Is the second part of my title not the greatest idea for a sitcom/cooking show/spinoff ever? I think it is. This is a year with a lot of variety, which is good because it allows for a wide spectrum of ranting. Although overall I'd describe the films of this year to be at least tolerable and sometimes even really good. See? The 70s are better already. And as I mentioned before, there's only one winner that I haven't seen already so I at least know that the winners are good. We'll mix it up a bit and be optimistic, just for a change of pace.
We will begin with a shockingly good movie: All That Jazz. I say shockingly good because at first I didn't like it. With the title and the subject matter (the semi-autobiographical story about a Broadway choreographer/dancer/director) I figured I was in for a lot of fun dancing and singing. I thought it'd be funny and enjoyable and uplifting. This was not the case. It was depressing. Like, really depressing. Once I got over the initial shock that the movie was going to be depressing, I remembered that I love depressing movies because they're entirely more interesting than uplifting ones. This movie reverse-reminded me of The Singing Detective. That sentence requires explanation. When something "reverse-reminds" me of something else, it means that the second thing came out after the first thing but I saw the second one first. Wow, I just made it more confusing. To clarify: this movie from 1979 reverse-reminded me of the 1980s British miniseries about a hospital-confined mystery writer who hallucinates elaborate dance sequences. Both the movie and the miniseries are about men with debilitating diseases who become more and more engrossed in their fantasy worlds. This film begins as an interesting look into the hectic life of a high-profile Broadway personality. So interesting that my dreams of working in show business were briefly shattered since I'd rather not require alcohol, pills, and sex to simply get out of bed in the morning. The manner in which this ritual was displayed reverse-reminded me of Requiem for a Dream. I'm going to coin that phrase, I am not even kidding. Anyway, after a good forty minutes or so of pill-popping we learn that the main character doesn't have long to live. And that's when the movie becomes way better and way more of a downer. But it makes up for it by being so ahead of its time in terms of style and by having a truly powerful ending. Even though it's my second favorite of the year's nominees, I think it should've won. I'll explain why in the next paragraph. But before that, the last thing I'll say about this film is that it wasn't afraid to just run with its own style and go against expectations for artistic reasons (instead of Battlestar Galactica "the only creativity behind our doctor's character was that we wanted to create the opposite of Dr. McCoy" reasons). It does its own thing not to shock people but to make the great movie that they wanted to make.
But as I said, it wasn't my favorite movie from the year. This was: Apocalypse Now. I have strict rules about when to mention film titles, and I don't mention them until I reach that film's paragraph. Which is why I won't say what the winner in 1978 was, only that it was a Vietnam movie. So I can see why they wouldn't want another Vietnam movie winning in this year, even though it's far and away the best Vietnam movie ever made (of the ones I've seen. So basically all of them). The reason for this is that it's not really a "Vietnam movie." It takes place during the war and it illustrates many negative aspects of the war, but it's really a movie about human nature. It's based on Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" (which I wrote a 100% paper on in high school by writing about Batman and the Joker and substituting their names for the protagonist and antagonist of the novel) but I think there are also some strong comparisons to be made to Dante's "Inferno" even if those comparisons were unintentional. The film brilliantly delves further and further into the darkness of humanity as they travel deeper into the heart of Vietnam. That's pretty much what the book is about, but the subtle ways that Coppola achieves this are outstanding. For instance, Harrison Ford is in the movie at the very beginning and pretty much never again. So you're all excited because there's Han Solo! This movie will be awesome because there's Han Solo! Well we leave the civilized world behind and Ford with it. Then we see Robert Duvall and he's being kind of disturbing with his "napalm in the morning" bit but we kind of enjoy it anyway. Because who doesn't appreciate a "hate to love him" crazy general? Well we leave him behind too. And as the characters travel further and further into the country we are less and less familiar with the characters (and the actors who portray them) and the situations become tougher and tougher to understand morally. As moviegoers, we can forgive certain acts when we see it from a certain point of view. But this movie does a great job at showing us human depravity at its most base. And where the comparisons to the "Inferno" come into play is that all of these people seem like they've been in their respective situations for a long time, and that they'll never leave. The whole "Ride of the Valkyries" helicopter sequence was enthralling for us, but for Duvall's character it was a regular occurrence. The men who revolt by trying to grope the visiting Playboy bunnies have probably faced the same situation countless times. I don't want to come off as a chauvenist, but that scene is reminiscent of many classic visions of Hades. The one guy can see the water and the food but the closer he gets, the further away it goes. And poor Sisyphus has to push that rock up the hill only to have it fall again. So in this movie they can have scantily-clad women paraded before them but they're not allowed to touch. That's just cruel, I'd rather not see any women at all because it'd be easier to forget about Vietnam's abysmal dating situation. And then when we finally reach the end of the journey, we begin to understand by Colonel Kurtz was driven mad. It's made even more perfect by the fact that it's Marlon Brando: the only man who was masculine enough to both lead a crime family and sire Superman. Excellent casting, as was the casting of Martin Sheen as the hero of the piece. Everything about the movie is just outstanding, in fact I've gone on entirely too long about it. It's a rough movie and it's not for everyone, but it's amazing and young Laurence Fishburne is in it so if you can take it you should watch it. I haven't yet watched the "Redux" version but when I get the recent ultimate Blu-Ray release for Christmas (mom and dad: hint!) I will certainly check it out.
Perhaps it's good that I said even more than usual about that movie because I don't have much to say about the next two, beginning with Breaking Away. It's not a bad film by any means but it's not particularly original either (even in 1979). The film quality looks like an old camcorder that was in widescreen for unknown reasons, so I hope that was intentional and not indicative of a super low budget. It gives the film a more realistic quality and makes the characters more relatable. Or maybe it's just the same 70s film stock that makes all the women on Family Feud look funny. It's entirely possible. The film dates itself in several other ways, such as using the term "cutter" to describe people other than emo kids that harm themselves in order to impress Twihards who find that attractive. The movie is the classic "coming of age" story that I ordinarily find annoying but since the characters in the movie actually aim to do something with their lives instead of spending the majority of the film whining, it's actually pretty good. So it kind of weaves in a story about competitive bicycling with the "angst over going to college and leaving home" story. This is something I keep emphasizing and this movie seems to get it: some plots can't carry a movie on their own. Since this movie has two distinct threads that drive the story, neither of which would be enough on their own, it all kind of works. Seeing young Rorschach and young Dennis Quaid is also entertaining on its own. I also loved that the dude in the movie lied about being Italian to impress a girl. Not because of its inherent entertainment value, which reeks of a rejected Brady Bunch script, but simply because such things could never work today. As soon as you were Facebook friends with the girl the lie would fade away and you'd be seen for the schmuck you really are. It was way easier to fabricate Venitian playboy bicyclist identities back then, it was a better time. So that's pretty much it. The movie is kinda funny, kinda touching, kinda good.
I have even less to say about Norma Rae. Please read that sentence to yourself in a way that doesn't rhyme as blatantly, because rhyming is silly in this context. This movie was the only truly less-than-mediocre one in the entire year. So I really shouldn't complain about it because of what I was subjected to in the 80s. But I will. Basically this was the precursor to Erin Brockovich. I'm not going to use my newly coined phrase to describe this situation though, because if I overuse it now then I can't use it later. I know it sounds silly to say that this movie based on a true story was the precursor to another movie based on another true story, but they're so similar that it's frightening. Except that the Julia Roberts movie is good. I'm told that this movie was praised in large part because of its relevance to the whole sexual liberation situation, a theme common to many 70s movies I've seen so far and I'm not even through 1978 yet with my viewing schedule. This is kind of like the Vietnam thing where making a movie that voices things that everyone has already voiced isn't really interesting, unless you make it interesting like Coppola did. So while I'm certainly in favor of movies that cast a positive light on women, I don't think this movie does that. Erin Brockovich (the character and real woman, not the movie) knew how to use her femininity as a weapon and also put forth a logical and well-constructed argument in order to save the day. I'd say that's pretty empowering. Whereas Sally Field's character in this movie, Norma, just gets up and whines in a Southern accent until people listen to her. If anything that makes her look like the type of female stereotype the feminist movement was trying to stifle. Is she an independent woman because she works in the factory and supports her kids much like a stereotypical man might? Sure. But in order to fight injustice she just complains louder than anybody. In fact, I'm feeling brave here so I'll say it: she nags. She might as well be hitting her sugar daddy up for new earrings except the sugar daddy is the labor union and the earrings are improved working conditions and rights. I'll take Erin any day over this lady, and not just because she's better looking. She's simply more admirable from any standing point.
Well with any luck you're thinking to yourself, "wow what an enlightened and forward-thinking man." I sincerely doubt you are thinking that, but even if you are you probably won't be after I discuss this year's winner: Kramer vs. Kramer. I swear to God I am not trying to crap all over the female gender. In fact, a girl in the dorm once drunkenly stated: "I think Domenic is gay because he's around drunk women all the time and he never tries to take advantage of them." See? I'm so chivalrous that women think I'm not attracted to them! Ponder that for a minute and what it means societally. I'll wait. You done? Okay, good. My point is that this film is touted as another step forward for women because it shows both the father's side and the mother's side of a divorce. Dustin Hoffman plays the dad and Meryl Streep plays the mom. I usually don't particularly like either of them, but they're both good here. Here's my problem though: Meryl is in a little bit of the first ten minutes and then she's gone for almost an hour. So how are we supposed to see things from her point of view when she's not even in it? She leaves her husband and her son for initially undisclosed reasons, and if I didn't already know that the film centered on their custody battle in court (and if she was played by a less well-known actress) then I'd have thought she was gone for good and the movie was about a workaholic father who learned to spend more time with his son. Instead, just as the movie is getting all nice and touching the mom shows up again and wants to take the kid back. So then the audience hates her because they've spent the entire movie watching the father and son build a loving relationship. How is that showing both sides equally? She redeems herself at the end of the movie, and we certainly eventually see her side of things but the hero of the movie is far and away the father. Remember way back when I ranted about The Hours? Just to clarify: I thought that was a really good movie and I hyperbolize a lot so that my blogs won't be more repetitive than they probably already are. But I did have one legitimate problem with that movie: Julianne Moore left her husband and her son. I could totally roll with it if it was just the husband but I can't forgive anyone leaving their children. If Kramer had switched things up and the father was the one who left I can guarantee you he would be universally viewed as a villain. She abandoned her child! She abandoned her boy! I had to say it, sorry. Just be glad I didn't make the "milkshake" reference. Overall point: this movie is well-done but it's far beneath Best Picture standards. And since the Internet tells me it was a big hit simply because of its societal impact, I dislike that for two reasons. One: as I've said before, societal impact alone is enough for a nomination and not a win. Two: it doesn't even make a good societal statement. Still in all, it's a ton better than most 80s nominees so let's try to bring it back to optimism a little bit.
Overall, a great start to the decade. I can't even tell you how excited I am to have a lot of great movies ahead of me to watch instead of drivel. I might even rewatch a few things I've already seen because they're so good. We won't quite be at that point yet in my next entry, but I can tell you that it will include: Bugsy Segal having a supernatural identity crisis, Jake LaMotta having a post-traumatic stress identity crisis, and yet another woman having a sexual liberation-style identity crisis that will probably get me some more negative press even though that's not what I intend. Positive though! Let's be positive!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment