1951: The Year that The Fifties Got Dark

Now this is what I'm talking about. Much better, McCarthy-era America. This was a dark time for the United States in many ways and especially for Hollywood. So why not more dark and intense and powerful movies? Well here I finally got 4! Number 5 being the winner of course. Ironically, it's an overly cheerful (and actually pretty bad) movie but I found it to be the most depressing of the bunch. Before I launch into this year, I'd like to mention a glaring omission from my last entry. My buddy José Ferrer in his excellent Moulin Rouge performance had to appear as though he was about 3 feet tall. They say the actor helped to perfect the camera trick himself through various camera shots and of course ye olde "stand on your knees" trick. But it was absolutely convincing and I have no clue how they achieved it in 1952 because even today when people pull similar crap it looks awful. Usually when I think of something later that I should have mentioned, I let it go. But this was a big one so I thought I'd mention it. Right then, onward we go.

First up is a movie that I liked, but wasn't super enthusiastic about: Decision Before Dawn. It stars people I've never heard of and who didn't seem to do much else. That's a big plus for me (and the key to HBO's success I might add). Because there's no learning curve in terms of getting used to the actors being those characters. Plus, people looking to hit it big in Hollywood always put some more oomph in than people who have already made it. Now, I love the idea of this movie and I think it was well done through and through. But it doesn't need to be 2 hours long. It could really just be a Twilight Zone episode (albeit a decidedly non sci-fi one) in the sense that it has a great story arc which doesn't require much growth. The journey it takes you on isn't one which requires a lot of twists and turns. It essentially has one point to make. HOWEVER...in 1951 I imagine it would have taken an entire movie. Intrigued yet? It's about a group of German POWs who are recruited by the U.S. to spy on their fellow Germans, during the end times of WWII. Finally, a WWII movie that's a little different! They're all so similar usually. This was the first movie, literally the first, to show Germans in a sympathetic light. Not all of them of course. But the main characters are portrayed as conflicted, real people. This is good because it's so easy to think of the Nazis as this faceless organization that was unrepentantly evil. Some of them were, but not all of them. I won't spoil the plot of the whole movie but suffice it to say that by the end of it I imagine many audience members had at least somewhat re-thought their ideas of "the enemy" during wartime. The U.S. army characters in the film certainly do. This is a morally gray movie depicting one of the few times in United States history that is often viewed as black and white. Once again, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I've just seen similar things before which fit into an episode of TV. But for 1951 this was huge news and certainly groundbreaking. So I applaud them for that and I think everyone involved did a great job.

An exceptionally dark and excellent film that I wasn't expecting at all is A Place in the Sun. This reverse-reminded me of a film I detested, entitled Sons and Lovers. I actually had to take about 10 minutes to figure out that it reminded me of that melodrama. Because I remembered the plot but forgot which movie it was. Anyway, in that one he's torn between two women but he's a douchey teenager. In this movie, the man is quite actually in love with both women I think. And plus, he doesn't intend to have this happen to him. He's lured away by a seductress harpy. And who better to play such a woman than Elizabeth Taylor? The Academy must have loved her as much as I do because she's popping up just about every year and I am absolutely fine with that. This is believable and the other movie wasn't. Because in the other one his angst didn't come from a believable place. In this one, he's caught between two very different types of society. Shelley Winters plays his blue collar girlfriend and she is also quite beautiful of course. She represents his roots, his childhood, his lineage. Elizabeth Taylor represents the future, excitement, intrigue. Old life vs. New life. There is no correct answer. I think he could have been happy with either woman. But let's get real: there's only one Liz Taylor. BUT Shelley Winters is pregnant and now he has some tough decisions to make. Ordinarily I'd call all of this melodramatic BS...but it works! I think the reason it works in this instance is that each woman represents something very interesting and different. Get ready for a weird-but-applicable reference: Glee. On that show, there's this over-arcing conflict for many of the characters between getting out of Lima, Ohio and staying to raise a family like the umpteenth number of ancestors before them. I would have no qualms with settling down in Lima, Ohio with Dianna Agron. But I'd rather go to New York with Lea Michele. Okay...I'd actually rather settle in Lima with Lea Michele but I hope you see my point. It's a legit conflict! Well, I don't want to spoil the plot but let's just say that the main character's decision-making in this film is a whole lot darker than I was expecting. And that's what made it so good. I cannot believe this movie was actually made in 1951 and that they allowed it to come out. That makes it even better. Entertaining side note: the main actor, Montgomery Clift, was gay in real life and Elizabeth Taylor apparently tried to "turn" him at one point by putting the moves on him a little bit. It didn't work...so I'm thinking that he was pret-tay pret-tay pret-tay gay. When we lost Liz, we lost the world's best Gaydar. She needs replacing and Scarlett Johansson: I'm looking at you.

Next up is an uplifting-ish film that I had mixed feelings about but overall liked: Quo Vadis. The title is in reference to the apocryphal story of Saint Peter fleeing his matrydom and meeting Jesus. He then asks Jesus "Quo Vadis?" or, "Where are you going?" and Jesus says he's going to go get crucified again or something. So Peter goes and gets crucified instead of fleeing, but it's after continuing his ministry of course so it's a happy story (?). This scene actually doesn't happen in the movie (or if it did I missed it), but it does feature St. Peter asking the same question of God during a prayer. So it's kind of interesting because it's still a crisis of faith in that he's wondering what God's plan is but not in that he's an initial unwilling martyr. This is during the time of Nero sacrificing Christians to the lions so I'd probably be asking the same question if I was Peter. The story mainly focuses on a Roman centurion who falls in love with a Christian woman and gradually accepts her faith as his own. Now, would he have had the same religious awakening if it didn't eventually lead to getting into Deborah Kerr's pants? Probably not. But: mysterious ways and all that. The real highlight of the film is Peter Ustinov as Nero. He's such an over-the-top villain but it works so perfectly. Because if anybody at that point in history was a notorious moustache-twirler with no real sympathetic motivation, it was Nero. He's an unrelenting narcissist psycho and all of his servants have a serious case of the "it's real good you done that Anthony"s. Much of this movie is exactly what The Robe should have been. So it's pretty weird that this came out first...since you'd think they'd have improved on the formula instead of making it more terrible. The apostle Paul also shows up and it's interesting because he's portrayed more as a conflicted philosopher with sneaky ties to the Romans than the Odin of all hippies. Which is awesome because the former is how I think of him and the latter is how most people think of him (in slightly different terms). When they got to the major religious parts of the movie, such as the crucifixion of Peter, the film was framed like the various famous paintings that depicted the same events. So it's kind of cool in that it's giving you the story behind the painting but it also takes you out of the movie a bit. The film was also too long at almost 3 hours (!) and it's even worse that about a half an hour of that was focused on the main characters being fed to lions at the end. It takes away from the drama when you draw it out like that. It went on long enough to imply that they might escape...and then they didn't. So I was like: why have I been sitting here for half an hour? But overall: quite a good movie. And I do like a dark and powerful ending, even if it should've come a little sooner.

Now...talk about some dark stuff, well here's A Streetcar Named Desire. Holy. Freaking. Crap. I thought this was going to be some overdone melodrama like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (which was also a Tennessee Williams play). This is an intense and disturbing character drama, also wayyyyyyyyyy out of place in 1951. And the stage play is even darker! Back then, I think I'd have been a theater snob instead of a film snob. Because that's where the edgy stuff was. The story centers on Blanche DuBois (a Southern belle in decline) staying with her sister Stella. And also Stella's husband Stanley, played by the criminally-robbed-of-an-Oscar Marlon Brando. All of the other major players won this year so it was really odd that he lost. My dad says he lost to Bogart due to a classic Academy "honorary Oscar" situation, and Brando won 2 years later anyway so I guess it's all good. Brando is so good that actors doing the role on stage today are encouraged not to watch the film. Because they'll inevitably try to emulate him and obviously fall short. Vivien Leigh is equally brilliant as Blanche, and she tragically ended up being the pre-modern Heath Ledger after this role. She had other parts for years afterward but then she started to lose her mind like Blanche and began to lose track of which events happened to her and which ones happened to the character. Anyway, at first I hated her performance. I thought it was hammy and overdone. Then it hit me. She's a woman who puts on an act for everybody, and the act is wearing thin. The ham is intentional because that's the character's character that she puts on. We see the real Blanche more and more as the film progresses. As it turns out, she's a widow. Her first husband killed himself because "she talked him into it." I read online later that in the play it was very clear that he was gay and she caught him with another man, so he killed himself out of shame. 1951, people. It was apparently understood by many audience members that this was the story, even though it's never explicitly stated in the film. Eventually, her madness takes over and comes to a head when Stanley rapes her. 1951, people. And this was pretty clear. You couldn't really perceive it another way. So he has her sent away to the looney bin and she drops her "kindness of strangers" line in a way that lived up to the hype (for once). The way I saw it, she depends on the kindness of strangers because everyone who knows her wants nothing to do with her. In the movie, Stella tells Stanley to get lost (prompting the famous Stella! Stella! reference) but in the play she stays with him. Wow. I sort of like the movie ending better but the play one is poetic too, in a way. I'd like to say we've evolved beyond some of the situations in this movie but I found the scene that introduces Stanley to be all too familiar. He's drunk and fighting a bunch of dudes and being a general ass when Stella says to Blanche, "isn't he wonderful?" Happens all the time. Hate that mess. So I'm glad she kicked his ass out. I've gone and failed to mention Karl Malden again...the poor guy has the misfortune of starring in great movies next to Brando and George C. Scott (Patton). He got an Oscar for this though, so I guess he won't mind that I forgot about him. Okay, I'm done gushing. Go watch it. Seriously. I see it as a huge turning point for cinema. This should have been the Best Picture, no question.

But instead, with this year's winner we got drivel set to music with An American in Paris. At the beginning of the movie there's a great scene where Gene Kelly nimbly moves around an exceptionally small apartment with grace, style, and humor. It's all downhill from there. There are narrators conversing with other narrators, needless dance sequences, and fluffy songs that go nowhere. Now here we have another case of a love story being entirely based in looks. He is smitten instantly by Leslie Caron when he sees her at a party. She shoots him back with a fairly buck-toothed smile and he remains smitten. And I'm thinking: is this a 30 Rock cutaway or what is this? Is this Peter Griffin saying "remember that time I was smitten by that buck-toothed girl for some reason?" I think Leslie was a beautiful girl and an incredible dancer. If he was smitten with her after seeing her dance, I'd understand. But it's just from looking at her! And he was already on a date with a better-looking woman. For you ladies: would you abandon Brad Pitt because you saw Woody Allen look-alike smiling at you from across the room? I say look-alike because I'd probably abandon Brad Pitt to go say hey to the real Woody Allen, because he's awesome. On top of that, Leslie's character was going out with Gene's character's best friend already. HE BROKE THE BRO CODE FOR SOME BUCK TEETH. Add to that the fact that the whole movie is a fluffy romance with no substance, much like many of the ones I've already derided, and I'm left wondering why it's considered such a classic by some. Others call it one of the most overrated movies of all time and I must agree. We never find out what happens to his friend or the woman he dumped. I thought they'd at least stick them together...but no. So two people's lives were essentially ruined when the loves of their lives left them. And we're supposed to go: "yayyyyyyyyy!" because the one guy who dances is with the girl who dances. That's depressing to me. They probably both killed themselves after the credits. It also holds some kind of record because the entire last 20 minutes or so has no talking and is just a big dance sequence. It is the single most unnecessary thing I've ever seen put to film and I've seen a lot of HBO nudity. The sequence does have a point, he was dreaming about what his life with Leslie might be like, and then she actually appears at the end to kiss him and stuff. If they didn't end up together for real, the end sequence would have still been overdone but at least it would've carried some poignancy. A nice, intimate dance sequence with just the two of them would have been nice. Instead it's the Transformers 2 Egypt shootout of 50s dance sequences. It shifts from location to location for no reason except to give the audience some variety. And it just keeps going. This would be fine if I was at some kind of Big Band/dance recital. There is no reason for it to exist from a film perspective. And it cost like half a million dollars or something crazy. This whole movie would be a perfectly acceptable high school play. Or even an acceptable movie, given the time period. But this won 6 Academy Awards and it took Best Picture from 3 more deserving movies and 1 movie that's so much more deserving that it's actually insulting. I am offended as a film buff on the level of my feelings toward Coppola's 1972 directing snub, Hitchcock's lifetime achievement snubbing, and of course the lack of a Dark Knight nomination. Appalling. But I did my best to remember this as an overall great year.

Well, the 1950s are coming to a close. Sometime in the next decade we'll be back to a 10 nominee structure and that is very daunting. Although starting on Monday I will once again be employed part-time (it only took 15 months!) so I'll probably take more time to watch Oscar nominees. Which makes absolutely no sense. But that's how I do. I don't even have enough of a clue about next year's movies to come up with accurate snarky predictions so I'm just going to guess. So all I might know for now is that it will include an overblown depiction of the mother of humanity, a lost Indiana Jones adventure, and a colloquially very gullible person.

1952: The Year that We Went Sans the Exclamation Mark

Literally just as I figured out how to add links to my posts they went and changed the design! Now I'm all confused again. And the font is smaller so now I'll be all confused as to when my opening paragraph has reached its usual length. So this is either going to be my longest entry ever or my shortest. Right then, here we go I guess. Is it time yet? I don't know.

First up we have a movie that I've actually been a fan of for a long time: High Noon. Funny story, on Safari this seems to be working normally. Crisis averted! Right then. The thing I like about this movie, or one of the things anyway, is that it was actually pretty innovative for the time. Because it takes place in real time. The bad guys are coming for him at High Noon and the clock ticks onward for most of the film. That's basically the whole plot. But here's a great example of how a movie can be thin on plot but high on style. It was robbed for Best Picture and I'm not the only one who says so. I'll explain why near the end. The film begins with the hauntingly beautiful tune "Do Not Forsake Me, Oh My Darlin.'" I'm not a big fan of folksy country tunes (unless they're sung by hot blondes) but this one is truly beautiful. Not just because of the lyrics but also because of how the lyrics pertain to the story. Hear that Michael Bay? It can be done. And unlike many of the nauseatingly cheerful films of the time, especially Westerns, this one is misery the whole way through. NOBODY wants to help this guy. No one except for a kid who's too young to fight and an old man who's too frail. He might've even been blind or something, it's been a while since I've seen it. There's also the added plot element of Gary Cooper's wife in the movie, who is played by Grace Kelly. Before you get all excited for him, she's a Quaker who opposes violence of all kinds. So if he is to stay and fight the bandits, will he die or will he lose his wife? That's some actual drama there. Seriously. Because they don't hammer it into you. You're just aware of it and it adds suspense. Without spoiling anything, the finale of the film packs a lot of personal emotion and is surprisingly well done. It's not overdone and it's not done unrealistically. One guy versus four guys. No matter how good you are, you aren't going to gun down all four at once. They keep that in mind, thus not ruining the realistic feel of the story. Don't worry, it has a happy ending. But it earns it. Those are my kind of happy endings: the ones that come at the end of a full movie of misery and pain. Also: the show, Happy Endings. Also: no, nevermind.

A film I'm much less enthusiastic about, but don't hate, is Ivanhoe. This is one of my dad's favorites actually. And it was funny because when I told him I thought it was so-so he presumed I was miffed at the lack of fighting. While I do think the fighting could have been improved, I'm actually more bored during fighting scenes nowadays than anything else. Unless it's a really personal confrontation. Back when I was younger, not even too long ago, I'd zone out until the fight scenes. I'd sort of pay attention of course but the fights were the highlight. Then last year I was watching an episode of The Tudors and looked down to read an article during this big battle because I was bored. I sat, stunned...waiting for my AARP card to come in the mail. Anyway, my real issue with this movie is that they focus too heavily on the love story. Which is funny, considering how many movies I've ripped lately for not focusing on the love story enough. So why does a movie that's about far more interesting things than shagging spend so much time with the love triangle? It's got Richard the Lionheart and Robin Hood (though they don't call him that) and the Crusades are going on and family feuds and all kinds of mess. But what do they focus on? Hammy romance. Any movie that has a woman overly swooning and falling into the main character's arms while saying, "oh (title character)!" then they've lost me. And nothing against Joan Fontaine, but who would pick her over Elizabeth Taylor? No one. Literally no one. I'd pick Rita Hayworth above Liz but that's about it. And this was back in the days when women weren't exactly big in the character development department (nor the men in many cases) so it's not like you can say "oh well Joan had a better personality." They were both Penelope Pitstops in distress and one is way hotter than the other. Just saying. So the parts that weren't the love triangle I thought were quite good. The fight at the end was a little ridiculous because it was two people on horseback fighting each other (not jousting) and since this would be a difficult battle to do in real life, let alone in a fake fight where no one can actually get hurt, it just ends up being a little slow and awkward. They continue on foot eventually and then it picks up, so I suppose that was good anyway. Overall though, I found the movie to be too "Hollywood-ized" to be overly great. It still beats most of the 50s movies I've had to sit through though.

Next up is a movie that shares almost an entire title with another nominee but almost entirely no plot elements: Moulin Rouge. I say almost the same because it's sans the exclamation mark. And man is it ever...this film is freaking depressing. Loved it! It takes place in the same historical location, the actual Moulin Rouge, and it's also a story of lost loves. But it's based on a lot of true events, or at least a real person: Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. I presume many of the events actually happened too. But I also don't care because it's a great movie so whatever artistic liberties they took were good ones. I did mix up the blondes in the movie, because I could only tell which one was Zsa Zsa Gabor when she was speaking. She was the only weak point actually. Both because I mixed her up with the other girl, causing some confusion, and because her acting was a bit hammy. Although as the movie went on, I actually saw the wisdom in that. Because her character is shallow and fake. So it's only fitting that she would act so fake all the time. Everyone fades into the background as compared to José Ferrer though, as Henri. He was a real-life disfigured painter and hopeless romantic. He wasn't Phantom of the Opera disfigured, but instead incredibly short. Not a midget or a dwarf exactly...he had some kind of medical condition (due to inbreeding, gross) that prevented his legs from healing after a childhood injury. The flashbacks throughout the film of course being some of the best parts. I'm a sucker for flashbacks. As many already know, I'm a big fan of the disfigured in movies. Also the villains. Because they're usually products of a cruel society. As I might have mentioned before, in a non-shallow society the Phantom of the Opera would've been a billionaire playboy. Because he was a musical genius, an athlete, and even an inventor. In this case, Henri's disfigurement is what makes him an incredible painter. Like many though, he falls for the wrong sort of woman. The tragedy being that he really believed she wouldn't care about his legs. When she eventually leaves him, is it really due to his condition or is it because of his self-perception? It's a moot point, because he'll never be rid of either. Lots of other tragic and beautifully done stuff happens but I'll spare you, because I want you to have a pleasant day without medication. I'll just point out that at the end of the movie, as happened in real life, he became the only living man to have his work displayed in the Louvre. As he is being given this news, he drifts off into eternal sleep; not dreaming of his accomplishments but instead the Moulin Rouge and its wonderful dancers, whose world he could never truly be a part of.

What could top that in terms of drama this time around? Nothing. So it's good that I'm about to annihilate The Quiet Man. It was the only "real movie" made by Republic Pictures, a company mostly known for whatever the 50s version of lesbian robot vampires was. I actually saw this movie in like 9th grade or something crazy like that. When I say in 9th grade, I mean in class. Like actually in a 9th grade classroom with other 9th graders. Not exactly the best environment for watching an intense character study. Or for terrible movies that try and fail to be intense character studies, in this case. The overall plot sounds pretty good: an American boxer who accidentally kills a man in the ring decides to get away from it all and go back to the peaceful Irish town where he was born. I don't know how they got John Ford to direct this and I don't want to know. They say it's known for its lush photography. Well I'm sure there are lots of "On Golden Blonde" type movies that have some non-euphemistic lush photography too. People also love the comical fight at the end. Which to me was neither funny nor dramatic. Maybe the movie is entertaining if you're living in a small Irish town where all of the ridiculous cultural norms are still in play. Such as appealing to a woman's brother before being able to marry her. On that subject: who would believe that Maureen O'Hara in a small town is still single in her 30s? NO ONE. She would be the first person every guy in town would be after. So how do they explain this? "Well, she's feisty." So she's finally won over by John Wayne? Okay I don't know where John Wayne ranks for women, but is he a 9? I doubt it. And that's where I'd put her. Once again: we're talking about a romance that's entirely based on looks because they haven't given us anything else to work with. Makes no sense. But her brother still hates him and so she doesn't receive her birthright. So he has to beat up her brother and take her rightful land ownership or something. Instead of having a High Noon esque moral dilemma of "should I fight him and lose myself? Or should I leave it alone and lose her?" he has a Marx Brothers style fight with the brother. A fight that culminates with them getting drunk in the bar, while still fighting. The happy ending is John Wayne stumbling home drunk to his wife, and she's all happy because he did his duty as a husband. For realsies. That's the ending. It so much defies what a good movie is, or even how a good movie should be built, that I really felt like I was missing some kind of satire. As far as I can tell: I wasn't.

Now we move on to this year's winner: the empirically overrated The Greatest Show on Earth. Since the behind the scenes is far more interesting than the movie, I'll start with that. Apparently, the only reason this won was that it was directed by Cecil B. DeMille and he helped McCarthy. This gave him some obvious street cred. I might not believe this except that I know for a fact that a ton of what happened back then in Hollywood was McCarthy related. Including, but not limited to, casting choices, who was and wasn't allowed to be listed in the credits, and of course who was allowed to work in the town ever again. Pretty crazy stuff, and not too long ago really. We have Mel Gibson but that's about it. And he's still allowed to make stuff obviously, he's just societally blacklisted. For the record, I stand by what South Park says: "Mel Gibson is crazy but he knows how to make movies." Now then, to the movie. It's pretty bad. Actually, it's more that it's not really a movie. It's basically a scripted documentary. Most of it does little more than show you a behind the scenes of what it's like to work at a circus. Interesting? Sure. But it's not a movie. There are very few actual characters, especially for a 150 minute movie, and most of it is just circus acts. You might as well just go to the circus. It has all of the excitement with none of the forced character scenes. Also more excitement. And probably shorter. Even still, there are exactly 3 things I liked about it. Only one of which is intentional. 1st: Charlton Heston is dressed an awful lot like Indiana Jones, and since this was the first movie Spielberg ever saw...I have to wonder. 2nd: Jimmy Stewart plays a clown. Jimmy Stewart has what is possibly the most ridiculous voice in the history of acting, and this was the one time that I've seen where he toned it down for a part. I find this very amusing. 3rd: there was a line in the movie where I was about to blurt out "that's what she said!" only to have a snarky woman in the movie give a 50s era implied "that's what she said." This was hilarious because it was 1952, the era of good wholesome movies. Amazing! That one line was literally worth sitting through the rest of the movie. Almost. There's a lot more plot in there than I give it credit for, true, but there's still too much fluff. And if you're going to foreshadow someone falling to their death from the trapeze, make sure they actually do. That's how Chekov's trapeze is supposed to work. But no, DeMille seemingly figured that if he pumped enough budget and extras into a movie, it'll be good all on its own. He was 50s James Cameron. I'm not alone in my thoughts. My dad, who is a fan of old movies almost exclusively, said it wasn't very good. And it was given the equivalent of an honorary Razzie award in a book written by one of the guys who gives out the Razzies nowadays. McCarthy did a lot of things that were of questionable morality. Propelling this to Best Picture over High Noon and Moulin Rouge? Probably the worst.

Kidding! I normally like to let my sarcasm sit and fester, but you know...sore spots. I've actually already seen most of 1951 for whatever reason. Actually the reason is that I like to keep my Netflix disc queue moving and I watch Instant Watch movies less often because I can watch them anytime. If that makes sense. Anyway, next year promises to be rant-inducing like always. All I know for now is it will include one of the most iconic performances in film history, the most gorgeous starlet in film history, and the most excessive scene in film history.

1953: The Year that The Might of Rome Created Widescreen

This is a very exciting year for me because it includes the first movie to ever be released in widescreen. Which means it includes the last movie that I'll ever have to worry about in terms of aspect ratio. I have lost count of the number of times Netflix has sent me a fullscreen version of a movie, ergo forcing me to procure it from the InterWeb. Because I believe that even if a movie is crap, it should be viewed in the correct manner of crappiness that the director intended. Well from this moment onward, I don't need to worry about it. Other than that, this is a fairly ordinary year. Better than I expected in some ways. But there's a lot of over-the-top mess that needs to be addressed. There'll be some insulting of Shakespeare in here as well, which is always one of my favorite activities.

And as luck would have it that's exactly where we begin: with Julius Caesar. I always loved the post-assassination speeches from this one, especially the famous Antony one. I read them before ever reading the play itself and thought they were great. Then I read the actual play and thought it sucked except for the speech. Then I saw the Charlton Heston movie and thought it sucked except for the speech and the fact that Diana Rigg was in it. Then I saw this one and all I could think about was how much Diana Rigg wasn't in it. To be fair, Brando does deliver Antony's speech quite excellently. As one would expect. But my problems with the movie are really problems with the play itself. To begin with: I strongly believe that ol' Billy Shakes put a tremendous amount of time into the big speeches, and then exactly as much time to the other 90% of the play. Because the rest just feels like filler for the speeches. And even though Antony is the "hero" of the piece, he's barely in it until Caesar gets stabbed. And Caesar himself is barely in it until after he gets stabbed. Figure that one out. The entire first half is people meeting and going "hey we're still going to kill Caesar right?" "yep, toodles!" I think a few people might have expectorated some dissent in there, but I don't care enough to wonder any further. I think since everyone back then wanted a 4-hour show, that's what you had to give them. I realize it's a mark of the time. But you can't say, "well yes it's mostly filler but that's the way it was back then so it doesn't lessen his talent." Well you can, but I'd disagree. I'd say Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi is the greatest movie of all time. For $7,000 that is. As a movie in general...meh. Dante wrote with subtlety while still being grand. Shakespeare beats his dialogue to death pretty often, like a time-traveling Aaron Sorkin fanboy. So I understand the context, but that doesn't change the fact that it's overdone to the extreme. And then there's the Macbeth factor. It's subtle and fantastic and there's an actual character progression there for several characters (unlike a certain melancholy Dane who pouts for 4 hours). So I know he can do subtle and it was at least somewhat favorable back then. Knowing these things, this play feels like the best thing that he could write on an empty stomach between when Good Morning America ends and NCIS begins. The film itself does nothing to make any of these issues better or worse, except perhaps shortening the initial length of the piece. That's always merciful.

Just when I thought something couldn't get more overt than the movie I've just described, along comes The Robe. It makes The Ten Commandments look like 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of subtlety. It's the first movie to ever be released in widescreen, which is pretty cool. But I'd say that makes it the Avatar of 1953. Because though it might've been a technical achievement back then, it doesn't hold up much today. It's SO over-the-top that I was literally laughing during parts of it. At one point, the main character has what is initially an interesting conversation with Judas just after he betrayed Jesus. It's fairly clear that it's Judas. And then the main dude says "what's your name fellow?" And he goes: "...Judas." And then you hear this KER-CHA-CHOW! of thunder and see lightning flash. Wow...just wow. They almost resurrected it (ha! that's what Jesus did!) by having him walk towards a tree in the background, which is where he hangs himself, but then they ruin it by having him walk towards it for about 3 hours. WE GET IT. There's a lot more thunder and lightning nonsense later when Jesus is being crucified and Demetrius receives the titular robe. "The Titular Robe" of course coincidentally being the name of Kim Kardashian's new line of nightwear. Nawwwwww but, the robe used to be owned by Jesus and it has magic powers or something. The main guy was part of the Roman unit that crucified Jesus and then he's haunted by it for the rest of the movie. The end of the movie is a full five years after Jesus came back from the dead so I guess he missed the memo. Given that this and Ben-Hur (which gets everything right that this gets wrong) both have characters who experience Jesus' life from a behind-the-scenes point of view, I think there should have been a TV show with the two of them. Every week they could try to warn Jesus about getting killed and they'd fail and hilarity would ensue. Anyway, there are much worse movies that I've seen than this but it's not particularly great either. It was the first widescreen though. And for that, we who are about to die: salute it.

Next up is a far less monumental Roman Holiday. Ahhhhh see what I did there? It's notable for being the first movie in which the unfathomably adorable Audrey Hepburn starred. And she won Best Actress for it, though I'm not sure why. The whole thing played like an unusually well-done made-for-TV movie. One that could afford Gregory Peck for some reason. He wasn't a good choice for the role I don't think. He was a great actor but he was always so imposing. It says it's supposed to be a romantic comedy but it plays like more of a melodrama simply because Peck couldn't really do comedy. He was in this because he wanted to change his image but I don't think it worked too well. Plus he was a bit old to be wooing Audrey I think. Because even though she was 24 at the time I think she's supposed to be playing 17 or something like that. And their relationship was more playful than sexual (although who knows what off-screen antics were meant to be implied) but the fact remains that they didn't really have that much chemistry in that way. And then since she's a princess and he's not part of the country they can't be together and at the end they have to pretend not to know each other. Sad. Ah well, I suppose she'll have to settle for one of the other men who are interested in her. Which would be lit-trally all of them on the face of the planet. One interesting thing I read online was that they chose to film in Black and White because they didn't want the beautiful scenery of Italy to take away from the characters. That's a fascinating thought since almost everything today is obviously in color. But it makes me think we could be using B&W a lot more these days, and to great effect. All of that being said, I'm not sure why the movie started off with several minutes of showing Italy's beautiful scenery. It wasn't a drag to sit through as a movie but it wasn't very good either.

A movie I highly disliked in 7th grade but had more respect for this time around is Shane. I had an interesting experience watching this because I wasn't sure if there were deeper meanings to some of the scenes or not. For instance, it opens with this kid aiming his gun at a deer. And then Shane approaches on horseback. Well as soon as I see someone pointing a gun at an animal I'm thinking: will he miss and it'll be a metaphor for inadequacy like in No Country for Old Men? Will this be bookended and juxtaposed with a later scene like The Deer Hunter? As it turned out: it was pretty much just a kid in the Old West pointing a gun at a deer. An unloaded gun as it were. Which I guess symbolizes his innocence, as juxtaposed with Shane's shadowy and probably violent past. Ah! See? There was something there. This movie does a really good job of keeping almost everything subtle, which makes me even more mad at other films of the age that weren't subtle. For instance: the mom definitely has her tumbleweeds tumbling for Shane. But they never really say that outright. In other movies I've watched they'd mention it to death. And I like that Shane's past is never really delved into either. Other movies would have him sitting by the fireplace, smoking and drinking, and telling some story with a sour face about how he murdered Indians or stole some kid's waffle fries in Poughkeepsie or something. I do think the big famous final scene is a little overdone (over-done?), and the bar-fight (barfight?) is a bit much, and the music is a little too Norman Rockwell in its tone in some of the more intense scenes. Oh and the bad guy is a little too much of a mustache-twirler. This is pre-Vader though obviously so we'll allow it. And I'd rather only have those minor complaints than a whole movie full of over-the-top mess. So there you go. I change my mind about stuff. I open my mind about stuff. These facts should legitimize my 50+ years of complaints.

Which brings us to this year's winner which I mercifully enjoyed: From Here to Eternity. This movie was filled with a lot of the things I don't like from movies of that era. From schlocky romance to unexplained character decisions/traits to, well...schlocky romance. But the difference is that I think this film knew exactly how goofy some of those plotlines were and that was their exact point. Because the movie is about these guys in the military who are stationed in Hawaii in the days before Pearl Harbor was bombed. So there's this air of doom hanging over the entire film that makes even the most hammy of love scenes seem tragic and suspenseful. I was a little disappointed by the famous beach make-out scene because if I had looked down to check the time I probably would've missed it. Over-hype. But I realize that it was the "draw me like one of your French girls, Jack" of 1953 so we'll give it a pass on the grounds of generational depravity. There are some other scenes that would've been better if they had been allowed to go dark but I understand that things were different back then. For instance, there's a scene where the main guy goes to get revenge for Frank Sinatra dying. It would've played better if he had just stabbed the killer but instead they have this little fight and the guy dies off-camera. Which is fine I guess, but not as good. I also like that even though the main character patently refuses to box for the military, even though that will make his life easier, we never find out why. Because it doesn't matter. The love stories don't come to the conclusion you'd expect because everything changed when the bombs dropped. And that was the point of the whole movie. To hook you in with these other stories and then completely change the game in a second. After a whole movie of guys trying to get out of the military or making fun of commanding officers, at the end the soldiers are upset when they can't go fight and die for their country. I also love that the title comes from a Kipling quote: "Gentlemen-rankers on the spree, damned from here to eternity." Anytime someone gives you part of a quote because the whole quote would be too "on the nose," I respect that. Love it. No spoilers, I think the end of the movie with the two women should've been played in less of a (what I deemed to be) "tee-hee!" type of fashion. I would've made it understated, but it was Mr. Zinnemann's prerogative to end it how he pleased I guess. Overall: good stuff.

Well that wasn't a bad year, all things considered. I'm progressing through these years a whole lot slower than an unemployed person should. That's because I watch like 70 TV shows or some crazy number like that. But I'm trying. I only have two movies left for 1952 and then I can put that one up, so maybe it won't be long. All I know for now is that it will include Robin Hood in the role of Ben-Hur's Jesus, gun-toting Quakers, and some pretty serious repercussions stemming from the dropping of a titular exclamation mark.

1954: The Year that Coulda Been a Contender

I'm going to go ahead and assume this was another one of those years where the winner was so obvious that they nominated some other movies by some kind of arbitrary selection process. Like names in a hat. Or headless chickens on a giant selection wheel. One of those. Certainly no other options. Actually, this blog is a landmark for two reasons. One is that my Internet-moronic self has figured out how to add links (which means I have to go back and add links to like 8 million entries now). And also because I'm going to get all faux-feminist on everybody. I usually chalk things up to "oh you know, it was a different time" whenever there's a borderline racist/sexist scene in these movies. But even I have my breaking points. Excited yet?

I wish I could've segued right into the movie I was talking about, but the alphabet demands I instead start with The Caine Mutiny. This reverse-reminded me of Mister Roberts actually. In fact, I think I was doing my 1955 write-up which included Mister Roberts when I was watching The Caine Mutiny, which is just way confusing. MR is a "heart-warming comedy" about a Navy dude that stands up to his oppressive commander and then gets relocated and killed. TCM is a drama about a Navy dude who stands up to his questionably oppressive commander, takes him to Naval court, loses, and probably gets kicked out. I mean...they're not even kind of different. It's like comparing two Steven Seagal sequels. I would definitely say that TCM is the better of the two, because it at least tries to be serious. But it's also worse in the sense that the commander wasn't really that crazy. He was played by Bogart for one thing, so you already like him more than everybody else. In addition, it made it seem like the guy going after him was just really paranoid. Which would be fine if they addressed that he was paranoid. Instead, we're asked to sympathize with his journey to oust a man who only "might be a little crazy" and then have the Naval court basically tell him he didn't have a case. Well that's a realistic outcome. But what's the point of the movie then? It's well-acted but still a bit too long. People are always telling me how short movies back then were. Where are they? Maybe the arbitrary nomination requirement was "anything over two hours." There's definitely a lot of star power in the movie, but to be honest...that didn't mean as much back then. And it certainly didn't mean as much in the 40s, 30s, and so on. The reason being that a lot of these actors just worked for film companies and starred in whatever they were told to star in. Plus, movies filmed in like two weeks or something crazy. So big time actors were in a lot of stuff. So did Bogart do a much better job in this role than a lot of other people would've? Certainly. Does that mean it's a great movie? Not really. It's a "solid" movie though. I'll say that.

A movie I wish I'd paid more attention to is The Country Girl. From the title, does it sound like something that is A) something I'd enjoy or B) something that requires my full attention? Nope! And its plot description doesn't make it sound too interesting either. As it turned out, the film is actually pretty interesting. It's about an alcoholic actor who is washed up and gets a role that might be a chance to get his career back on track. So why does it have the title it does? I'm not sure because I missed the title drop, if there was one. I do know that it refers to Grace Kelly's character, who is a sort of living MacGuffin. I was thinking about making "MacGuffin" a link to explain what it is, but that would be too easy. Can't go explaining all of my references. Now allow me to explain my reference: a MacGuffin is something that drives the plot without really being super important within it. So basically, every James Bond villain plot ever. Why did the bad guy go to Venice? So that Bond could have a nifty Venice chase scene! So in this movie Grace Kelly is both the most important and least important person. She kind of falls for this other actor who's not an alcoholic (which is a plus). But in the end she decides to stick with the schmo because we all know that when alcoholics quit drinking it's for realsies and they never relapse right? It was a good movie up until that BS ending. And it also had what I thought was a fantastic line: "they all start out as Juliets and end up Lady Macbeths." I want to put that on a t-shirt and make millions by selling it to nice guys in college who aren't "edgy" enough for the lehdays. It will further damage their dating chances but they will love it. Anyway, this film caused a big upset when Grace Kelly won Best Actress. There's a whole story online about how Judy Garland was expected to win and all of the drama surrounding it. I haven't seen her movie, but since Grace Kelly essentially mopes around for an hour and forty while Bing Crosby and William Holden act around her, I'd say the uproar was appropriate. So yeah it's an interesting film that's kind of like a slightly different The Lost Weekend, which I will review in 9 blog years. Not much new ground broken, but certainly better than the Rom-Dram I was expecting it to be.

And herein lies the sexism, with Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. Holy. Freaking. Crap. Let me begin by saying that the Eddie Cantor song "The Dumber They Are" is one of my favorite songs because it's so terrible and misogynistic that it's hilarious to me. Because I have a dark sense of humor. My favorite episode of Seinfeld is the one where Jerry steals the marble rye from an old lady. He's stealing bread from an old lady! That's possibly a felony! And he's doing it to help George with his future in-laws! Genius. Dark and genius. But this movie is just messed up. Granted, it's a goofy musical of the 50s. So it's not meant to be really serious. But this is like if Michael Bay directed a 50s musical. All of the dance sequences are SO over-the-top and the plot elements are really messed up but they're treated casually. Just like Michael Bay movies. Basically, this dude legit rides into town (he's a mountain man, no hyperbole) and takes a woman. Not woos a woman. Not sings a love ballad to a woman with implied wooing. He freaking TAKES her. Like in Taken. He would be the taker that Liam Neeson is voice-pwning over the phone. Then his six brothers get jealous and they ALL TAKE MORE WOMEN. Let me explain this again. All seven main characters take seven women from town, Viking style, and make them their wives. And they sing about it! And then the guys in town are mad because these women they had intended on wooing have been kidnapped. We're supposed to view the angry townspeople as villains, even though they're trying to save kidnapped women from crazed mountain men. It's probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life. If I was making a movie making fun of movies like this, I would make this movie. I don't want to be mistaken for someone who is socially conscious and who cares about if people are offended, but this is offensive. Seriously. On the bright side, it might have single-handedly started the Women's Rights Movement. It would not surprise me.

A movie that's at least less offensive, even if it's not much better, is Three Coins in the Fountain. I may or may not have been playing Ocarina of Time on my 3DS about halfway through this movie. I'd like to tell you that I missed something by only half paying attention. But I didn't. And I checked the detailed TCM description to be sure. It's about three women who throw coins in a fountain (yes the metaphor is personified right from the getgo, I am also nauseated) wishing for love. It's in Italy anyway, so the scenery is nice. Oh sorry, I started talking about the scenery before I finished explaining the plot: all three of them find love. Spoilers! Forgot to warn about that. Of course, as the Netflix description says: "it happens in unexpected ways!" Well, it happened at all. Which isn't unexpected. Know what would've been cool? A harsh-ish study in fate where only two of their coins landed heads up or something and those two ended up finding love but the third did not. Did she fail to find love because that's what fate had in store for her or did she fail because she instigated a self-fulfilling prophecy? Interesting right? Lots better than this drivel. Even the opening song (sung beautifully by Sinatra, easily the only highlight) sort of implies that not everyone gets a happy ending. Then everyone does! Like 50s Rom-Com Shyamalan. It's not because I want everything to be depressing (although that's part of it), it's that I hate when movies essentially announce their intentions to you and then deliver. Or worse: announce a vaguely interesting intention and then don't do that. Actually, announcing your intentions and delivering can be fine. As long as that's not the whole point of the movie. But there's no B story here and no real suspense or surprise. Even my dad questioned its nomination and he loves old movies. So while it's true that I might be too cynical and biting to enjoy the movie at all, I think many can agree that this is a questionable choice for a nominee.

Which makes it differ from this year's absolutely deserving winner: On the Waterfront. Even today this plays as a fairly intense movie. Not because of the visible violence but for the violent themes within the film. Right from the beginning there's an undertone of suspense. We see Brando delivering a pigeon to a man, knowingly leading him to the roof and unknowingly leading him to his demise. The love interest in the movie is that dead man's sister. So you're like 10 minutes into the movie and the main character is dating the sister of the guy he indirectly killed. That's. Awesome. I should've known from Leonard Bernstein's music score that things were about to get hairy (just as I thought the music was a bit much, a dude up and gets thrown off a roof). The man was killed for coming forward to testify against the mob of sorts that had sprouted among the waterfront unions. Brando plays a man who used to be a prize fighter, until he threw a fight to help his brother out. This is revealed in the famous "contender" scene in the back of the car. Some say it was mostly ad-libbed. Some say the opposite. I say: who cares? It's a great scene! It relies heavily upon one of my favorite themes throughout fiction: the idea that someone could end up somewhere they're not supposed to be. That perhaps their destiny was one place, until a series of events knocked them off-course. Which is why my favorite line in the new Star Trek movie was "James Kirk was a great man, but that was another life." Can Kirk still be a great man even though his life didn't turn out the way it was supposed to? The answer there is yes. And in this movie Brando's character, Terry Malloy, ends up becoming far more important to society than he could have ever been as a fighter. So maybe he was right where he was supposed to be after all. The film is teeming with great actors and is directed by Elia Kazan, one of the all-time best directors. And I'd say it's probably his best work. Lit-trally everyone should watch this movie. It's powerful without being sappy and thought-provoking without being overly complex. It also doesn't overstay its welcome at a cool hour and forty-eight minutes. Just pointing that out.

Well that's it for 1954, not the most memorable year but I had the winner memorized years ago because it's one of my favorites. The fact that it was the winner, not the whole movie. That would be crazy. It feels good to be back, but I'm glad I took some time off. It was nice to watch a bunch of stuff that I didn't have to dissect to death. But now my batteries are re-charged and my war on the Academy continues. I don't know how good or bad 1953 is. All I know for now is it will include Romans killing Jesus, Romans killing Caesar, and Romans making out or something.

Quick Rant: A Non-Farewell to Arms and a Shakespeare Shout-Out

Well I've been on sabbatical for about a month from my journey backwards through The Oscars. Because sociological time travel can take its toll on you. I had watched so many movies from the 50s in close succession that I was coming dangerously close to calling women "doll" and then sharing my cigarette with them whilst ordering around my portrayed-in-a-borderline-racist-way elderly black female maid. Either that or I was taking a few weeks to re-watch all of Fringe, The Vampire Diaries, and Parks and Recreation. You decide. Either way, I'm back now (in black, in the saddle, and in the day). So today I am resuming my quest to watch every Best Picture nominee in history. And lambast them as needed. I'll also throw in some "quick rants" like this one that will deal with things that are very philisophically interesting as pertaining to media. Or that will talk about TV shows with cool explosions. Hopefully both. So keep an eye out tomorrow for my 1954 post, which I promise will contain enough pop culture references and hyperbolic insults to society (both modern and 50s era) that you'll hardly know I'm talking about movies you've never heard about.

I'd also like to take a second to direct you toward a guest piece that I wrote for some friends of mine who put on a great Shakespeare show in New York. They're called The Tempest Ladies and they basically achieve the impossible by putting on a Shakespeare show that I felt like sitting through. Don't be suspicious because of how optimistic I sound in the write-up, it really is me. I do enjoy things on occasion. So give the post and the accompanying trailer a look and check them out if you're in NYC. I'm looking at you, 58 page views from Russia who probably vacation here as Soviet spies on occasion! So anyway, here's the link: http://oneproducerinthecity.typepad.com/one_producer_in_the_city/2011/09/awesome-person-thursday-the-tempest-ladies.html

I hope you enjoy, and I will see you back here tomorrow (all 3 and counting of you!) for some 50s craziness.

1955: The Year that Was Basically Gossip Girl Minus Blake Lively

I actually don't watch Gossip Girl and have never seen it so I suppose I can't be using it too effectively as a means to make fun of stuff. But what I do know is that I'd probably intensely dislike all the melodrama, but it'd possibly be worth it to ogle Blake Lively. If my unemployment ever reaches a staggering second year, I'll watch the full run of the show and make a lot of subsequent jokes about myself. But for now, we'll have to settle with the 3(!) melodramas from this year to make fun of. Luckily I'm a big fan of the winner, so it's not all negative.

We begin with Love Is A Many-Splendored Thing. Do I normally capitalize words like "is" and "a?" I'm not certain...it's kind of bothering me. Like, a lot. I'm just that way. It's going to be tough writing about these because I have the exact same complaints about all three of them and I'd like to parcel it out beforehand but I've never done an outline for a research paper (let alone a blog entry). And before you ask: yes I got all As on my research papers. Past a certain point in my education cycle anyway. Okay...so the movie. It's about two ill-fated lovers. One of whom is in the military and one of whom is half-Asian. And it's the era when that love would be looked down upon anyway, but certainly during the aftermath years of World War II. And one of them is a widow and one of them is still married or something...I forget. Yes, he's married (I've just remembered without Wikipedia, I'm proud of myself). Because he asks her out and she's like "aren't you married?" and he's all "so?" and she goes "tee hee!" Then before you know it, they're both willing to spit in the face of societal norms and put themselves in possibly actual physical danger by being together. There must have been some seriously X-Rated banging going on off-screen because all we see them do is have tea like once and then they're madly in love. And there's my sole complaint of all of these types of films. They never sell the romance. They go right from barely knowing each other to moving heaven and earth to be together in about the time it'd take you to check the movie's IMDB Trivia section (true story). It should take most of the movie for them to get together, or they should already be together at the beginning. If I were to apply the same level of development to a crime drama: Michael Corleone would kill the heads of the five families because one of them stepped on his shoe once. It's jumping straight into the plot where the movie needs to go without having sufficient reason to be there. Especially when you've got things like racial tension going on, you REALLY have to have some good reasons for the two to be a couple. Beyond the reason that they're both attractive. Plenty of attractive people out there. And I'm not super sure who Jennifer Jones is/was/whatever but she was definitely hot enough to snag whoever. Just saying. Then he goes to war and dies. So they put them together for no reason, tore them apart for no reason, and I'm sure everyone ate it up and loved it because it was at least more drama than they were getting on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet. In closing: good performances. Great music. Not much to work with though.

A flawed but certainly much better film is Mister Roberts. It sounds like the heartwarming tale of an old curmudgeon who befriends his young next door neighbor, thus revealing his inner humanity, and then dies having let go of the pains of his past. But it's not. I wish I still had the Netflix slip cover with the plot description, because it was absurdly inaccurate. It said it was a heartwarming movie about the triumph of blah blah or something. It's actually a fairly serious movie with comedic undertones. Very much like most stage plays, and it is unsurprisingly based on one. Stage plays always try to make people laugh, even if it's way dark, because a laughing audience is an engaged audience. It's a bit of an odd movie because it has two directors, one of whom is John Ford, and Jimmy Cagney is the bad guy but it's sort of a comedic role. It's lost in the space between comedy in drama. It's kind of in that awkward 90th minute stage that most comedies nowadays hit where things get all dramatic, except that's the whole movie. It's definitely good though. With Cagney and Henry Fonda and the rest of the cast it would have been tough to screw up. It's the usual story: the commander of the ship is a bit crazy and so the hero of the movie has to stand up to him while simultaneously keeping the crew in line. I added too much detail for it to be a "usual story" but it's actually crazy similar to the 1954 movie I'm watching now (which at least knows it's a drama). But the story of the chain of command getting in the way and having the moral quandary of duty vs. "the right thing to do" was even old in 1955. Not to say that makes the movie bad or not enjoyable or poorly written. Because it's not. Although it is a bit too long for what it is, I will say that. But it's a bit like watching a good episode of Law and Order. It's enjoyable and you don't expect much from it. But if it suddenly got nominated for an Emmy for that episode you'd say "wait...what?" 1955 seems like a dull year. Even the winner, which I quite like, is a small and cute movie. Maybe with all the gravitas of 1954's winner and quite possibly some of the other nominees (we'll see) they wanted some fodder this year. I don't know. But there's not much more I can really say, other than that if you see this movie on TV then give it a watch. It's a good way to spend your time, even if it's not the best way.

Continuing with the melodrama is Picnic. At least Kim Novak was a hottie. I was already a fan of hers from Vertigo (a FANTASTIC movie that is brilliantly directed by Hitchcock. See it anywhere on my blog as a nominee? No? It was among the first films to be Dark Knight-ed). The whole movie is basically a big picnic, as the title would suggest, and the various melodramatic goings-on. There's the young girl looking to break free from her family, the middle-aged woman who can't let go of the past, the older dude who's lonely for whatever reason, blah blah. They essentially have a character for everyone in the audience to empathize with. Not "recognize with" mind you, as that would be the quite incorrect way to phrase that (contrary to my previous posts). But the whole thing is so pointless. Because you know where a lot of it is going and all of the acting is so over-the-top and soap opera esque. Not to say the actors in it are bad in other things because they're not. But Academy Award winner Frances McDormand was in Transformers 3 and she was really stupid in it. It happens. Wikipedia says it was praised at the time for being a richly detailed snapshot of the Midwest in the 50s. Well I sincerely hope that they just mean in terms of atmosphere and not in terms of character archetypes. Although they probably mean both in some ways. I'll admit that it's difficult for me to tell what the film's intentions are with regards to certain characters. So I don't know if it's trying to be ironic at times or if it is actually meant to be taken seriously. Because since there's such a gap in my mind between societal norms today and societal norms back then, it's basically impossible for me to view it within the intended contexts. Which is the mark of a not great movie in many cases. There should be more to a film than just zeitgeist and angst. Zeitgeist and angst is another possible title for my autobiography, I'll write that down. Anyway, the most ridiculous point comes at the end when Kim Novak (who's playing an 18-year-old I think) decides to run off with William Holden (who's older and has been around the block a few times. You know, the euphemism-y kind of block). Her mother tells her something along the lines of: "you know he's just going to cheat on you and toss you aside when he gets bored!" To which she replies: "nobody's perfect mother!" When Billy Wilder ended his brilliant Some Like It Hot with that same line (sans mother) it's hilarious. Because it's so absurd. But this is played COMPLETELY seriously. So I'm sitting there thinking to myself: "this is the happy ending to the movie? The teenage girl running off with a dude who she reasonably expects might cheat on her?" So what's the point of all that? Don't know. Don't really care. I give them points for helping to move the cinemascope format forward (which was new at the time) but it's a bit of an odd movie for it. Just saying.

A slightly-better-but-still-melodramatic movie is The Rose Tattoo. What's with these titles? Tattoos and picnics and off-brand Mr. Rogers. They sound even more boring than the movies actually are, which is impressive. This one is about an old Italian lady dealing with the death of her husband and being really restrictive of her younger daughter, who is trying to live a life of her own. See a trend here? It's not even the 60s and there's been a whole lot of moonbeam-y mess. Somebody can't let go of the past, somebody else can't grasp the future, and I'm sure somebody had present issues too. Probably all of them, elsewise it would've been a strange 2001 precursor. So the old Italian lady's husband dies in an accident. Then she finds out he had been cheating on her. Then she becomes a misanthrope and prevents her daughter from living her life. Then she changes her mind after some scenery gets devoured and everybody is happy at the end. And somewhere in there are two tattoos of roses on various people and I'm sure they represent something profound like life or anti-monasticism or something. I remember reading somewhere, and I wish I could remember where, that people really took to the movie because they had never seen breasts as big as Anna Magnani's before (she's the middle-aged biddy). Really? Really 1950s? This does support my theory for why Titanic won so many awards and why it made so much money, but the 50s is supposed to be better than that. And it's not like there were a bunch of terrible looking women in movies back then. They were classy, top-of-the-line hotties and great actresses. I'd take a 30s-50s starlet over any actress today any day of the week (except Annie from Community). The movie is a little too serious if you ask me. If you don't balance out the serious with some humor then the whole thing becomes melodrama. For instance, other films that I enjoy which also feature the same few people bickering in a few rooms for two hours are Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and The Lion in Winter. In the latter, there are actual things at stake so that helps. But in the former there's basically nothing at stake. It's still really good. Because it's funny at times, and the acting is better, and the writing is better, and everything is better. It balances itself out well. The scenes have some variety. I think that's what gets to me the most. Films like Tattoo seem to consist of the same two conversations over and over again. It might as well just be "can I?" "No!" "Can I?" "No!" (final two minutes) "Can I?" "Well, okay. Molto bene!" Cue credits. They consist of two characters having the same prolonged conversation and one of them finally giving up. There's more to it of course, but nothing particularly interesting.

Thankfully, this year's winner is our savior: Marty. Now here is a great movie that happens to be about basically nothing. It has no major consequences and doesn't concern anything too important. But it's really excellent, and also the shortest movie ever to win Best Picture I might add. I can't stress enough how great that is. In today's movies (and even starting in the 60s) when he decides to go call the girl after all there would be 40 more minutes of movie with more canned drama. But instead it leaves us with the idea that they'll live happily ever after and that's PLENTY. No need to overstay your welcome. As Jonathan Swift once said, "I apologize for the length of this letter. I didn't have the time to write a short one." I love that. Not that I follow that particular philosophy on my blog of course (although in some ways I do). But if I was making a movie or show, I absolutely would. The movie is also very funny. It captures the type of nonsensical dialogue of guys sitting around deciding what to do. They basically talk about nothing and keep repeating the same nothing. Paddy Chayefsky really nailed it with the dialogue. And then Marty, who gets grief from everybody about when he's going to get married, finally has a nice time with a lovely woman who other people just label "a dog." But as he says at the end, "I had a nice time! Who cares what she looks like? I think she's beautiful and I had a great time last night!" See, the film deals with some very recognizable issues but it doesn't shove them in your face. You instantly recognize the point being made without the movie telling you straight out. Because everyone has experienced situations where people give you advice about things and you discover that you should really just decide things for yourself. Or situations where you realize that the people you're hanging around with are no good and it's time for a change. His life is filled with guys talking about nothing and old Italian ladies talking about how everything sucks and everybody's dead that they knew. But they manage to make it hilarious! There are undertones of seriousness but it's truly funny. I'd call it a "delightful" film. That's the exact word I'd use. For what it is, they couldn't have made it any better.

Well I'm looking down the list of 1954 nominees and it's already more interesting just from the titles alone. So I hope it won't let me down. Because this year was just a complete mess. Peyton Place times 3 basically. The winner for '54 is already one of my favorites of all time, so it's already a better year. Hopefully the rest of the year will follow suit. All I know for now is that it will contain seven weddings, three bachelorettes, and one failed contender.

Quick Rant: "Historical Accuracy" in Fiction and Why It's Stupid

I was thinking about writing a Facebook note today about this very subject, but then I thought: why not share it with the whole world? Or at least the quark of a percentage of it that reads the blog. The concept I'll be addressing today is not just historical accuracy but some aspects of "realism" in general that some internet people like to attack. So I hope you enjoy the visual sound of my voice as much as I do.

Right then, I'll start by talking about an aspect of fiction that I always keep in mind but that few others do. What you're watching isn't our world. No matter how much it looks like our world or tries to feel like our world, it isn't. Now of course you're sitting there and thinking "umm...this is true..." and wondering if I've finally lost my tenuous grip on reality. Everyone knows it's not our world because they're watching it on TV or on a movie screen, but they don't really think about all the implications that go along with that knowledge. And I'll use an unusual example: The Office. People have complained because the characters often go to Chili's to eat (and for the Dundies) but there apparently is not a Chili's in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Know what else isn't really in Scranton? Dunder Mifflin. And you can search far and wide for Toby Flenderson, H.R. Representative for Dunder Mifflin Scranton but I guarantee you won't find him. Because he doesn't exist. But what else does that mean? It means that his parents don't exist either. In fact, every single person in his bloodline from today and back to the beginning of time is an implied fictional character. Which means that the world of the show is probably at least a little different from ours, since there are thousands of people in it stretching throughout history who never existed in our world. And they all interacted with the world around them and changed it. That's just Toby's lineage. Add to that the histories of every other character on The Office that has ever been, whether they be regular, recurring, guests, or just extras. Add to that characters who are mentioned but never seen, such as the founding members of Dunder Mifflin (although we did meet one of them) and Michael's former boss who died off-screen in one episode. Every single one of those people adds thousands of ancestors to the world's history. Which would make their world pretty freaking different from ours. So is it not possible that at some point one of those people butterfly effect-ed a Chili's into Scranton, Pennsylvania?

As Neo would say: whoa.

Now, obviously none of this was in the minds of the people involved with the show (except maybe Rainn Wilson). But it speaks to a lot of common complaints that people have about a lot of shows and they always annoy me. All that matters is continuity within the show itself. There was a similar complaint during 24 that the D.C. Metro station didn't look like the actual one in real life. My snarky answer to that is: really? They couldn't halt transportation in the most important city in the world for a whole day to film two scenes of a TV show? Shocking. But if you take into account what I just explained then it means even more here. After all, not only are there a lot of major world events on 24 that never happened in real life, but there are also a lot more characters from a lot more countries. This fundamentally changes a ton about that fictional universe to set it aside from ours. So I'd say the Metro can look different and it makes sense. As I said, what matters is the continuity within the show or movie. I would hope that their version of the D.C. Metro looks the same from episode to episode. Did Hitler really die the way he did in Inglourious Basterds? Obviously not. Could he have been if the Basterds had existed? I'd say yeah.

That brings me to the historical aspect of things. I don't think they should soil a good man's name needlessly so I wouldn't be a fan of a portrayal of Abe Lincoln as a pedophile since there's obviously no evidence to support this. But if you can look at a person a few different ways or interpret their actions to suit the artistic vision of your movie, I say go for it. And putting more emphasis on the style of dress of the time or the types of teacups they used rather than on the story itself is crazy. Both would be nice, but if I had to pick one I'd pick the story. I also think we should be free to make things like Inglourious Basterds which completely just change things and go for it. Because honestly, if you believe the events of the movie then I think your mental state is more a danger to the country than the movie is. And for me, it's the equivalent of someone in 2051 watching the caricatured version of President Bush in Transformers and then saying "but wait a second! He was a real President but I can't find anything in my school textbook about these Decepticons!" None of it is real and thus the filmmakers should have some freedom. Movies like Schindler's List are obvious exceptions, since it is intended to educate as well as tell a story. But if all you're doing is spinning an artistic yarn, you should be able to do so to the best of your ability without people whining about how many buttons are on Union Soldier Number 6's waistcoat.

In case you couldn't tell, I dislike people on the internet who make comments about stuff. But I think this shows that I spend more time thinking about a great many things than they do. So if you hear someone complaining about a great show like The Sopranos because the real Satriale's Deli has a bigger selection than the one on the show, I'd be happy to rant to them in person.

1956: The Year that The King of Siam Let Moses' People Go

Now this was a pretty fun year! I hope my exclamation point doesn't imply that I enjoyed all of the nominees for this year. I don't think I have yet enjoyed all of a year's nominees and I certainly won't be starting with this one. But how about 2 1/2 out of 5? And actually since three of the nominees were over 3 hours long then that's not too bad! Of course, Netflix still cut off the last 15 seconds of one of them...some of us watch the credits Netflix! They've been sending me a lot of full screen stuff too lately. Know who shares my disdain? Roger Ebert. I haven't been in company this good since I learned that Quentin Tarantino is the second person after me who really likes Superman Returns. But I blather. Let's lovingly and brutally make hyperbolic jokes about good movies.

And also some bad ones, as always, which this time around is Friendly Persuasion. This was kind of a mess. My dad said so too and he usually lauds almost everything from this era. The premise is actually fairly interesting. It's about how a pacifist Quaker family copes with the Civil War and how they eventually support it. Sounds interesting right? Well like so many things, the real thing isn't what you thought it would be. And the suggestion of the idea is more fascinating than the idea itself. This was apparently Ronald Reagan's favorite movie and he loaned a copy to Gorbachev in the waning days of the Cold War. And this helped our cause for some reason. If it was me, I'd have loaned him Poltergeist II and said "tear down this wall or we'll make another one of these!" I was somewhat surprised to see that this was directed by William Wyler, a man who so expertly crafted Ben-Hur and several other Best Picture winners that I'll watch further down the road. It's instead directed with the type of silliness mixed with seriousness that John Ford used. Except it's not balanced as well as he did in say...The Searchers (WHICH came out in this year and was not nominated, one of the Academy's most egregious errors). I mean, it's a movie about people who are forced to rethink their entire philosophy after a series of harrowing events and the first scene in the movie depicts a quasi-anthropomorphic goose chasing a little kid around a farm. In fact, most of the film is spent sitting around being inane. And while you know that the Confederate army is drawing ever closer, and that adds an element of suspense, it doesn't come up enough throughout the film and there's no real payoff. Gary Cooper is the father so you're expecting him to go all Marshall Kane on the Confederates. I think he fights like one dude. His son is the one who joins the war effort, but only very briefly. And he joins up with a whole troup...so it's not like he really had to shoot at people. Instead of the film's message being "sometimes a series of events can be so dangerous and a man can be pushed so far that he will cease being a pacifist and become more warlike to defend his family," it was "even in the 1860s teenagers were rebellious." Seriously. The kid seemed like he wanted to fight because it was what all the cool kids were doing. So yeah, maybe the book does a better job of showing the slow and agonizing decisions that would lead a man to abandon his faith. But this didn't.

Thankfully I'm a little more positive about Giant. Although I just wish it wasn't like 3 hours and 20 minutes long. I was NOT expecting it to be that long at all. I thought it was an Instant Watch glitch. James Dean's other 2 films (which are WAY better I might add) are a respectable length and they're each appropriately dark. But you know what this reminded me of? Brace yourself: the fourth Harry Potter movie. Because both are trying to fit entirely too much material into a smaller time frame than it needs. You'd think over 3 hours would be enough time but there's no real flow. I can respect that they wanted to incorporate as much of the book as they could, and the book covers several generations of an oil baron family. Whereas in HP all you needed was an extra 15-20 minutes tops to fix the pacing problem, this should have been a miniseries. Or they could have just made the focus more on the characters and less on the overall story. Because no one really cares about a family that makes a bunch of money on oil and ends up owning an empire. What they care about is the personal toll that having such an empire takes on the people. What are the moral implications? Are they fully aware of said implications? Instead what we got was basically a series of vignettes showing the progress of the family over time. And James Dean does a fantastic job but he isn't in it nearly enough. On a side note: he didn't win the Oscar! The man was dead! It was his last chance! Jerks. His character is easily the best in the film, and even though they cast him as a villain the only villainous thing he seemed to do was lust after Rock Hudson's wife. The wife happened to be played by Elizabeth Taylor, the eternal hottie. If Mr. Dean wasn't attracted to her then there's something wrong with the continuity. Plus, all he does is call her pretty and stuff. He wasn't a jerk about it...but whatever. I liked the incorporation of anthems into the music score, but even my dad yelled down from upstairs: "how many times do they have to play 'the yellow rose of Texas?'" Almost as over-used as "Also Sprach Zarathustra" in 2001. Anyway, this is a well-filmed movie with great actors but they used some cinematic scatter shot when they should have focused on just a few stories.

A thankfully much better-flowing film is The King and I. This is a highly charming picture. I thought I was going to spend this entire write-up making jokes about how Russian-born Yul Brynner was playing an Asian king...but you know what? He actually looked the part. Normally with these things from this era, it's all too obvious that it's a white guy with tan makeup. But he looked the part, acted the part, and sang the part. I have absolutely no clue how. He had realistic mannerisms and everything. Sooooooooooo ahead of its time. Seriously. Normally performances like this from way back then are really dated and kind of take you out of it. Side note: at one point in the movie he starts talking about Moses, and he played Pharaoh in another nominee this year. Side side note: pharaoh is the most obnoxious word to spell, ever. This film has to work at its romance quite a bit more than other musicals of the time. Because instead of My Fair Lady where it's "we have to make you believe that someone would fall in love with Audrey Hepburn" this is more like "we have to make you believe that Deborah Kerr would fall for a crazy Asian monarch dude with like 600 bastard children." Way tougher. His performance is unexpectedly quirky and charming though. I laughed quite a bit more than I thought I would. And the songs aren't quite as superfluous as many other musicals of the time. In fact, I think the dialogue is a lot better than the song lyrics. Usually I'm just waiting for the musical numbers but this was quite the opposite. Now, I know I just said James Dean should've won but Yul Brynner definitely earned every bit of this Oscar. Which is why James Dean should've been nominated for Supporting Actor. He was a supporting character in that film, so why put him up against Brynner? I have no idea. Anyway, it's also refreshing that a lot of side characters and extras are actual Asians instead of just painted white people. It makes the scenes believable and not ridiculous, unlike a certain Elizabeth Taylor Egyptian fiasco. It's also unexpectedly sad at the end, which makes the film far more powerful and meaningful than its blue skies contemporaries. So a highly pleasant surprise overall. And Deborah Kerr was a hottie. Had to fit that in there.

If you liked Yul as a Siamese then you'll love him as an Egyptian in The Ten Commandments. If only he were in it more. Okay, here comes the film snobbery. I try to have a good balance of "hmm that's interesting cinematography" and "I enjoyed the attractive women and explosions" in my reviews. Because if you're just in one of those camps, you're missing out. But I get really snobby when something could've been so good and ended up being a mixed bag due to fixable mistakes. There were like four screenwriters and I felt like two of them were probably really good and two sucked. Because there are a lot of great scenes and great lines and also a lot of silly stuff. Okay, let's break it down. The film is shot in 1.85:1 (similar to HDTV shows today, widescreen but not super wide). This is a mistake. Films of an epic nature should be shot as widely as possible to give a sense of the grand scale (see: Lawrence of Arabia). Not only does it downplay some of the more grand scenes, the camera is too close to the people and the costumes and weapons look fake at times. Then there's the rear-screen projection. I'm a big fan of this filming trick. But here's a question: if you obviously filmed a scene actually in the hills nearby actual sheep, then why is there a dialogue scene right before it that's in front of a previously filmed scene of sheep and hills? They're obviously on a stage and it takes you out of the moment. But they were on location! Why not film those scenes outside like the others? And when Moses is revealing this massive statue construction to his father, it's also the two of them looking at a screen. There was no CGI back then so they clearly filmed actual actors doing the constructing. So why not film the Moses scene at the same location? Instead it just looks ludicrous, which is unfortunate because it could have been quite grand. The film makes other mistakes but I'll not mention them here. It's a real shame, because this was when stories from the Bible started to peter out. Whatever your religious affiliations, there are some truly great and epic stories in the Bible. You could make some crazy and gritty movies about it with blood and guts and boobs and all sorts of things. But nobody wants to anymore, so this was most of what we get. Certainly some moving scenes and I'm still a fan of most of the film but it could have been a lot more than it was.

Which brings us to a similar case, this year's winner: Around the World in 80 Days. This is kind of a fluff movie, but it's good fluff. They went on location for all of their scenes and there are some truly breathtaking shots. But here again: it could've been so much more. It spends too much time winking at the audience with all of its cameos and that dilutes the main characters to some extent. And one of the main guys is supposed to be French and played by a Mexican dude...talk about all the Mexican characters played by white guys and all this time there was a Mexican actor and they have him play a white guy? Love them 50s. Still, I enjoyed most of the film. I didn't like that at the end they had some canned drama that almost prevented him from winning, and he basically cheated to win too. Because they gained a day by crossing the international date line. So even though he arrived exactly 80 days later at the same spot, it took him 81 days. Get it? Cheater! But that's not a huge deal I guess, since the movie isn't totally serious. That's my only major qualm, aside from the fact that the only character motivation is: "I'm a rich British guy and in order to become richer I'm going around the world in 80 days for fun." I haven't read the book, but I would hope there's some more motivation there. That he needs the prize money, that he's in a race, etc. Something! But there are mostly positives about the film. It's a lot of fun and even though it's 3 hours long it keeps things fresh enough by moving around the world that it doesn't get dull. And the end credits are an awesome little short film all their own, definitely worth sitting through. I also like that it incorporated national anthems into its musical score. Britain's "theme music" never sounded so good. I thought it was odd that of all the American music to pick they picked "Yankee Doodle Dandy" though...and they have the "Mexican Hat Dance" for Mexico too. For the Mexican actor playing a Frenchman. Let that sink in. Of course, Moses in the other movie was basically a Gentile playing a Jew playing an Egyptian. So whatever. Oh! I've just remembered that this movie also began with an intro from Edward R. Murrow and clips from Georges Méliés A Trip to the Moon which was one of the first real movies. And YES I have seen it in its entirety. I'm legit. While this was cool and would have been cool before the movie, I don't like that it's officially part of the film. Because I'm a purist. And a film douche at times. Shirley Maclaine was a hottie in this. There you go. I'm dialing it back.

Well that year had some variety anyway. I like to make fun of different things instead of just complaining about British people prattling on all the time. I was a little harsher on some of these than I perhaps meant to be, and I liked them a lot more than I let on. But I criticize because I love. Someday I'll make a movie about Moses where he goes back and kills all the people that helped him out for 40 years (look it up, it's in the Good Book), thus making a lot of money off of controversy. And if a movie is 3 hours and 40 minutes and at least 2 1/2 hours are good then I guess that's okay. I can only hope that 1955 is as interesting. But somehow I don't think so. All I know for now is that it will include tattooed melodrama, picnicking melodrama, and interracial melodrama. Scandalous!

1957: The Year that Ron Swanson Ate Steak with Obi-Wan

That's right, this year's winner is apparently one of the favorites of Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation. He was fictionally born on my birthday you know. And it is indeed a great movie. Thankfully, it's not completely alone in being good for this year. There are some requisite stinkers as well and they tell me some interesting things about the progression of entertainment in this country. And since that particular film was a big soap opera, I'll probably spend more time on the societal implications than the film itself. But believe me: you're better off.

And look! We're talking about the soap opera already: Peyton Place. I really thought this would be later in the write-up but I guess it's kind of a wonky year in terms of alphabetization. Actually, I wanted to list another film first but Wikipedia didn't list it that way and I don't want to break my Wiki-pattern. Anyway, this movie is schmaltz to the Nth degree. Basically, it's the classic small town hiding secrets. Gasp! The nice town isn't all that it seems? People are actually messed up and not all nice and stuff? Shocker. What I find interesting is that a lot of critics smashed this movie at the time because they felt it was simply a lot of controversy thrown together to get attention rather than tell a story. So even though today it's basically a tame episode of Gossip Girl, back then it was scandal. And I'm glad there were those that recognized it for what it was. But it was a ginormous hit! Because apparently in 1957 a girl on screen talking vaguely about sex was tantemount to a Jessica Alba striptease. I would like to direct everyone to my 1997 write-up where I discuss why Titanic was such a huge hit (a clue: the answer is in the beginning of the title). It works today and it worked in 1957. By means of another for instance: the trailer for Cowboys and Aliens makes it look like Olivia Wilde gets naked. But the film's rating and her own Twitter account a year ago tell a different story. But they want you to think it's possible so that you'll go to see it. It's a delicate game they play, because you have to make a movie that's good enough to appease people looking to follow the plot and also has parts in it that make for a good trailer tease. I haven't seen the trailer for the 1957 nominee in question, but if they were similar at that time then I imagine the trailer was just the scene where the two teens talk about books about sex they purchased. Because if the trailer was: "this is a movie that's over 2 1/2 hours and most of that is boring, but there's one scene where they almost talk about sex sort of" then no one would have seen it. In fact, the Catholic church apparently approved this film for its members so how lewd could it have been? Others back then said that the original novel was quite raunchy to a purpose and thus very good. I can't imagine that's true, but it's probably better than the movie. Because the film just gives you a small tease of everything, which is bad from a storytelling point of view. If you dance around certain issues, that might excite tweeners but the rest of us are stuck here wondering what's going on. They play one too many scandals in the film and it becomes ridiculous. Child born out of wedlock? Okay. Unrelated pre-marital sex for the sake of being a rebellious teen? Fine. Step-father impregnating his step-daughter? Too far. If that was the whole story then that's fine but I mean come on, it was like they were begging for attention. So as bad as I thought the film was, it at least brought me some comfort to learn that people were the same in 1957 even if their threshold for controversial content was much lower.

Another film that's entirely too long is Sayonara. Ready for my Roger Ebert impression? "Say sayonara to this Japanimerican mess." What a waste of Marlon Brando. This was right in the midst of some of his most iconic and excellent pre-Godfather work. This film is so bad that I actually hated when they said the title in it. Here's how it's done: "When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die." Boom! Or: "Authority is not given to you to deny The Return of the King." Sweet! Now how about: "What should we tell the Army?" "Tell 'em, sayonara!" HAHAHAHA get it? Of course you don't, as I haven't explained the movie. It's about a military dude who disapproves of his friend dating an Asian chick and then he predictably falls for an Asian chick and spends the rest of the movie convincing himself and others why they should be together. Then he up and decides to leave the Army. So when he says "sayonara" it's signifying not only saying goodbye to the Army but also hello to his new quasi-Japanese lifestyle. Get it? It would've been good if they delivered it properly but it was such a wink-wink moment that it was terrible. It was like, "pay attention! Here is why the movie is called this!" If more of the film had been about him being torn between duty and love it might have been salvageable. And maybe more of it was about that then I thought but it was so boring for almost 2 1/2 hours that it's possible I missed it. Instead, it takes like 45 minutes to establish that he disapproves dating Asians before he meets the girl. That's too much buildup. We should have met her like 20 minutes in, tops. It'd still be dumb, but it would have been more believable for 20 minutes of one opinion to switch around rather than 45 minutes. And he shouldn't have fallen for her so quickly, or if he did then it should have been established that maybe he wasn't buying his own opinion this whole time. Because we're not talking like this was a "I have never dated blondes...oh hey! There's a hot blonde, I think I'll date her" situation. It was more of a "I am racist against Asians. Oh hey! There's an attractive one, and I'm no longer a bigot for some reason" situation. Didn't buy it, didn't buy their romance. Which is weird since all they did was re-enforce that they were in love for the whole movie. And why was this nominated anyway? This is like the world's least awwww-inducing chick flick. And why is he falling for a Japanese girl during the Korean War? Wouldn't it have been better to have him fall for a Japanese girl during WWII or a Korean girl during the Korean War? That would have been a nice together-ness message either way. Instead it was a "this supports together-ness if you think all Asians look alike" message. Classy. I'm being a bit unfair, but I doubt anyone cares 54 years later anyway so I'll let it stand.

A thankfully good movie is 12 Angry Men. I would put numbers before letters but I guess Wikipedia goes by pronunciation. Weird. Anyway, here is an example of a movie taking place in one room and during what is basically one long conversation being incredibly well-done. And why does it work so well? For one thing, it's not too long. It's a bit over 1 1/2 hours which is exactly how long it should be. It doesn't waste time getting to its premise and it doesn't overstay its welcome. Almost the entire movie takes place in the jury room at the end of a murder trial, deciding if they should sentence the man to death by proclaiming him guilty or not. Henry Fonda leads the great ensemble cast as the first man to put in a bid for "not guilty." And Sidney Lumet manages to make some really good directorial decisions even though the whole movie takes place in one room. As things get more tense the camera gets more claustrophobic, increasing the suspense. It also allows us to see the characters in all their heated desperation, as subtext abounds near the conclusion of the film. I think this movie is required viewing for everyone who was upset over the Casey Anthony verdict. Because over the course of the film, we are never certain whether the culprit committed the crime or not. And as Henry Fonda admits, he's not saying he's convinced of the man's innocence either. But he also says that the evidence isn't strong enough to convict him. The sequences of events that break down each piece of evidence one by one are brilliantly paced and played out so well. By the end you are in no way convinced that the man is innocent, just that many jury members were allowing their impatience, non-chalance, and own personal issues cloud what should be their unbiased opinions. It couldn't have been timed better that I was re-watching this during the Casey Anthony aftermath. Because it's a similar case of how circumstantial evidence isn't enough to put someone away, certainly not when the death penalty is involved. So it's always fascinating to see similar arguments being waged almost 60 years ago as today. Ordinarily I might say it's depressing, but I think in this case it's a good thing. We should always question these types of situations to no end, because human life is at stake. The film manages to convey all of this while telling a compelling story with great actors and a solid script. In another year it might have won the Oscar, in fact I wish it had come out in 1958 instead and beaten the French strumpet, but it was no match for this year's winner. Which isn't up next, sorry for the mislead.

Instead, up next is another compelling legal drama of a different kind: Witness for the Prosecution. This is based on an Agatha Christie short story, so you have to figure that it's A) better than most courtroom dramas and B) there are probably more twists and turns than most courtroom dramas. As it turned out, I think they did one twist too many. It's a really good movie and the initial twist at the end is fantastic but if they had left it at that then the bad guy would've gotten away. That would have been a chilling and excellent ending but in 1957 the bad guy pretty much always has to bite it. As such, the ending is kind of disappointing and the tone is odd. But the rest of the film is really good. It's a Billy Wilder film so it manages to balance humor with the drama without seeming too silly. Charles Laughton steals the show as the recently hospitalized defense attorney. The other actors are good too for the most part, but they look like amateurs next to Laughton in many of the scenes. He's like a precursor to the David E. Kelley lawyers of The Practice and Boston Legal. He charms the audience with his humor right before he reminds us that he is very sly and a genius when it comes to argument. In fact, I liked his character so much that I found myself wishing that this was the pilot to some ahead-of-its-time 50s show. The plot itself is also carried out in a well-plotted manner. It utilizes POV flashbacks that may or may not be reliable and also spends a fair amount of non-flashback time outside of the courtroom at the beginning of the film. This establishes the tone and the characters in an environment that isn't so open and public as a courtroom. Every courtroom drama should do this, because otherwise you can only get the façade of the courtroom which rarely allows us to see a character's true intentions. Anatomy of a Murder also did a good job with that, but it went on a bit too long. At just under 2 hours this movie is delivered as well as it possibly could have been, aside from that last twist of course.

A film that manages to earn its lengthy running time is this year's excellent winner: The Bridge on the River Kwai. This is another David Lean masterpiece. Though its cinematography is not as stunning as Lawrence of Arabia or Dr. Zhivago (due to the setting of the film being less scenic) it's still more stunning than pretty much any WWII film and more than most any film. The story concerns a unit of British soldiers in a Japanese prison camp. They are instructed that they all must begin working on a bridge over the river Kwai so as to carry a new railway line. What follows is one sequence of unfortunate events after another. Because at first, there is a lot of understandable strife between the British and the Japanese. But the head Japanese officer comes to respect Alec Guinness' character and the British soldiers eventually take great pride in the building of the bridge. Not necessarily because they've switched sides, just because they've worked so hard for so long on it. We eventually meet an American soldier at the camp as well. He escapes and is then sent back on a mission to destroy the bridge. I won't ruin the ending, but the film becomes very interesting when considering everyone's motives. After being in a POW camp for several years, if you're being treated fairly well and taking pride in your work, are you still a fervent part of the war effort for Queen and country? And if you're on a dangerous mission because of a threat and not because of your own choice, can you really be trusted to carry it out? The film dares to show the absurdity of war and the similarities between two warring sides during a time in America's history when everyone still remembered WWII. But it said these things with its story, not by being preachy. So it's a film that is carried out well, with a thought-provoking message, and some very impressive visuals. It's certainly one of those iconic Best Picture winners that many people remember, rather than the ones that are given the Oscar simply because it has to go to someone.

Well that was overall a good year of movies. Which is good because I was beginning to wonder about the 50s. My dad was laughing because of all the good movies that came out in some of these years, none of which were nominated. Though this legitimizes my initial reason for starting the escapade, so I guess I should be happy. Hopefully next year will be more in line with this one. All I know for now is that it has a Mexican guy playing a Frenchman, a white guy playing an Asian, and a Gentile playing a Jew playing an Egyptian.