update of the Bond formula. So, what are your thoughts on these two transitional films? Where do they rank for you in the Bond series? Comment and let me know.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-60172310332865745462022-02-10T19:41:00.000-08:002022-02-10T19:41:00.872-08:00The Oddities: "Lured" (1947)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhgPTNVLUzLd2-d4h7K-W8uDpV9wFVE_GN4mQu0tWTedktdRrZPgNH9Mic_PO8JQrTufLFXD4DFUsSUTMxIicKr8wfY4NS7YEHoAjf1Mx_J4Nw26usyWeI7kP_-8Gl_VqqhLe6pX1Jpfk1eRsgfzDLTM4Kmq1ZnVMcOLKD2XyRkUTUX1gKupGs6Q0x6" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="181" data-original-width="278" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhgPTNVLUzLd2-d4h7K-W8uDpV9wFVE_GN4mQu0tWTedktdRrZPgNH9Mic_PO8JQrTufLFXD4DFUsSUTMxIicKr8wfY4NS7YEHoAjf1Mx_J4Nw26usyWeI7kP_-8Gl_VqqhLe6pX1Jpfk1eRsgfzDLTM4Kmq1ZnVMcOLKD2XyRkUTUX1gKupGs6Q0x6=w400-h260" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p><i>Spoilers Below</i></p><p>Douglas Sirk's<i> Lured</i> is an underrated gem from the 40s and represents a curious mix of romantic comedy and film noir/serial killer mystery. But is it a romantic comedy disguised as a serial killer drama or vice versa? The two sides perhaps don't mesh perfectly but this is an entertaining film regardless, largely because of its witty dialogue, good production design and cinematography, and a wonderful cast.</p><p>The film is a remake of Robert Siodmak's<i> Pieges</i> (1939).<i> Lured</i> was originally entitled <i>Personal Column. </i>Joan Leslie was originally intended to star but left when production was stalled<i>. </i>Producer James Nassar, who was to produce the film under his company Oakmont Pictures, sold the rights to Hunt Stromberg. Stromberg hired Sirk and actor George Sanders, who had made two films together already, <i>Summer Storm </i>(1944) and <i>A Scandal in Paris</i> (1946). Sirk immigrated to America in 1937, working on the stage as a producer and director. He eventually switched to movies, with his first film being <i>Hitler's Madman </i>(1943). </p><p>Now, on to the movie. Lucille Ball plays Sandra Carpenter, an American who moved to London to perform in a show that flopped and is now a a taxi dancer, someone who is paid to dance with customers. Her friend Lucy goes missing, becoming what the police believe is the latest victim of the "Poet Killer." This person lures women in through personal ads and the police poems about the victims. When Sandra goes to talk to the police about Lucy she is convinced by Inspector Harley Temple (Charles Coburn) to act as bait for the killer. I liked Coburn's warmth and determination in the role. Temple asks Sandra to close her eyes and describe the room and then him. She tells him he's a softy even though he pretends not to be. It's a sweet moment that shows the beginnings of a friendship that'll grow throughout the film. Added in to the mix is Robert Fleming (Sanders), a producer for whom Sandra was supposed to audition until her manager wouldn't let her. She eventually meets Fleming while acting as bait for the killer. </p><p>Sandra and Fleming's relationship becomes the heart of the film and provides some wonderful back-and-forth between the two. Fleming is sardonic (he's George Sanders, of course he's sardonic) and Sandra is ballsy but vulnerable and eventually charmed by Fleming. Fleming pretends to be his own secretary over the phone, which provides a humorous sort of meet cute. </p><p>Ball is of course known her comedic work and she does provide subtle moments of humour- as when she gets a gun from Temple- but she doesn't go too far with the comedy, still allowing there to be moments of tension between her and the men who are possibly the killer. Boris Karloff gets a funny/creepy scene as a deranged fashion designer who's looking for a model for his make believe show.</p><p>Another highlight of the film is George Zucco as Sandra's guardian angel, the crossword occupied Officer H.R. Barrett. The running gag of him figuring out clues via the situations Sandra are is amusing and Zucco gives a hardened but likable performance. William Daniels' cinematography and Nicolai Remisoff's production provide the appropriate gothic but naturalistic atmosphere. </p><p>After Sandra and Fleming are married he is framed for the murder of the missing girls. However, the real killer is Fleming's business partner Julian Wilde (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), who is in love with Sandra. The film lets us know that Wilde is the killer before it's actually revealed so the final stretch of the film is less about the mystery and more about the tension when Wilde will be caught. I would argue the ends up being less about the mystery and more about the character interactions and the romance between Sandra and Fleming, as well as Fleming's feelings of betrayal when he discovers Sandra has been working with the police.</p><p><i>Lured</i> is a nice blend of charming and chilling, with colorful and memorable performances. So, have you seen <i>Lured? </i>What are your thoughts on it? Comment and let me know. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-59644848408354732232022-02-02T20:05:00.000-08:002022-02-02T20:05:04.841-08:00All We Can Do Is Understand and Remember: Time Travel and Tragedy in "Last Night in Soho" <div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjiamc4uu2LH1LUlPUm7SjIuRKPj_BcuwGuLKZ9Sm7D_evZJDITddUbeTj2BobuKrAf_dGWv3DPdCi2eHSo7GoR4Ebd8FxmxS7cOtxA4MeMxw1uXuTt_EX8Y6BBlIAXHg96TvX7j1bcjuPznD9aAE_2m8Zg5qBD4fJHqYObPY3eIQrwFQVwUYiiSAdq=s1104" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="590" data-original-width="1104" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjiamc4uu2LH1LUlPUm7SjIuRKPj_BcuwGuLKZ9Sm7D_evZJDITddUbeTj2BobuKrAf_dGWv3DPdCi2eHSo7GoR4Ebd8FxmxS7cOtxA4MeMxw1uXuTt_EX8Y6BBlIAXHg96TvX7j1bcjuPznD9aAE_2m8Zg5qBD4fJHqYObPY3eIQrwFQVwUYiiSAdq=w400-h214" width="400" /></a></div><br /></div><div><i>Spoilers Below</i></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What if we could travel back in time but were unable to change anything and were forced to be a passive witness to tragedy? How painful would that be, especially if we were nostalgic towards that period. We would have our heart broken by the dark reality of the time with which we were so enamored. This is what happens to aspiring fashion designer Eloise Turner (Thomasin McKenzie) in Edgar Wright's <i>Last Night in Soho, </i>a film about the inability to see we can't change the past but can only learn from it. In this short essay I will discuss how Eloise is not a typical time traveler and her actual role in the story. I will also discuss the dream-like quality of the time travel in this film.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">First, I want to give more context regarding the film's plot. Eloise lives with her Aunt Peggy (Rita Tushingham) and through a supernatural ability is able to see the ghost of her mother, who committed suicide when Eloise was very young. Eloise is accepted in to a fashion school in London but when she moves there she quickly realizes she doesn't fit in with her roommates so she rents a room from Ms. Collins (Diana Rigg). On the first night in that room she is able to travel back in time to 1960s London and witness the story of Sandie (Anya Taylor Joy), an aspiring singer who comes to London and is ensnared by supposed talent manager Jack (Matt Smith), who pimps her out to wealthy men in clubs.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">While many time travel movies fall in to the science fiction genre there's no technological component to the time travel in this film. It's a supernatural conceit that allows Eloise to travel back in time. But what truly makes Eloise different from other time travelers is she can't change things or interact with the past, though she sometimes experiences things through Sandie. Eloise is almost like a ghost from the future, haunting the past even as it begins to haunt her. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The time-travel sequences feel like dream sequences, which makes sense since they occur when Eloise has gone to sleep. The way Eloise enters 1960s London has a dream logic to it. She gets out of bed and walks down an alleyway on to a London city street. In "Anatomy of a Scene" from the New York Times Youtube page, Wright even compares the first time-travel sequence to <i>The Wizard of Oz</i>. Wright says that when you see the film in a theatre the soundtrack switches from front-facing stereo to all the surround sound kicking in when Eloise steps out of the alley. Wrights says this is the audio equivalent of Dorothy stepping in to Oz. I think the film also clearly visually parallels that moment by having the camera follow Eloise from behind as she enters this new world, the same way the camera does with Dorothy. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Another conceit the films uses to craft a dream-like atmosphere is having Eloise seemingly embodying Sandie and experiencing things from her perspective. In the first sequence Eloise looks in the mirror in the Cafe de Paris and she sees herself as Sandie. The camera pushes in to the reflection. and as the camera turns away from the mirror it's Sandie on the other side, replacing Eloise. And when the camera turns back to the mirror, it's Eloise on the other side. And during Sandie's dance with Jack we transition- through editing and camera movies- from seeing Sandie dancing to seeing Eloise dancing. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Let's come back to the mirrors, as Sandie walks down some steps we see Eloise in the mirrors going downwards. And when Jack is kissing Sandie on the neck, in a mirror we see him kissing Eloise. These shots of Eloise in mirrors are a visual metaphor for her being an outsider in the past rather than an active participant. Eloise will again be seen in a mirror as she watches Sandie talking to the men to which she is being propositioned. Eloise tries to break through to the other side but when she gets through and grabs Sandie, she wakes up. Eloise being seen in mirrors also represents how her and Sandie are mirror images of each other. They're both ambitious and artistic young women who move to London and learn it's not all they expected. Their romantic image of the city is shattered. When Eloise first gets to London she has an uncomfortable encounter with a cab driver and her run ins with a older gentlemen (Terence Stamp), whom she believes to be the older Jack are also unsettling for her. Eloise and Sandie's dreams have become nightmares. And speaking of nightmares, when Eloise believes she sees Sandie killed by Jack, the bloodied vision of Sandie appears to Eloise in the present, along with the ghastly shadow men. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Eloise becomes determined to solve Sandie's murder and get for justice for her. So she is an inactive protagonist in the past but in the present she able to be active. Eloise attempts to expose "Jack" but it turns out he's actually a retired Soho vice cop named Lindsey (Sam Claflin) whom we and Eloise had seen talk to Sandie in the past. And just how Lindsey wasn't Jack, there's another identity reveal around the corner. This is Ms. Collins is the elderly Sandie, who killed Jack and many other men who abused her, whose bodies she's hid in the house for over 50 years (the shadow men are their ghosts). Eloise went to the police about Sandie's murder and traveling back to the past. This caused the police to come to Ms. Collins' house. Becoming afraid that her crimes will be discovered, Ms. Collins attempts to kill Eloise. So Sandie is the true murderer of the story, not Jack. It's the final subversion and shattering of Eloise's nostalgic vision of the 60s and her idealization of Sandie. Sandie is a victim but also someone capable of brutal violence. And Eloise is almost killed by the woman for whom she so desperately wanted justice.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Sandie didn't literally die but as Ms. Collins says, the young Sandie died 100 times in that room in which Eloise has slept. Sandie's soul died, with Ms. Collins being a ghost of her former self. She's a ghost in the present just as Eloise is a ghost in the past. And Eloise didn't realize the real Sandie was there all along nor did Ms. Collins know that Eloise was witnessing her story in the past. They were so close together but by the time Eloise realizes the truth she doesn't have time to truly explain how much she knows about Sandie's story. As the house burns down Ms. Collins decides to stay behind. She refuses to go to prison because, as she tells Eloise, she's been in a prison her whole life. That one encapsulates so much of the tragedy of Sandie's life. It's really painful, I find. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Eloise's role in this story is not to change things or solve a murder but to understand what happened to Sandie and why she killed those men. Eloise is here to remember Sandie and who she was before her innocence and vibrancy was robbed from. And while time travel exists in this film we're reminded time travel doesn't exist in reality, that like Eloise we can't change the past. We are all on the other side of the mirror when it comes to history. We can't save it's victims but we can remember them. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the final scene we see a presentation of Eloise's designs, with "Downtown" by Petula Clark playing, the song Sandie sang when she auditioned at a Soho nightclub. The audience watching the show doesn't understand the irony of the song choice. It's a happy song but it's not the reality of the 60s, it's not Sandie's life. She didn't get the happy ending she deserved. The song choice tells us that while Eloise still loves 60s fashion, she understands the darkness underneath the glamour. On the commentary Wright says nostalgia is a failure to deal with the present. "You're in retreat," he says. Him and co-writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns agree it's better to make a better world in the present because the past was never a better world. But I'd argue we have to learn from it if there to be a better future an it's always going to haunt us. Which brings us to the film's final moments. Eloise sees Sandie in a mirror, suggesting the past is never truly dead and that, to paraphrase that classic song that plays at one point in the film, there will always be something there to remind you.</div><div><br /></div>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-9147789156875953952022-01-29T14:16:00.004-08:002022-01-29T14:16:54.552-08:00My Favourite James Bond Pre-Title Sequences<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgrFfee8nd4LIOBuYI1aLEJk5LKkRhK-ZziXDOP2wTyy7z079s9SxK4bXpZYZA91I6tjUr_ORRHSPfszGav4cAkiMrhd_w-MXTlT6vJjeWAvCbEJv0KgwNePRNc2E7mu3Sr7Js53Vn44x6L5U991u_m2JhF9ZCa3-fkO8437dEDMjGQ70qqrTFDwDyc" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="608" data-original-width="1080" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgrFfee8nd4LIOBuYI1aLEJk5LKkRhK-ZziXDOP2wTyy7z079s9SxK4bXpZYZA91I6tjUr_ORRHSPfszGav4cAkiMrhd_w-MXTlT6vJjeWAvCbEJv0KgwNePRNc2E7mu3Sr7Js53Vn44x6L5U991u_m2JhF9ZCa3-fkO8437dEDMjGQ70qqrTFDwDyc=w400-h225" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p><br /></p><p>The pre-title sequence is a signature of the James Bond franchise. Even the rule-breaking Daniel Craig films kept to this tradition, sans the gunbarrel at beginning for most of the films. While the Bond franchise weren’t the first movies to have pre-title sequences, they’re most closely aligned with the series. So, I want to talk about my favourite pre-title sequences of the franchise. Starting with the one that reintroduced the character of 007 and showed us how he gained his "00" status.</p><p><br /></p><p><i>Casino Royale</i></p><p>In my piece late last year about <i>Casino Royale</i> I talked about film's opening sequence, saying </p><p><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: 13px; text-align: justify;">"it efficiently sets up this version of Bond as we see him talking calmly to MI6 Section Chief (and traitor) Dryden while cutting to Bond earlier brutally killing Dryden's contact, Fisher, in a bathroom. The black and white cinematography switches between a stark and gritty look in the bathroom to a smoother one in the present. This contrasts the hands on killing of Fisher with one silent bullet assassination of Dryden. Though to be fair, Fisher does come back to life and Bond shoots him as well."</span></p><p>This opening quickly establishes this as a different kind of Bond movie and a different kind of Bond. This new Bond is a "blunt instrument" but also someone capable of a cleaner kill. I love the use of the different black and white footage, contrasting the more brutal and messy kill of Fisher and the efficiency of the Dryden kill. Craig's performance immediately proves how he was the perfect choice for this new version of Bond, rough and rugged, but also cool and cold. And incorporating the gunbarrel in to the actual narrative- as Fisher revives and attempts to kill Bond- is such a brilliant reinvention of an old tradition. </p><p><br /></p><p><i>From Russia With Love</i></p><p>The series' first pre-title sequence came with the second film and was the first to "kill off" Bond. We're led to believe the real Bond (Sean Connery) is being stalked by an assassin named Red Grant (Robert Shaw) but it's revealed to be SPECTRE training exercise. It effectively sets up Grant as a threatening and ruthless villain for Bond to face, creating genuine suspense through it's visual storytelling. The atmosphere is perfect and only two movies in showed the franchise was willing to subvert audience expectations. </p><p><br /></p><p><i>Goldeneye</i></p><p>From the opening dam jump to the climatic plane escape, <i>Goldeneye's</i> pre-title sequence made Bond a action hero for the 90s. That dam jump is still one of the most impressive stunts in film history and Pierce Brosnan established himself as great Bond, cool under pressure but with hints of vulnerbility, as when he witnesses the "death" of fellow 00 agent Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean). It was great to see Bond work with another 00 and his supposed death adds genuine drama to the action. The chemical weapon facility has great production design, a terrifically cold late cold-war aestethic. It's one of the series most memorable locations.</p><p><br /></p><p><i>Skyfall</i></p><p>That opening shot with Bond (Craig) stepping in to frame with the first couple of notes of the Bond theme playing is so good. And it showcases Roger Deakins' gorgeous cinematography right from the start. From there the action becomes what director Sam Mendes calls a "Russian nesting doll,” going from car chase to bike chase all the way to a fight on a train, where Bond is accidentally shot by Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) when M (Judi Dench) tells her to take the shot at Patrice, the man Bond is fighting. Bond's "death" primes us for a film that will be about rebirth and reinvention, both for Bond and the franchise. The opening also shows us how the relationship between Bond and M will be tested to the limit throughout the film.</p><p><br /></p><p><i>Thunderball</i></p><p>It's the jetback, it's pretty much that. That, and the origin of Austin Powers punching a woman he thinks is a man. </p><p><br /></p><p><i>Goldfinger</i></p><p>While <i>From Russia With Love</i> had the franchise's first pre-title sequence, <i>Goldfinger</i> solidifies what the pre-title sequence would be going forward. We have the real Bond (Connery) this time, placing explosives in a drug factory then taking off his wetsuit, revealing a white dinner jacket. He then waits for the explosion, smoking casually as they go off. This is all quintessential Bond and helped define the franchise's image. And then there's that "shocking" climax, where Bond throws a lamb in a bathtub, killing his would-be assassin.</p><p><br /></p><p><i>No Time To Die</i></p><p>The most recent pre-title sequence is also the series' longest to date. And it's actually two sequences in one, both which see Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux) lose someone close to her. The first sees young Madeleine encounter the film's villain Safin (Rami Malek), who kills her mother. The second has Madeleine lose her lover, Bond (Craig), who is tricked in to believing she's betrayed him as Vesper Lynd did. Bond visiting Vesper's grave ties the film back to <i>Casino Royale</i> and Bond's actions after it blows up reveals Bond never really got over her betrayal. This dooms him and Madeleine's relationship, losing 5 years with Madeleine and his daughter. This is the most emotional pre-title sequence, with Bond sending Madeleine away on a train, beautifully and hauntingly segwaying in to Billie Eilish's title song, which reflects Bond's emotional state at the moment. </p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>Spectre</i></p><p>While <i>Spectre</i> falls apart once it gets to Blofeld's compound, the pre-title sequence is strong, especially with its opening tracking shot which follows Bond in to a hotel and then out on to a balcony. And then there's Bond fighting a bad guy in a helicopter, leading it to flip over. It's a shame the rest of the film's action doesn't live up to this prologue.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><i>The Living Daylights</i></span></div><p></p><p>Timothy Dalton's debut as Bond introduced-through the pre-title sequence-an authentically physical Bond who chases down a Russian assassin who kills two 00s during a training exercise. After the obvious stunt doubles in Roger Moore's <i>A View to a Kill </i>Bond on the roof of a truck as it drives down a cliff is refreshing and thrilling. </p><p> </p><p><i>The Spy Who Loved Me</i></p><p>After three smaller scale- and somewhat cheap feeling films (<i>Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die, The Man With the Golden Gun</i>) <i>The Spy Who Loved Me</i> makes it clear right from the beginning that epic Bond is back, having a submarine be hijacked in the first scene. Then during a ski chase Bond (Roger Moore) jumps off a cliff then releases his parachute with the Union Jack, a moment that got cheers when the film had its UK premiere. The chase itself is terrific and ties in to the emotional arc of the film by having Bond kill the lover of Russian agent XXX (Barbara Bach), with whom Bond will team up during the course of the film. </p><p><br /></p><p><i>Moonraker</i></p><p>One of the weaker Bond films but one of the better openings. Bond (Moore) is pushed out of a plane without a parachute by Jaws (Richard Kiel, who first appeared in <i>TSWLM</i>). It has great stunt work and I love how it's just a random event in Bond's life that doesn't tie in to the rest of the film, sans Jaws.</p><p><br /></p><p><i>For Your Eyes Only</i></p><p>While I don't like the way it unceremoniously dispatches the unnamed villain (who is Blofeld but because of rights issues wasn't able to be called that), Bond (Moore) being stuck in a remote controlled helicopter is a inventive conceit. It was also a nice touch to have Bond visit his wife Tracy's grave since it was Blofeld who had her killed.</p><p><br /></p><p>So, what are your favourite pre-title sequences and are they from your favourite films? Comment and let me know. </p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-50281355876714685692022-01-17T18:01:00.000-08:002022-01-17T18:01:06.813-08:00The Essential Films: "Paper Moon:" (1973)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-uL3w0yXQIDk/YeYeYF52rPI/AAAAAAAAAhk/DlVvQajRnO0XbnU_6Ag4PqRSm7zW22N_ACNcBGAsYHQ/download.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="224" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-uL3w0yXQIDk/YeYeYF52rPI/AAAAAAAAAhk/DlVvQajRnO0XbnU_6Ag4PqRSm7zW22N_ACNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h224/download.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; text-align: justify;"><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></p>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.</span><p></p><p><i>Paper Moon</i> is a gem of a film, one of the under-sung great films of the 1970s, made by a great director in his prime. With the recent passing of Peter Bogdonovich I decided to look back on his fourth film, a poignant but unsentimental road trip featuring a real-life father/daughter pair playing a pair who may or not be father and daughter. <i>Paper Moon</i> begins in 1935 with the funeral of Addie Loggins' (Tatum O'Neal) mother and the arrival of "family friend" Moses Pray, who may be Addie's father. Moses is asked to take Addie to her aunt's, to which he reluctantly obliges. It's soon revealed that Moses is a conman, selling bibles to widows under the pretense that their late husband bought it and had their name inscribed in it. Addie catches on pretty quickly and becomes Moses' unlikely partner. </p><p><i>Paper Moon</i> is based on the novel Addie Pray by Joe David Brown. Bogdonovich didn't like the title and came up with the title <i>Paper Moon</i> after seeing the title of the song "It's only a Paper Moon" on a list of songs that were popular during the 1930s. When Bogdonovich asked Orson Welles what he thought of the title Welles told him just to be release the title instead of the film. </p><p>Bogdonovich had just done <i>What's Up Doc?</i> with [Ryan] O'Neal and wanted to do another film with him, which is how he met Tatum and got her on board. Casting a real life father and daughter could've easily been a gimmick but the two O'Neals have a whip-smart chemistry. Supposedly, Roberts Evans, the head of Paramount at the time, suggested Warren Beatty and Jack Nicholson for Moses. It's hard to imagine what Nicholson could've brought to the role but I think O'Neal, while never being one of the "heavyweight" actors of the time- compared to Nicholson, De Niro or Pacino- has the right amount of sleaziness without becoming outright unlikable. And it's no wonder Tatum won an Academy Award for her performance. It's almost fifty years later and she's still wonderful in the film. She makes Addie a lived in child of the 1930s rather than 70s and Bogdonovich trusts that opening the film with a close-up of her face will establish the whole tone of the film. And it does. Addie's look is somber and mature beyond her years. This will not be a sentimental kid's film but a film about a particular place and time that was full of despair for the United States. </p><p>The film has a lived in quality but also feels like a memory, a vision of the past rather the real thing. This is due to Laszlo Kovacs's black and white cinematography. There's something about black and white which puts a film outside of reality. It was Welles who suggested shooting the film in black and white through a red filter, to give the images high contrast. The film is visually rich, a real treat. There's a section in the film where Moses picks up a dancer named Trixie Delight (Madeleine Kahn) and her maid Eugenie (PJ Johnson). Addie becomes jealous, showing the audience the growing bond between her and Moses. After they've stopped for lunch on a hill, Addie stays under a single tree, not wanting to sit in back of the car with Trixie in front. This shot, and the shots of Trixie attempting to persuade Addie to come along, are magnificent. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8bNN0I6c0qY/Yd4Lg-VOj_I/AAAAAAAAAhE/qDnf-qF8qacevPCdf6HsEXiQXs_Kd7PAACNcBGAsYHQ/papermoon-movie-screencaps.com-5163.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="180" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8bNN0I6c0qY/Yd4Lg-VOj_I/AAAAAAAAAhE/qDnf-qF8qacevPCdf6HsEXiQXs_Kd7PAACNcBGAsYHQ/papermoon-movie-screencaps.com-5163.webp" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ybAw3HX2Kf0/Yd4Lrjxj67I/AAAAAAAAAhI/nYH7a6mqZMgqpO0EZwT1fgLbiGL80q4fACNcBGAsYHQ/papermoon-movie-screencaps.com-5395.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="180" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ybAw3HX2Kf0/Yd4Lrjxj67I/AAAAAAAAAhI/nYH7a6mqZMgqpO0EZwT1fgLbiGL80q4fACNcBGAsYHQ/papermoon-movie-screencaps.com-5395.webp" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-5OFh-e2-4GU/Yd4L4_8B8lI/AAAAAAAAAhQ/9sUGlq0yYYcPJ0l_ncZ9l4dIvXWs_2-GACNcBGAsYHQ/papermoon-movie-screencaps.com-5552.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="180" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-5OFh-e2-4GU/Yd4L4_8B8lI/AAAAAAAAAhQ/9sUGlq0yYYcPJ0l_ncZ9l4dIvXWs_2-GACNcBGAsYHQ/papermoon-movie-screencaps.com-5552.webp" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: left;">The film's visual storytelling is impeccable. Going back a little, when Addie first discovers Moses' con with the bibles, visually we see it through Addie's perspective- she sees the bibles and what Moses uses to print the names on the bibles. It reminds us that Addie is the main character and we're seeing much of the story through a child's perspective. While she won Supporting Actress, O'Neal should've won Best Actress. Even Khan, who was nominated in Best Supporting Actress with O'Neal, said O'Neal was the Best Actress and she the Best Supporting Actress. <span style="text-align: justify;">I agree O'Neal is the lead actress and Addie is the character who propels the story forward. She makes Moses her partner, breaks up him and Trixie and gets herself and Moses out of going to jail during the bootlegger segment. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"> But having a child lead the film doesn't make it too cutesy or sentimental. <i>Paper Moon's </i>lack of sentiment is a big part of why it's so great. The film looks at Addie and Moses' relationship matter-of-factly. They're two people who belong together, whether or not they're actually father and daughter. The fact its never confirmed Moses and Addie are father and daughter contributes to the film's unsentimental approach. That they are most likely biologically related remains a unspoken truth rather than an easy way to pull on the heart strings. Moses eventually brings Addie to her aunt's but Addie leaves, telling Moses he still owes her money. Again, no sentiment. These two characters are above that. It doesn't have to be spoken out loud that they love each other. And the film ends with them on the back of a truck, driving in to an unknown future. But as I said, these two belong together, for better or for worse. </div></div></div><p></p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-31625930260024780312022-01-04T08:18:00.003-08:002022-01-04T08:18:20.580-08:00Why did this story feel like a memory?: "The Matrix Resurrections"<div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-lFMwPZ3LLRU/YdOcc2q6W1I/AAAAAAAAAgk/XypSV4UF4hwtfODZacmZ3EEQnm59Jt3dACNcBGAsYHQ/MV5BMGJkNDJlZWUtOGM1Ny00YjNkLThiM2QtY2ZjMzQxMTIxNWNmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMDM2NDM2MQ%2540%2540._V1_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="4096" data-original-width="2764" height="640" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-lFMwPZ3LLRU/YdOcc2q6W1I/AAAAAAAAAgk/XypSV4UF4hwtfODZacmZ3EEQnm59Jt3dACNcBGAsYHQ/w432-h640/MV5BMGJkNDJlZWUtOGM1Ny00YjNkLThiM2QtY2ZjMzQxMTIxNWNmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMDM2NDM2MQ%2540%2540._V1_.jpg" width="432" /></a></div><br /></div><div><i>Spoilers Below</i></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">"They took my life and turned in to a video game" laments Neo (Keanu Reeves) at one point in Lana Wachowski's <i>The Matrix Resurrections</i>, her return, sans her sister Lily, to the universe that defined them. Neo has learned after his sacrifice at the end of <i>The Matrix Revolution</i>s he was resurrected and put back in to the Matrix, where he was given the identity of a video game developer who created the video game called...<i>The Matrix</i>. One of the big themes of <i>The Matrix </i>was choice of identity. The Matrix gives you an identity but it is not one of your choosing. In<i> Resurrections</i> Neo's identity has been robbed of him and his life has been reduced to entertainment. The Matrix took humanity's imprisonment and turned it in to mass entertainment created by the very man who attempted to free humanity from their virtual prison. It would be a cosmic joke except it was specifically manufactured by a computer program, the Analyst (Neil Patrick Harris), who took over the Matrix from the Architect, he of the "ergo" and "vis a vis."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Bugs (Jessica Henwick), a resistance fighter, tells Neo that the Matrix took something so important to her and others, Neo's story and "turned it in to something trivial. Were better to bury truth than in something as ordinary as a video game?" One can hear through Neo and Bugs' conversation Wachowski lamenting on what was so personal to them becoming so commercialized. Hell, The Matrix was turned in to a video game, one written and directed by them. So maybe there's a little bit of self-critique from Wachowski. <i>The Matrix</i> was so personal to them- it's often read as a trans allegory- so perhaps it was reductive to turn it in to a video game and make sequels from it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's no coincidence the film's title has Resurrections in it, acknowledging this is a dead franchise being resurrected, along with a couple of previously thought dead characters. The film is a meta-commentary on legacy sequels, nostalgia and the role of a creator. This is Wachowski grappling with the legacy of her creation and the burden of creating something so popular it almost becomes bigger than you.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>The Matrix Resurrections</i> was to be made even without the Wachowskis' involvement but Lana Wachowski came on to steer the ship along with novelist and co-screenwriter David Mitchell (who wrote the novel <i>Cloud Atlas </i>on which the Wachowskis' film was based.) Neo (Thomas Anderson in the Matrix), like the Wachowskis, is told by his business partner (Jonathan Groff)- who's actually a new version of Neo's old nemesis Agent Smith- a sequel is happening to his seminal game with or without him. Smith even name drops Warner Bros. Making a sequel to the game is largely about nostalgia and Wachowski is critiquing how legacy sequels are largely dependent and coast on nostalgia. There's also the irony, as I already mentioned, of humanity's imprisonment becoming a touchstone for a generation via this game. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The success of the game has plagued Neo as he is unable to separate his "real life" from his "creation," even almost walking off a roof, believing he could fly. As a creator you can become so defined by your creation that it becomes a curse. You're not able to completely move on from it and people keep asking for more, more of you that you shouldn't have to give, more of what gives them comfort from the real world. In the film's case the "real world" is in itself a virtual reality. When you're playing a video game you're enjoying a simulation within what you don't realize is a simulation. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Your creation can also be co-opted by people for whom it was never meant. Look at how the concept of the Red Pill was incorporated in to the alt-right philosophy even though <i>The Matrix</i> was made by two trans women, people whom that movement hates. While art is always open to anybody to interpret as they wish, certain people can attach themselves to and misinterpret your work.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Coming back to Neo being unsure of his own reality- when Morpheus (Yahya Abdul Manteen II) shows up Neo thinks he's going crazy. This Morpheus is a computer program created by Neo, an amalgamation of the real Morpheus and Smith. I like Manteen's laidback and chic cool cat interpretation of Morpheus. This version of Morpheus is a cool conceit and I like that he can interact with people in the real world via a new technology. But my favourite performance in the film may be Groff's. Groff doesn't imitate Hugo Weaving but instead invokes something about that performance, all while adding his own corporate cut-throat smarm to the part. And his "awakening" provides one of the film's most memorable moments.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">When Neo is taken out of the Matrix and learns the truth he begins grappling with his own legend and questions whether his sacrifice at the end of <i>Revolutions</i> mattered, due to learning his whole life became a video game for mass consumption. He's a little like Luke Skywalker in <i>The Last Jedi</i> in that regard. He has to be told that what he did indeed mattered, even if things didn't work out perfectly. There actually was peace between machines and humans until a civil war broke out between the machines over an energy shortage. The last human city Zion was destroyed but humans and their machine allies forged a new underground city called IO. And Neo reunites an old ally, Niobe (Jada Pinkett Smith), who never believed in the concept of the "One" but believed in Neo. There's even a field of study encompassing his life called "Neology." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Neo is defined by his own legend, just like the Wachowskis are defined by their creation. He is a man who can never just be a man. He is the One, he is a legend, he's the creator of the most important video game ever. Whether in the Matrix or out he's burdened by expectation, just like the Wachowskis are expected to always return to this universe. The only thing grounding Neo is Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss), who died in <i>Revolutions</i> but along with Neo was resurrected by the aforementioned Analyst, who was tasked with researching Neo. He discovered Neo's powers were linked to Trinity and he could run the Matrix based on Neo and Trinity's relationship. I'm still a little confused on how this all works. But essentially, with Neo leaving the Matrix, it has destabilized. Trinity was given the name "Tiffany" while in the Matrix and the Analyst made sure to keep her and Neo close together in the Matrix. Neo wanting her out of the Matrix puts him at odds with the Analyst who wants him back in the Matrix. While the love story between Neo and Trinity didn't quite work for me in the trilogy I found there was something genuinely touching about their reunion in this film. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As others have pointed out, the Analyst is essentially a cynical Kevin Feige- like studio producer who's vision of the Matrix is to give people what they want. "The sheeple aren't going anywhere. They like my world," he tells Neo and Trinity in the final scene. "They want to be controlled. They crave the comfort of certainty." Coming back to the title, he's essentially resurrected the franchise and its dead characters. But Neo and Trinity tell him they're going to rewrite the Matrix. This echoes the original film's ending which implied Neo could change the Matrix, which the sequels ignored. It's also commenting on change and creativity in a franchise a good thing. And I would hope if there is a <i>Matrix 5 </i>the Matrix should look very different. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I feel I'm liking this film more in retrospect, which I know I've said before about certain films. I do feel this a film that's more interesting than enjoyable. It perhaps loses itself in its meta-commentary to the detriment of being a satisfying entertainment. The reason the original film is still the best is because it was just a exceptionally cool action film, with its blend of philosophy, martial arts, cyberpunk and rage against the system energy. The first two sequels- particularly <i>The Matrix Reloaded</i>- doubled down on the philosophy and action, ending up disappearing up their own asses. Re-watching them recently what stands out is the thin and stretched out story. Most of the films' running time is dedicated to bigger action sequences and duller scenes of philosophical discussion.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The original film had the right amount of philosophy without losing the audience. It was simple and accessible. And it was one of those zeitgeist defining films, a film I'd argue is the <i>Star Wars</i> of its time. And It probably never should have never gotten a sequel. <i>The Matrix </i>films have become like the <i>Terminator</i> franchise, in that it's been difficult to continue on the story from the first film- though <i>Terminator 2</i> is a terrific sequel.<i> The Matrix Resurrections</i> critiques its own existence but may not prevent more Matrix films. It may have even opened the door. But as Morpheus would say, the Wachowskis will be the ones who have to walk through it. </div>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-39454130003304906152021-12-27T15:44:00.001-08:002021-12-27T15:46:52.563-08:00"Do you want to know what it is?:" Looking Back At The Matrix Trilogy<p style="text-align: center;"><img alt="The Art of Cinematography — The Matrix (1999)" class="n3VNCb" data-noaft="1" height="307" jsaction="load:XAeZkd;" jsname="HiaYvf" src="https://64.media.tumblr.com/4b2c5f4dee3c09f917af148678a97c27/tumblr_niidr7ZkKP1qetb0ho1_1280.jpg" style="height: 329.062px; margin: 0px; width: 585px;" width="545" /> </p><p><i>Spoilers for all 3 films below</i></p><p>In 1999 <i>Star Wars- Episode 1: The Phantom Menace </i>was the year's- and maybe the decade's- most anticipated film. But in late March, just before The Phantom Menace's May premiere, Lily and Lana Wachowski <i>The Matrix </i>premiered, a film without the same level of expectation that <i>The Phantom Menace</i> had but I 'd argue is the<i> Star Wars</i> of its time. Like <i>Star Wars,</i> <i>The Matrix</i> took aspects from different genres and weaved them together to create something singular and new. But if George Lucas took from samurai films, westerns and old movie serials then the Wachowskis took from cyberpunk, martial arts films and film noir. And while <i>The Phantom Menace</i> disappointed many <i>The Matrix </i>entertained and energized audiences, resulting in a sleeper hit that led to two divisive sequels and a just released fourth film</p><p>What I love about the first <i>Matrix</i> film is first act's sense of mystery. Instead of providing context for thing Wachowskis instead drop you in to their world, not telling or showing us what the Matrix is or how this mysterious woman named Trinity (Carrie Ann-Moss) can defy physics. Adding to the mystery are the mysterious agents led by Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving), who also break the rules of reality. This all immediately gets the audience asking questions and wanting to continue following the story. Our main character Thomas Anderson (Keanu Reeves), a computer hacker named Neo by night and office worker by day, is being pursued both by the agents and Trinity. Trinity works with a mysterious terrorist named Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), for whom Neo also been searching. When Neo and Morpheus finally meet he reveals what the Matrix is, a computer program that most of humanity is plugged in to, a prison for your mind. </p><p>Morpheus tells Neo of a man born in the Matrix who freed the first humans and prophesized his return. Morpheus freed Neo from the Matrix because he believes Neo is the reincarnation of this man, the "One" who will destroy the Matrix and free humanity. The concept of the Matrix is horrific but the trade-off is you get to be a hero instead of working a drab office job. Finding your real identity is a crucial component of Neo's character arc. Inside the Matrix he is Thomas Anderson and he can only be Neo by night, in the shadows. Outside of the Matrix you forge your own identity, have your own name. "The Matrix can't tell you who you are," Trinity tells him. But being told you're the One is still being told something about yourself that you haven't forged for yourself tells Morpheus he doesn't like the concept of fate because he wants to be in control of his own destiny. And in the sequels Neo and the audience realize Neo is still part of a system of control even though he's free of the Matrix. But more on that later.</p><p>Reeves' inherent sincerity as an actor helps us root for him to be the One and fulfill his destiny. Neo's humility feels genuine because Reeves is such a genuine performer. Neo does start to believe that he's the One until he is taken to a woman named The Oracle (Gloria Foster) by Morpheus. She tells Neo he's not the One. After Neo and Trinity save Morpheus from the Agents and Neo performs a stunning feat, Morpheus says the Oracle told Neo the exact thing Neo needed to hear. I take this as meaning that once Neo felt unburdened by these expectations he was free to make choices which led naturally to him becoming the One.</p><p>And choice is a major theme in this film. Morpheus gives Neo two pills to choose from, a blue pill that will allow him to go back to his ordinary life or a red pill that will show him "how far the rabbit hole goes" as Morpheus puts it, alluding to <i>Alice in Wonderland.</i> My reading on the blue pill/red pill choice is this: you're given a choice but not all the information regarding what that choice means. Morpheus tells Neo "No one can be told what the Matrix is, you have to see it for yourself." Once you realize the truth it's too late to go back. I would argue you didn't choose to be freed. However, being freed is arguably inseparable from learning the truth; you wouldn't necessarily believe you were part of a computer program without concrete evidence. </p><p>Cypher (Joe Pantiolano), who is part of Morpheus' crew aboard the ship the Nebuchadnezzar, would agree with me. He tells Neo he wished he'd had taken the blue pill instead. Cypher believes he and the rest of the crew were lied to by Morpheus, which is why he betrays Morpheus to the agents in exchange to be put back in to the Matrix and his memory wiped. Cypher doesn't believe he's free since the real world is a nightmarish hellhole. He also hates taking orders from Morpheus. He says "ignorance is bliss" when eating a steak within the Matrix and it's easy to understand where he's coming from. And what does it mean to be free? What can the humans do with their other than fight an endless war? Is it even worth being free? I would argue yes. It's worth being free so you can find a purpose outside of a fake reality. To live and die for something is important. </p><p>Cypher wants to be put back in the Matrix but the aforementioned Agent Smith- who like the other agents is a computer program designed to prevent people being freed from the Matrix- wants to be free of it. He is aware not just of being in a computer program but being a program himself. He is as much a slave as the humans are. He despises humanity but this fact shows he is capable of human emotions. Neo and Smith both seek an escape from their existence and both need Morpheus for that. Morpheus has the codes to the last human city Zion's mainframe. Smith wants them so the war can end and he can be set free. </p><p>Smith is seemingly destroyed by Neo at the film's end but he returns in the two sequels, <i>The Matrix Reloaded</i> and <i>The Matrix Revolutions. </i>Smith hating humans showed he was capable of human emotion. In the sequels, as Captain Logan of the Youtube channel Geekvolution points out, he becomes what he accused of humans being- parasites. Smith assimilates others, creating multiple versions of himself. In <i>Revolutions</i> specifically he takes over everyone in the Matrix, taking what was his prison and making it his domain. Smith is also able to exit the Matrix by assimilating one of the freed humans named Bane while still in the Matrix. But Smith is still trapped- trapped in a human body that he refers to not being designed to survive due to its fragility. </p><p>I find Smith to be the most interesting character in the trilogy due to how he becomes increasingly human and independent of his programming, paralleling how Neo becomes independent of what his purpose is as the One. But more on that later.</p><p>Admittedly I struggled re-watching the sequels. Maybe I wasn't in the right mind-set or just didn't focus enough on them, and maybe going in with a negative attitude, but I found them hard to engage with. <i>Reloaded</i> doubles down on the elements of which the original had the right amount. For example, the action is too bloated this time around. It's impressive but it's not as lean and essential to the story like in the original. And while the original had plenty of philosophical "mumbo jumbo," it helped propel the story and Neo's character arc forward. In <i>Reloaded</i> there are two many scenes of characters talking about philosophy but don't move the story forward. It's also not clear what the main thematic arc is supposed to be. And it takes almost an hour for Neo to be given a goal, which is to find the Keymaker who can get him to the Source.</p><p>At the film's climax Neo learns from the Architect- the program who created the Matrix- that his purpose is not to destroy the Matrix but begin a new cycle that has occurred 5 times previously; moreover there have been 5 previous Ones like Neo, all anomalies that can't be prevented. Zion will be destroyed by the machines and Neo is to choose humans from the Matrix to repopulate Zion. He will prophesize his own return and use the code in his body to reload the Matrix.</p><p>While the ideas in this scene are intriguing and the Wachowskis were bold in blowing up their own mythology, the Architect's dialogue- while appropriately dense and machine-like- lacks dynamism and Neo should have had a more emotional reaction to learning that he is still not free of the machines' control. In the first film he learned his reality wasn't real. Now he learns he has been deceived again. This should shatter Neo but I don't believe that's felt enough in the film's denouement. </p><p>If there is a thematic arc to <i>Reloaded</i>- and subsequently to<i> Revolutions</i>- I would argue it's one regarding choice and free will. Instead of doing what his predecessors did, Neo decides save Trinity from being killed by an agent. This breaks the cycle and leaves the future in flux.<i> Revolutions </i>follows that up with a new status quo established at the film's end. The big problem is the Architect told Neo there'd be a complete system shutdown if he saved Trinity and that everyone in the Matrix would die. Instead nothing really happens as a result of Neo's actions. The third film never answers why there wasn't a system failure and it's never brought up in dialogue as far as I remember.</p><p>In the third film the philosophy takes somewhat of backseat to the war against the machines. This brings me to the main reason why I like the original film compared to the sequels, which is it had a smaller-scale. The film focuses on Neo's character arc and the climax is about Neo vs. Smith, not humans in mech-suits against thousands of machines. Character is so unimportant in <i>Revolutions</i> that Trinity dies by accident half an hour before the film's end. Morpheus is also wasted and the sequels overall introduce too many characters.</p><p>Neo makes a deal with the machines to defeat Smith- who's assimilated everyone in the Matrix- in exchange for peace with the humans. Neo sacrifices himself fighting Smith and a truce is established between humans and machines. In the final scene between the Oracle and the Architect he tells her humans who wish to be free will be. </p><p>I'll admit I don't have much to say about <i>Revolutions.</i> Of the three it's the least interesting and both sequels feel really drawn out. Neo doesn't really have a character arc in the sequels. Instead he's mostly being driven by the plot. I think the sequels should have gone in a different direction with the story and Neo's character. The original ended with the implication Neo could control the Matrix so I think the status quo should've been considerably different at the beginning of <i>Reloaded</i>. Maybe Neo shouldn't have even been the main character. He's essentially become a God in this virtual world so I would argue it makes more sense to see him from a new character's perspective.</p><p>Ideally <i>The Matrix </i>should've remained a standalone film but with the latest installment, <i>The Matrix Resurrections</i>, just released, <i>The Matrix</i> has certainly expanded beyond its initial self-contained story. So, what are your thoughts about the Matrix Trilogy and have you seen <i>The Matrix Resurrections</i> yet? Comment and let me know. </p><br /><br /><br />Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-81806616054645729432021-12-15T09:49:00.000-08:002021-12-15T09:49:32.271-08:00Tonight, Tonight: "West Side Story" <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiZsH0fzaKiQbLcHG-3VNhad-VoEi8ZRJOXp6Id88j6zQNT0y33n69nZ5V4GAbBElkvRG5gUrw640DDxmcarFL-NhoiLzPqUK5BUZDwPM4OXP6bD_LkE5nvn-PonaYhIEMRgOwB-rsGGzm-EfSzBF9J3Xk10-sUF1_p7GzkbLL2IRlxiE1jKTNPeoIi=s1486" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="991" data-original-width="1486" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiZsH0fzaKiQbLcHG-3VNhad-VoEi8ZRJOXp6Id88j6zQNT0y33n69nZ5V4GAbBElkvRG5gUrw640DDxmcarFL-NhoiLzPqUK5BUZDwPM4OXP6bD_LkE5nvn-PonaYhIEMRgOwB-rsGGzm-EfSzBF9J3Xk10-sUF1_p7GzkbLL2IRlxiE1jKTNPeoIi=w400-h267" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Spoilers for both film versions of</i> West Side Story <i>below.</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Steven Spielberg's <i>West Side Story</i> is as good and even better a new cinematic version of this classic tale we could've received. It may be blasphemous to say but in many ways it's better than the 1961 film directed by Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins, which won 10 Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director for Wise and Robbins. I'd argue Spielberg's version should be up for numerous Oscars as well, including one for Spielberg himself, a director whose skill is sometimes overshadowed by his popularity. His <i>West Side Story</i> is quite amazing and maybe even in the top ten of his filmography. It's certainly one of his best recent films- supremely emotional and joyously cinematic, full of inventiveness that's refreshing considering how often we've done this story-whether it be Shakespeare or in some other iteration. It's one of the best films of 2021. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Spielberg's film tells the same broad story as the original 1957 play and 1961 film; there are two rival gangs in 1950s New York, the caucasian Jets and the Puerto Rican Sharks- and in the middle there's a love story between former Jet Tony and Maria, whose brother Bernardo is the Sharks' leader. Essentially <i>Romeo & Juliet</i> but with the added themes of racism and prejudice. Playwright Tony Kushner's screenplay (Kushner also wrote the screenplay for Spielberg's <i>Lincoln</i>, which nagged him an Oscar Nomination) doesn't transpose the setting to modern day but keeps the 50s setting. However Kushner adds a darker, more modern edge to the gang warfare, including one of the Jets' ears getting pierced with a nail during the opening fight. Janusz Kaminski's cinematography also provides a grittier look to this film than Daniel L. Fapp's more expressionistic and colorful approach to the 1961 film, which garnered him an Oscar. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Spielberg also chooses to begin the film in a construction zone, establishing the rougher take on this material. Critic Mark Kermode has described this opening as looking like a war zone from Spielberg's own <i>Saving Private Ryan</i>, an apt comparison given we're dealing with a gang war. The neighbourhood under iss to become the Lincoln Centre, which highlights the futility of this gang fighting over the territory, a point driven home by Lieutenant Schrank (Corey Stoll).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Kushner also makes the racism directed towards the Sharks even more vicious- "How many times do I have to tell you Bernardo, I don't speak spic," says Jet leader Riff (Mike Faist). I found Faist's interpretation of Riff more intimidating and almost world-weary than Russ Tamblyn's, though that's nothing against Tamblyn's performance. And David Alvarez as Bernardo brings a sexy brutishness to his interpretation of Bernardo that distinguishes him from George Chakiris' more sophisticated and cat-like performance (for which he won Best Supporting Actor) Alvarez's performance also fits the script's choice to make Bernardo a boxer this time around. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Tony (Ansel Elgort) is also given more of an edge in this version, having been in jail for almost killing a rival gang member, which makes his fateful action later in the film more of a payoff for the character. Elgort has more of that "New Yawk" quality to him than Richard Beymer did, rawer, more haunted. While Elgort may be the least of the leading performances I overall thought he was good, making Tony a likable protagonist. Tony is a thankless role compared to Riff and Bernardo but I appreciate the attempt to add dimension. I also like the relationship between Tony and Valentina (Rita Moreno), who is a reimaging of the Doc character from the play and film- in this version she's his widow and took in Tony and gave him a job after he got out of prison. Elgort and Moreno have a sweet chemistry and there's a humorous scene where he's asking how to say certain things in Spanish to Maria. Moreno also has a deeply poignant scene when she sings "Somewhere" alone in her store, essentially singing about Doc; their marriage- a Puerto Rican married to a "gringo," parallels the romance between Tony and Maria. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">And speaking of Maria, in her film debut, Rachel Zegler is a vibrant and sweet Maria. She and Elgort also have a nice chemistry though this story's romance, no matter what, always feels like it needs more development. I know a part of that is due to the story taking place over 2 days, though it feels it takes place over a longer period. To Kushner's credit the script pokes fun at Tony falling instantly in love. Valentina suggests asking Maria out for coffee before telling her he wants to be with her forever. I do love Tony and Maria's first meeting in this version, meeting behind the bleachers at the school after following each other across the room. It's a very intimate first meeting and I like that they're hidden from all eyes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Moreno played Bernardo's partner Anita in the 1961 film (and won Best Supporting Actress) and Ariana DeBose brings her own electric sexiness to her version of the character. The pain her face and voice exudes in "A Boy Like That" is even more powerful than Moreno's interpretation. Continuing on with Anita's signature songs, the film opens up "America" from the roof of her apartment out in to the streets, making the song really about New York City as a community full of life and love. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Another recontextualizations I like: "Cool" isn't sung after the brawl between Riff and Bernardo as in the original film or sung by Riff to the Jets before, as in the original play. Now it's Tony singing to Riff about his newly required gun- "Got a rocket in your pocket." The struggle over the gun becomes a ballet. The struggle is al significant because the gun has an arc over the story- bought by Riff, given to Tony during the brawl and then required by Maria's suitor, Chino (Josh Andres Rivera), after the brawl. This becomes the gun he uses to shoot Tony. "Cool" is probably my favourite sequence in the entire film, it's amazing. Justin Peck's choreography throughout the film honors Robbins' dance as expression of story and character but finds his own specific physicality for the characters. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">I also liked how "Office Krupke" now takes place in the police station after the Jets have been arrested, which is appropriate. It's also preceded by Anybodys (played by non-binary actor Iris Menas), who wants to be part of the Jets, being misgendered by one of them. Anybodys attacks the Jet and this leads to the rest of the Jets being left alone in a room, which in turn leads in to the song. The song acts as a cool down to the fight and pays off with Officer Krupke (Brian d'Arcy James) coming back. This time he actually receives the "Krup you" final line of the song. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The film does feel- as with the 1961 film and with the original play- a little long. And I as I said earlier the romance of this story will always be a little underdeveloped given it takes place over 2 days. But aside from that I think <i>West Side Story</i> is a stunning achievement. Spielberg directs the hell out of the musical sequences and even in the non-musical sequences Spielberg has the ability to stun you with his specific camera moves and compositions. There was understandable skepticism regarding doing <i>West Side Story </i>as a film again but Spielberg and Kushner made an arguably better- if maybe not as iconic version- than the 1961 film. Though I don't want to put them in competition with each other. It's great they both exist and will continue to bring new fans to this story. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.S. The late Stephen Sondheim's lyrics are still some of the best of the musical genre. <i>West Side Story</i> includes songs that range from poignant to clever, to cool to goofy but all being able to exist within the same story. What's your favourite <i>West Side Story</i> song? Comment and let me know. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> </p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-48003404113547425712021-11-16T14:32:00.000-08:002021-11-16T14:32:00.017-08:00Shakespeare on Screen: Richard Loncraine's "Richard III"<div class="separator"><p style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></p></div><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CkmaC8AvuIU/YY2YCgC3EPI/AAAAAAAAAfM/0xpmK6SgPOYch3zvqxGiyDRGT3J_yd5qgCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/RIchard%2Biii.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1377" data-original-width="2048" height="269" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CkmaC8AvuIU/YY2YCgC3EPI/AAAAAAAAAfM/0xpmK6SgPOYch3zvqxGiyDRGT3J_yd5qgCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h269/RIchard%2Biii.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p></p><p><i>Spoilers Below</i></p><p>How do you make Shakespeare cinematic? As a filmmaker you have to tell the story through the visuals as much through Shakespeare's words. You have to provide a strong context in which the story of the play is being told, something visually distinct that compliments the story. For this piece I'm going to be looking at Richard Loncraine's <i>Richard III</i>- starring Ian McKellen and based on a 1990 stage version starring McKellen and directed by Richard Eyre- and highlighting how the filmmakers made the film one of the most cinematic adaptations of Shakespeare's plays.</p><p>In discussing how Loncraine's tells the story visually it's best to start at the film's beginning, with the near dialogue-less murder of King Henry VI (Edward Jewesbury) and his son Prince Edward (Christopher Bowen) by Richard of Gloucester (McKellen). We start with a close-up of a ticker tape message, warning of Richard's approach to the Henry's mansion headquarters. Some time later a tank bursts through the wall and Richard and his men attack while wearing gas masks. The sound design envelops the audience in Richard's breathing, just as how his family will be enveloped by his machinations. The ticker tape and the World War II imagery establishes the film's context, which is an alternate 1930s England. The setting is both modern in relation to the play's1400s setting but still in the past. Just like Shakespeare's audience knew of the real Richard III, contemporary audience understand who Hitler was, whom the film will create parallels with Richard. But more on that later.</p><p>I like how Loncraine stages the murder; Richard bursts in to Henry's room, with Henry in the foreground praying and Richard in the background. The camera closes in on Richard as he shoots Henry, leaving his death to the imagination. We also have the dark humour of a praying man being sent to heaven by a devil. Richard then takes off his mask, revealing himself to the audience. This opening scene and reveal provides Richard a striking cinematic entrance. It shows Richard's ruthlessness and makes him scary to the audience right from the outset </p><p>The film continues to introduce its other characters visually as we see Richard's family, the Yorks, preparing for and then at a party celebrating Richard's brother, Edward's (John Wood) ascention to the throne after Henry's death. After these introductions we hear the first lines of the play. "Now is the winter of discontent" is usually delivered to the audience but here Richard delivers it to Edward and his party guests, praising his newly crowned brother. As the speech continues the camera closes in on Richard's teeth, emphasizing his growing anger. We then we cut to Richard entering the bathroom as he reveals his bitterness to us. Editor Paul Green visually establishes Richard's two-faced nature and the contrast between public celebration and private bitterness. And Richard in a bathroom peeing as he's talking about his brother is a nice bit of visual humour.</p><p>Location and setting are integral to how a film visually tells its story. Let's look at the film's setting, which I touched on earlier Shakespeare's play was already a fictionalized version of the real Richard III's life. Co-screenwriters Loncraine and McKellen do something similar, crafting their own alternate history- a 1930s England which gives way to fascism. This provides a visually distinct context in which to place the story and allows for visual parallels between Hitler, the Nazis, and Richard. In the scene where Richard agrees to become King Richard and his followers are dressed in black military uniforms like those of the SS. It's not subtle but it gets across the film's ideas in a purely visual way. The main idea is that Shakespeare's Richard, like Hitler, manipulated his way to power and that tyrannical rulers have always existed throughout history. Shakespeare could have written about Hitler if he lived during WWII. </p><p>I now want to look at several of the film's locations. First, I want to say production designer Tony Burrough's work doesn't overwhelm the words or story, largely because he took a realistic rather than stylized approach to them. The first example relates to Richard arranging for his brother Clarence (Nigel Hawthorne) to be taken to the tower, where he will have him killed. During his time in the tower Clarence has a horrible dream of drowning, which he recounts. In the play the scene takes place in Clarence's jail cell but in the film a guard takes him outside where it begins to rain, an clear visual metaphor for Clarence's dream. It also foreshadows him being drowned in his tub by men under Richard's orders.</p><p>Another significant location in the film is the morgue where Lady Anne (Kristen Scott Thomas) sees her dead husband, the aforementioned Prince Edward. In the play Anne is speaking over her father in law King Henry's coffin but the film makes a strong visual choice setting the scene in a morgue. It makes Richard's seduction of Anne even more grotesque and shocking. And like Clarence's death, Anne's death is foreshadowed by putting her in a place of death. The setting also symbolizes Richard being a man surrounded by and unfazed by death.</p><p>One other location I like is Richard's private theatre. When Richard tells the Duke of Buckingham (Jim Broadbent) that Edward's widow Queen Elizabeth's (Annette Bening) young sons need to die so he can be secure as King he's watching a film of himself being coronated. We see Richard's arrogance but also that same arrogance being undercut by his fear of the princes. </p><p>The murder of one of the princes and two other murders which occur offstage in the play are portrayed in visually memorable ways in the film. Elizabeth's brother Rivers (Robert Downey, Jr.) is stabbed from underneath a bed, Hastings (Jim Carter) is shown hung from an extremely low angle, with a use of shadows and light that invokes a film noir kind of shot. And we get a flashback one of the princes being suffocated by a red cloth. We can see the the outline of his face through the cloth, making the suffocation even more sickening to watch </p><p style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="436" data-original-width="752" height="231" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SJjNKzgJGk0/W_YbhujbamI/AAAAAABBTtw/JqChQa3WDF4f1bhfhhxa5ri0LL7pmFhBACLcBGAs/s400/Richard_III-1995-03764.jpg" width="400" /><img border="0" data-original-height="436" data-original-width="752" height="231" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-i89d3QSwB5k/W_dmIALHhlI/AAAAAABBUag/HrlJbHwGpdYJ2Of615jF_XsxiGiH9ItUACLcBGAs/s400/Richard_III-1995-02358.jpg" style="text-align: left;" width="400" /><img border="0" data-original-height="436" data-original-width="752" height="231" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FZjOT49dTxs/W_Y47OS8SnI/AAAAAABBT_w/oObHhPnOsKohqlqAW18_peJ2-e7-7EJLgCLcBGAs/s400/Richard_III-1995-02823.jpg" style="text-align: left;" width="400" /></p><p>On the subject of what is portrayed onscreen that is left offstage in the play, the film gives a silent role to Elizabeth's daughter Princess Elizabeth (Kate Steavenson-Payne), the future Queen of England and wife of Henry VII, Richmond (Dominic West). Visually, it was important to Loncraine and McKellen to give Elizabeth a presence due to these factors. It also makes her a silent witness to the film's events. And those events end with Richard's death. Richard received a cinematic entrance and he receives a cinematic exit as well, willfully falling in to a ball of fire during a confrontation with Richmond during the end battle. Richard's fall is accompanied by Al Jolson's "I'm On Top of the World." This all makes Richard's death oddly triumphant. He was on top of the world, he was King and he went out on his own terms. </p><p>So, now I turn it you. What do you think of Loncraine and McKellen's interpretation of <i>Richard III</i> and its use of setting and location? Comment and let me know.</p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4687195598775399138.post-89726146028361966702021-10-27T15:06:00.001-07:002021-10-27T15:06:23.249-07:00The Future of the James Bond Franchise: Bond 26 and the Next James Bond Actor<p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Being James Bond movie to stream free ahead of No Time to Die release - Radio Times" class="n3VNCb" data-noaft="1" jsaction="load:XAeZkd;" jsname="HiaYvf" src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/3/2020/12/daniel-craig-bond-1d24ba1.jpg?quality=90&resize=620,413" style="height: 389.685px; margin: 0px; width: 585px;" /></p><p></p><p><i>Spoilers for</i> No Time To Die <i>follow</i></p><p><br /></p><p>I know, I know. This is becoming a James Bond blog. But I promise this is the last one for a while. With <i>No Time To Die</i> being out for several weeks there's already been talk about the franchise's future, especially in regard to the new film's ending. Before I go further I want to say I'm going to spoil the ending, so if you haven't seen the film yet, turn back now. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Okay. James Bond is dead. Well, the version played by Daniel Craig is but as they always say, James Bond will return. The Craig films reinvented the idea of the character and the franchise in general, twice actually, with <i>Casino Royale</i> and <i>Skyfall,</i> arguably the two greatest films in the series. Craig went deeper in to the character than previously and we had the most continuity between films, giving this Bond an actual arc throughout the films. We even got to see Bond have a daughter and possibly settle down. Weirdly, Bond had to die for the franchise to continue. There's no future in a family-man version of Bond. And literally blowing up Bond at the film's end sends a clear message the next film will be a ground-up reimagining of the franchise.</p><p>I would argue the most refreshing way to reinvent the franchise is not to reinvent. Make the next Bond film a straightforward Bond adventure, with an established 00, similar to <i>Goldeneye</i>. We don't need to see how he became Bond; the audience knows the character and what he's all about. We can learn about this new version of Bond through his actions and what the new actor brings to the role. </p><p>Which brings us to the question of who will be the next Bond. My pick is Dan Stevens, Cousin Matthew from <i>Downton Abbey</i> and David, Professor Xavier's son, from <i>Legion</i>. I really like Stevens as an actor and I like that he has a sinister kind of quality to him, even playing a villain in<i> The Guest</i>. I think the actor who plays Bond should be someone who can be convincing as a villain, since Bond has a darker quality to him, often verging on being an anti-hero in his actions. </p><p>I do wonder if Craig's supporting cast will be brought back- Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw. I like them and it'd be a shame to lose them. Judi Dench was brought over from Pierce Brosnan's movies for <i>Casino Royale</i> and it ended up being a great choice, with a stellar dynamic between her and Craig's Bond which paid off in <i>Skyfall</i>. And I think there's even more you can do with Fiennes as M, especially with a younger Bond. And I'd like to see Whishaw play off Stevens as well. </p><p>People have suggested making the next Bond a period piece and that's an idea I can get behind, especially since it'll get us away from the whole "Is Bond relevant in the modern world" theme we've explored in the last several movies. The question I have is do you set it in a highly stylized version of the 60s or do you make it feel like the authentic period. Will the technology be modern or will it be similar to the technology of the 60s Bond films. Of course, if you set it in the 60s you can't make it exactly like they made Bond movies in the 60s. The way Sean Connery often treated women doesn't fly and even as far back as <i>Goldeneye</i> the sexism of the franchise was being called out, with Dench's M calling Bond a "sexist misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the cold war." And even Moneypenny used the term "sexual harassment." </p><p>Who should direct? I saw a suggestion of James Wan, who I love and would bring the kind of technical bravado the franchise has been seeking with people like Sam Mendes and Cary Joji Fukunaga. Though after doing a couple of <i>Aquaman</i> movies he may not want to do another franchise. Kathryn Bigelow would be another good choice- eventually a woman will have to direct one of these. I haven't seen<i> Black Widow</i> but that film's director, Cate Shortland is also a viable choice if you wanted a woman to direct. Christopher Nolan is a lot of people's choice but I feel I already know what a Nolan Bond film would look like, largely because he's paid homage to the franchise quite a bit in his Batman films, <i>Inception </i>and his latest film <i>Tenet.</i> </p><p>Of course, you could just bring back Martin Campbell to perform a hat trick after rejuvenating the franchise twice with <i>Goldeneye </i>and <i>Casino Royale. </i>Unfortunately, 2011's<i> Green Lantern</i> hurt his career but he just recently had a movie released, <i>The Protege</i>, starring Maggie Q, Michael Keaton, and Samuel L. Jackson. And 2017's <i>The Foreigner </i>with Jackie Chan and Brosnan was an okay film. </p><p>The one thing I know is whoever will play Bond next will be someone's first Bond and the actor they'll later call their favourite. Bond 26 could be <i>Goldeneye</i> or <i>Casino Royale </i>for a whole new generation, with new fans being brought in and old fans being satisfied as well. As an older fan I hope to have a great time with the next film and actor. So now, I hand it over to you. Who do you want to play James Bond and what do you want from Bond 26, including the director. Comment and let me know. </p>Andrew Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04748175199636005585noreply@blogger.com0