You know, I'm a fan of the 2004 versions of the Star Wars movies. Aside from the whole "Han and Greedo shooting at the same time" thing (which makes me want to Sarlacc myself) they're pretty great. The extended dance sequence at Jabba's also sucks. But overall: the effects look better, the sound is better, and the other added scenes are good. Of course, I also like to update my computer because watching the little bar go up is aesthetic to me. I just love the idea of advancing and improving things, especially for reasons of continuity. Which is why they need to add Vader's Theme to A New Hope! Very irksome...apologies, this is turning into a Star Wars post. When it's actually a reboot of my Oscar post that started it all. The format is more comparable to my recent posts. So I essentially added more babbling and incoherence to my same opinions. But at least I didn't charge you, this director's cut is free.
We begin with my favorite scapegoat: Avatar. Oh how I love to pick on it. But since writing my first post I was able to watch the director's cut on DVD and it's much better. They basically put in 10 minutes at the beginning of the movie that emotionally grounds the whole thing and fixes many of the issues I had with the film. For instance, background on how Jake's twin brother died (by a mugger) sets up the theme in the story of "people are bad" and not "white people are bad." That's much better in so many ways. There's also a shot leading into the original opening shot of the film that foreshadows his transformation into a Na'vi at the end of the movie. So it does everything I said it should've done originally. The best cut of the movie would be keeping the first ten minutes and cutting Michelle Rodriguez out, along with the 3rd, 6th, and 10th mentions of "unobtanium." The film itself will someday be regarded as a Citizen Kane of sorts. Wow, I just broke two of my own rules. #1: never mention an Oscar nominee before its been mentioned in its own paragraph in its own year. #2: never make positive film comparisons to anything James Cameron has ever done. But my meaning is this: Avatar will someday be seen as the turning point for how movies are made. Most movies will be made in the same way eventually. And when that happens people will look back and have the same response I always did: "is that it?" If the feeling you get from that statement is that I'm a forward-thinking genius, you're not wrong. If you instead think I'm a hard-headed narcissist, you're also not wrong. Since my main enemy is the mindless crowd of people who actually couldn't predict the story of the film, my views on it have become much more positive over time. Watching it in my basement where people weren't chewing popcorn in my ear helped too. The second time around the uses of "unobtanium" didn't seem as frequent and there's something about watching a predictable movie a second time that is kind of charming. Because you know what's coming not due to sub-par storytelling but instead due to the fact that you've seen it. So it's not as bothersome. Then it's much easier to enjoy the breathtaking scenery (way easier to enjoy in 2D I'll have you know), epic score, and sweeping battle scenes. It's also better than at least two of the movies I always say it rips off so there you go. Ugh, all of those positive comments I wrote are putting a bad taste in my fingers.
Thankfully I can start to talk negatively about The Blind Side. Well, not really. It's not too bad. Since this was the first year since the 40s or so that there were 10 nominees I think they tried to really mix things up. This film is a sports movie, which usually don't get nominated unless the sport is a backdrop, and it was popular and heartwarming. Plus the whole "white people and black people getting along" schtick is always a winner with the Academy. It really is quite a charming film. I mentioned before that Sandra Bullock's win for her performance was largely an audience draw but in retrospect, it's nice that someone won who wasn't chewing the scenery. To see a woman win who wasn't acting like a man. To see anyone win who wasn't disabled, distorted, evil, or all of the above. She plays a mom. A regular mom who fights for her family the way that any mother would (except the mom in another movie I'll mention in this post). When I was watching it I could definitely see my own mother getting up in people's faces, just not the "threatening to shoot drug dealers" bit. My mom would write them a mean letter that would probably make them cry but that's about it. The rest of the cast is also quite charming and even though it follows a formula it does it really well. Movies like this are done well and can be appreciated by people who aren't like me. And as I sit watching film after film as though it were a piece of meat, rarely getting caught up in it, I remember how nice it is to be that way. Even I got caught up in this movie when I was watching it though, and not just because Sandra Bullock is pretty hot. It finds a way to be a classic sports movie with a darker side to it and also humor. It beats the hell out of a William Hurt flick any day.
A pretty great and unexpected selection is District 9. I say unexpected because its predominant audience was nerds like me and the guys we hate because they have girlfriends. When people in the movie get electrocuted to the point of exploding we go "whooooo!" and their girlfriends jump in their laps and we go "ughhhhhh." I watched in on Blu-Ray in my basement though so I didn't have that problem. It's rare that you see a sci-fi movie that manages to be original in any way. If it's cheery it's Star Trek, if not it's Blade Runner. The latter is way overrated by the way, but I'll talk about that in a possibly upcoming blog series entitled "Movies that Make you Think...About Why People Like It." It'll be a companion piece to my "Film Pariahs" series about movies people don't like that they should. Anyway, this movie takes place in modern day and I LOVE THAT. Sci-fi movies that take place today are so much more compelling. Because instead of creating an entire story universe of societal norms and paranoias, we can use our own. We know how people in their situation might react because we are those people. It's also a perfect example of a film that has allegorical significance as a backdrop but not that defines the whole narration. The opening of the film sets up the comparison with apartheid but they never shove it in your face. What they do is give you a documentary-style, sci-fi epic with overtones as broad as The Prince and the Pauper and mech suits and the aforementioned electrical explosions. It's pretty freaking amazing. You know you've got a great story when you're enjoying the film already before you even realize what the real plot is. I'd have been totally compelled by a story that was solely about the strife between the humans and the alien prawns. Then we realize that it's actually about the main character slowly turning into a prawn. It's the classic "see how the other half lives" story except it's interesting. It does all of the requisite "those who we thought to be enemies aren't so bad after all" but it also makes clear that not every prawn has a heart of gold. This establishes them as a believable entity instead of a propaganda piece for a species that doesn't even exist (which it could have easily become). Then we'd be back to "look at how bad white people are." Like I can't see that on the news every day of the week. It has that high budget Indie feel to it (not an oxymoron) and I'm very much looking forward to the director's forthcoming works.
A movie I still have nothing good to say about is An Education. You might as well consult my original post on this one. It doesn't deserve to have much more time devoted to it. Except that perhaps I originally wasn't brave enough on my blog to point out the line of dialogue: "I don't want to lose my virginity to a banana." Can you take any movie seriously that has that line in it? Only if it's intentionally not serious. If Hot Tub Time Machine had that line it would've been hysterical. Because once you're traveling back to the 80s via a tub full of boiling water anything goes. But instead your response is A: eew, B: you wonder if anyone actually relates to that line and chuckles affectionately as they reminisce which leads you to C: double eew. On one hand, I'd like to say that I can't fully appreciate a movie about a young girl's sexual awakening in the sixties for the obvious reason: I grew up in the nineties. But Nick Hornby, who adapted the screenplay, grew up in the sixties so I guess he has a better idea. Except for the bit about how we're both men. The book upon which the movie is based is written by a woman. But that doesn't mean anything, because the original version of The Lion King was about a melancholy Danish prince who sees dead people when he's not dealing with his Oedipus complex or suicidal girlfriend. And if I'm being truly cynical, I'll assume that the woman who wrote the book had a very similar experience to the girl in the movie. To which I say: "just because you got duped into marrying a con artist doesn't mean we want to hear you whine about it." If you want to get back at him don't be all "ho hum...look at how sad this thing was." Or at least make the main character seem sympathetic. She must really hate herself to portray her avatar (nominee name drop!) as a girl bored enough with her studies to run off with the first European dick she meets (interpret that how you will). Something I neglected to mention before: how dumb are her parents? That dude was slimy. If a way older dude is wooing your daughter he better be Sean frigging Connery (who I would probably date btw, he is the man). I suppose it filled 2009's "British movie no one really likes but we'll pretend to like it anyway" quota. And Carey Mulligan does a good job even though her character is crazy annoying. She was also a wise choice because she's pretty but she's not "Hollywood gorgeous" so you kind of believe her somewhat lower self-esteem. Which would account for her poor decisions...oh no...I'm making it make sense. I'm gonna stop now.
Easily the actual best picture of the year and truly one of the best of the decade and one of my favorites ever is Inglourious Basterds. I can't say enough about this film. It's truly extraordinary in many ways. Probably Tarantino's best film (and that means a non-sarcastic ton). In one sense it does for Nazis what Pulp Fiction does for gangsters. In another sense it somehow manages to adhere of the classic themes of every war film while simultaneously being unlike any other war film ever made. As I mentioned before, it features one of the best villain performances of all time with Christoph Waltz. Incredible performance. The opening scene of the picture so perfectly establishes the tone and especially his character that one wonders how the rest of the film lives up to it. Things to look out for are: the shot changing to denote the shift in the balance of power within the conversation, why and when Hans starts speaking a different language, and especially the fact that he chooses not to shoot Shoshanna as she runs away. Why is that? Some would say: plot device. That's true to an extent, but remember that Hans has been branded "the Jew Hunter." He takes great pride in his ability to figure out where Jews are hiding. He takes little to no pleasure in killing them. He's the Sherlock Holmes of the S.S.! You could argue that Sherlock just cares about solving puzzles and not really saving lives. The same way that Dr. House mostly cares about figuring out what an ailment is and not necessarily curing the patient. By letting Shoshanna go, he is giving himself another whole puzzle to solve. Have I mentioned Brad Pitt yet? I guess not. Only Tarantino can pull off making a Nazi the real star of a World War II piece. As I said before, the only real Nazi in the film is Brad Pitt. The actual Germans are portrayed as little more than patriots fighting for their country. Ruthless patriots to be sure. But their hatred of all things non-Aryan is portrayed in a much more toned down way. They passively dislike everyone else. This is far more realistic for lower-level soldiers and much more disturbing. Also disturbing is the idea that the only way to truly defeat them is to be worse than they are in some ways. The film shows us this not by shoving it in our face but by showing us through masterfully crafted scenes of dialogue. No one in the film is a hero, it's about rotten people killing more rotten people. And being both hilarious and profound while doing so. It is incredibly rare that a film comes along of this magnitude. I'd say it's ahead of its time but I don't think the rest of Hollywood will ever catch up to Tarantino.
A movie I surprisingly enjoyed is Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire. Don't let the fact that the title is a self-writing Seth MacFarlane joke fool you, it's actually quite good. I presumed it was a token Indie film with a kicker of being funded by Oprah and almost entirely cast with black people. So I had very few expectations going in. Thankfully, it's actually really good. It's not a "this takes place in the ghetto and thus must inevitably be about the disparity between the rich and the poor" movie. It doesn't show you a lot of terrible things and say "hey isn't this bad? Shame on you for not doing something about this." It's an intense drama with the ghetto as a backdrop. It allows its main character to delve into fantasies of a better life without overdoing it or becoming entertaining. And by that I mean: she's not going full-on Alice in Wonderland. That particular escape from reality is far more exciting than real life. But hers aren't entertaining, they're sad. She'll imagine herself as a movie star walking the red carpet and you begin to wonder that if she was born somewhere else, or to someone else, she might have achieved that dream. Notice that it doesn't have scene after scene of dialogue where someone articulates that, it's just apparent from what they're showing you. That's how it's done properly! The villains of the piece include her rapist and incestuous father and her positively evil mother. I said this before but it warrants re-mentioning: Mo-Nique gives an incredible performance in this movie and rightfully got the Oscar for Supporting Actress. To play such a terrible and awful mother and then completely humanize that character in the last few minutes of the film is really amazing. The film reminds us that real people can experience tragedies on a very personal level. Its heroes and villains carry all the drama and intrigue of a great Sci-Fi film. The battlefield is the streets of Harlem and in many ways the battle is for control of the main character's soul. Will she grow up to be like her mother or will she escape to a better world? The film leaves us with a truly uplifting and still realistic ending: that though she'll probably never achieve a better life for herself, she will fight for a better life for her children. No one is more surprised than me by this, but it's one of the year's top nominees.
A peculiar addition to the list is A Serious Man. If True Grit is the closest the Coens have come to a mainstream movie, this is probably the most hardcore and "Coen-y" of any of their movies (that I've seen). It is cynicism given physical form. In many ways it is a re-telling of the Biblical story of Job. And the story of Job is like candy for the eyes of cynics like me. So if you believe that the world and everything in it, and possibly everything outside of it, is devoted to making your life painful then this movie is for you. Or if you know one of us you will probably also enjoy it and roll your eyes. If you can envision a well-shot and well-written story about nothing that is also about everything, that's sort of what it's like. I should really watch it again sometime, and see if it's actually funny or if I was just in a particularly foul mood when I watched it. If I enjoy it even more this time then my psyche might be in trouble. The plot centers around a man going through a divorce, and blackmail, and inherent Jewish guilt, and the knowledge that his son probably inherited all the same bad luck. The opening scene of the film implies that one of his ancestors either A) had the same bad luck or B) accidentally committed an act which brought down bad luck on his descendants. This gives rise to the question: does the main character truly possess incredible misfortune or are we simply being shown a period in his life that was unusually sad? For all I know, his problems were solved a year later. Although since he has cancer at the end, probably not. Even so, that would make all of 1 bad year in the man's life. Was the rest of it so terrible? If not, then he actually led a nice life. But that's the problem with pessimism: you never can tell. Statistically, some people will experience more negative things in life than other people and we can perceive this as bad luck. Psychologically, many of those people will come to expect bad things. And whether the rest of their lives are taken up by "good luck" or not is irrelevant. Because their mindset has already been created. There are also some people who get nothing but crap in life but won a talent show once when they were young and thus remain optimists. But a movie about them would suck. My point is that the film raises many interesting questions and though I don't think the plot itself contains enough depth to warrant a nomination in a 5 nominee year, it's cool that it got one in this year.
One of Pixar's finest masterpieces is Up. Though its artistic significance isn't up to the same standard as the Toy Story films or either of Brad Bird's movies, hell if it doesn't surpass most of them with its heart alone. It's a very old-fashioned adventure in many ways. With a house floating on balloons and an adventurer-turned-villain who has an army of "talking" dogs you'll wonder if you stumbled into an unusually good looking 40s serial. Adding to this in many ways is Michael Giacchino's Oscar-winning and incredible musical score. It's so good that I actually can't listen to it. Because I'll start crying immediately. Above all, this was the CGI film to officially break the stigma of its genre. Can anyone really tell me that it's any less touching or dramatic or wonderful because it's made on a computer? CGI films remind us that it's the story that holds power, not the way it's being presented. Did Carl really go and do all of those things? Well, no. Because he isn't real. But how is that any more or less real than the usual selection of trickery in films? Not since the days of Rome when they executed criminals on stage for character death scenes has the drama been that real. And I'd rather not go back to it. I truly think that the realm of animation is the real future of filmmaking. It's all so much more coherent than a live action film. Instead of sitting there and going, "well that's real and that must be CG since dragons don't exist" you are fully aware that none of it exists and so you're caught up in the story immediately. In this particular case, you've got a great adventure and a heartwarming tale of a lonely old man and a lonely kid who make their lives mean something. Oh lordy, I need to stop writing soon I am literally tearing up as I write this. I'll also mention that the villain is humanized in a better way than most "real" movies achieve, especially considering the relatively small amount of time the film devotes to him. Okay, on to the next one before I transform into a little girl.
I'm far less enthusiastic about Up in the Air but not because I don't like it. The word I used before is "cute." The words I'd use with more retrospect would be "fairly cute." It's pretty much what my mother's friend Cliff would call "a big dumb grin movie." Sure, it's set against the backdrop of the economic crisis. But so is every other episode of every TV show since the crisis started. So it doesn't get points for broaching a subject that others wouldn't. It also feels kind of tacked on, since the film is really about one man's search for personal meaning. I have the same issue with it that I was just talking about with Alfie though. We barely get to see any of Clooney's character in his prime. I mean, we get to see it I guess. But not enough. There's also the whole plot with Vera Farmiga being his female equivalent and lover. And the story of Anna Kendrick being his (so adorable that it hurts) protegé. Oh and also the story of his sister's wedding. This would make a fine miniseries or perhaps full-on show. It could be a dark comedy along the lines of Arrested Development where everyone is nasty and yet somehow likeable. But as a movie it's kind of a charming mess. Clooney does one of his best George Clooney impersonations for the film, and it's great to see supporting performances from people like Jason Bateman and Zach Galifianakis. But in order for us to really feel bad for someone who is essentially better off than most people you need to have one coherent storyline. Since it's also a comedy it doesn't matter as much, but I feel like the comedy largely dies out about halfway through. Last time I compared it to Thank You For Smoking and I stand by that. In that film we see Aaron Eckhart be the badass of talkers, have a slight crisis, and then continue on still in his prime. Excellent. This movie does a lot of the same things but not quite as well. I certainly enjoyed it and I'd even watch it again if the opportunity arises. But I think it got a little over-hyped when it was out and as you well know: the irks me.
Thankfully the same can't be said for this year's deserving winner The Hurt Locker. And remember that, as always, "deserving" doesn't mean it's my top pick, just that I'm not opposed to it winning. I still remember when I saw a brief clip from it during The Colbert Report (still the best news show on television). I thought it was very suspenseful, even though they probably showed no more than 30 seconds or so. I wanted to see it, but it was only playing at "select" theaters and then I forgot about it. Then the inevitable "Oscar buzz" started up and I kind of groaned. I figured it was a blatantly political anti-war film that was only slightly more artistic than Michael Moore's drivel. Nothing worse than a chubby guy getting up and yelling at you in a very non-imaginative way. But this film isn't that at all. It doesn't have the theme of "the War in Iraq is bad" it has the theme of "all wars are bad." This plays so much better for many reasons. First: any sort of film that exists solely to push an opinion is no good, whether I agree with it or not. Second: someday when someone like me goes back and watches all the Oscar nominees (or just winners if they're not as hardcore) they're not going to know the current political landscape. But a personal story about a man who deals with war by becoming addicted to it is something entirely different. It's a legitimate comparison to not only our country but many countries before us. The idea that so many bad things have happened that we've all been so desensitized to the point of not realizing the effects of war. Actually, that's not quite true. I think we are addicted to conflict. Addicted to drama. If not addicted to the overwhelming drive to fight terrorism without thought, then instead addicted to the overwhelming drive to protest the fighting of terrorism without thought. No matter what one's opinions are in today's society, we all seem to be addicted to the feeling we get from harassing others with this opinion. I know this because I've perfected it and made it an art form. I understand that we need conflict to survive. Read my previous posts, which ones are the best? The ones where I'm gushing over the wonderful cinematography or the ones where I'm ferociously bashing a period piece? My favorites are always the latter. Because society loves its negativity. So when Jeremy Renner walks away from Evangeline Lilly at the end (single worst decision anyone could ever make) and right back to disarming bombs, is it really so different from millions of men and women walking away from their friends or their lovers to people who are more "exciting?" In that way, the film reminds us that nothing is good or bad all the time. War is bad but disarming bombs in war is good. But becoming addicted to the thrill of defusing bombs is bad. Maybe someday people will recognize what I've always known: making your everyday life an adventure is the key. That way you can have your security, with an added bonus of the occasional side quest.
Did you notice that I liked basically every film that came out this year? That's why I was so passionate about watching every other year. I was hoping to reciprocate the joy I got from watching 9 of the 10 movies listed above. If I had known what lay ahead I might not have been so excited. But I'm over HALFWAY done with the Oscars, year-wise. So by the end of the year, or at most by next year, I will stand above all other humans and say: "I have artistically wasted my time better than any of you." But for now I'll get back to the age of musicals with intermissions and sweeping scenery. So I'll see you in 1965, with the aforementioned Jews, Nazis, and Russians.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
1966: The Year that Anne Boleyn Wasn't Hot Enough to Warrant All that Mess
People seem to be fascinated by every aspect of King Henry VIII's reign. The Academy is anyway. And I think the fundamental question that always comes up is this: was the real life Anne Boleyn hot enough to warrant all of that death and rebellion? If she looked like the girl from The Tudors, I would give it a mild shoulder/eyebrow lift. Meaning: "hell yes but don't make me say it." Since she probably wasn't, Henry was a tool. But we'll get to that later. Well, we really won't because she's in the movie for about a half a second. I'm going to talk about her anyway though because I may or may not be mild to moderately obsessed with her.
But we begin with Alfie. And I would put it in my ever popular and all-too-prevalent "meh" category. I like that it breaks the fourth wall a lot. I'm always intrigued and excited by fourth wall breakings. But it doesn't do it in a particularly clever way like when Boston Legal had: "Denny, I've hardly seen you at all this episode." Brilliant. It's more like he narrates the story in the conventional way but he often walks toward the camera and addresses it directly in order to do so. And I'm sure it was way more revolutionary back then. If it wasn't: don't tell me because it'll make it suck more. The movie itself is a standard "lovable rogue" type story except he's not that lovable. He's actually the embodiment of that douchebag who goes out with that girl you've been wooing for months by simply spouting his cockney British accent a bit. So, not quite that douchebag you're familiar with...but similar! He ends up losing in the end because he's too old for women to be interested in him. I thought that was a nice touch. And it was probably some sort of vindication for the writer's life so you've got to love that. But it's not that funny and not that serious. As my dad would say it's "modestly entertaining." It's a little too zeitgeist-y to be truly effective now. Because even though he treats women like crap, he's a downright gentleman as compared to a lot of guys in the media today. Just not as compared to me (I'm so much of a gentleman I might as well be gay, which is not the best subliminal message to send to women while trying to ask them out). It also dealt with abortion (gasp!) as a major plot point and even though that's still a big deal today, it's anything but "not spoken of." My main issue with it is that as a character he falls into the "past his prime" category. This can be true of womanizers, adventurers, comedians, whatever. Basically it means that the movie tells you he's something but never really shows it to you because he's past his prime already. That pregnancy scare should have come 40 minutes into the movie, after we've already been sufficiently introduced to Alfie as he was. Otherwise you just feel like you're watching the sub-par sequel to a movie that never existed. But it's fairly short and Michael Caine is always great to watch so it's still better than almost any comedy today. Which should tell you what I think of most comedies.
A far better, though still not great, comedy is The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming. First off, they get points for not putting an exclamation mark there even though I'm sure it was tempting. Secondly, this maybe would be the only time an exclamation mark would be permissible. Because it's a satire and because when the line is spoken in the movie it's done in an over-the-top Paul Revere reference-y way. But anyway, this is a farcical representation of Cold War America. It's about a Russian sub that accidentally surfaces near a small town in Massachusetts and the passengers' journey to get back to Mother Russia. I love those kinds of stories because they're not only funny they're also brave. To promote a film that casts the Russians in a positive, or at least sympathetic, light during a time when the Cold War was in full swing was not a small feat. Because of this, it is impossible for me to experience it the way it was meant to be experienced. I'd say that a modern day equivalent would be that a group of terrorists accidentally comes ashore in America and tries to get home but it's not the same thing at all. And not just because terrorists are militant against us by nature and Russian soldiers were simply our enemies for political reasons. It's actually because the idea of painting a sympathetic portrait of Russians during a time when Russia and the U.S. came very close to nuking each other has no modern day equivalent (luckily). Obviously we have our fair share of enemies today but we don't wake up every day wondering if they'll nuke us. Well, I don't anyway. Members of the Russian government even saw and liked this movie and some were moved to tears when the two sides work together near the end to save a little kid. That was a nice scene and the movie is fairly enjoyable but it's not super funny. Of course, I was unfairly and inevitably comparing it to Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece with a similar story. But I'll talk more about that in...(checking Wikipedia) my 1964 post. Anyway, this film is enjoyable to be sure but since I was born just prior to the complete collapse of the Soviet Union it's tough for me to really watch it the way it's meant to be watched.
And maybe the same can be said for The Sand Pebbles. But I asked my dad and he said he never liked it either. It's about a U.S. gunboat in China and the racial strife that takes place therein. But it's racial strife with the Chinese. So...not to be insensitive to the people depicted in the pilot episode of Kung Fu or anything but it's tough to imagine anyone caring much when it came out. This was right in the middle of racial strife in America and the movie is basically saying, "hey if Steve McQueen can get along with Chinese people then maybe black people should be able to vote." Actually, many critics perceived the film as an anti-Vietnam piece before it was cool to be against Vietnam (in the movies anyway). But none of the people involved with the film felt that way. Except for the caterer, "Bring Our Po' Boys Home" of course. It's based on a book written by a dude who actually lived a similar experience in the 1920s. So...yeah...probably not about Vietnam then. Kind of like how V for Vendetta, the adaptation of the 1985 British graphic novel, isn't actually about post-9/11 America. Just a thought. Anyway, the word I'd use to describe this movie is: "anemic." How many war movies can you really make about how war is bad? "We should set aside our differences because we're not really so different from the people we're fighting" blah blah blah. At least the movie I was just talking about got creative. This one is too straightforward. Plus it's like 3 hours long and the only thing that happens in the first forty minutes is that a steam pipe in the ship breaks. Actually I should give some credit for that. Because any writer who can stretch "and then a steam pipe broke and somebody died fixing it" into about forty minutes has some serious skills and probably excelled in writing research papers. There's a fairly impressive sea battle at the end but most of it is one uninteresting scene after another. I don't define "character development" as "anything in a movie that wouldn't interest a 13-year-old boy." Interesting things should be conveyed. Let's hear some character history! Why is the one guy more militant than the other guy? What events in life led them to hold different viewpoints? In a 2 hour movie I wouldn't care. But come on, they had time. So it's a great cast and a great director (Robert Wise) but it's not particularly interesting. Probably only got nominated due to misunderstood anti-war intentions.
Easily the best film in the year is Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? That question mark is part of the title and does not denote my disbelief over it being good. Because as it is the only film in the history of the Oscars to be nominated for every award it was eligible for (13 total) I figured it was pretty good. And since it only won 5 or 6 of them, not including Best Picture or Director, I knew it was even better. It was so sad to hear about Elizabeth Taylor the other day because this movie perfectly illustrates what she brought to the world. She put on like 30 pounds or something for the movie and she was still gorgeous and her acting rightfully earned her a 2nd Academy Award. Richard Burton is also excellent and so is Sandy Dennis who won Supporting Actress that year. George Segal is good too but I can never take him seriously and he's not quite up to the other 3 people anyway. But it's a small complaint. Black and white was a wise choice for the film because it accurately depicts the dark, militant, and very two-sided environment that their (Richard and Elizabeth's) marriage had become. The entire film encompasses an awkward dinner party they have with a younger couple and how they use that couple to feud with each other. It's basically 2+ hours of amazing dialogue and incredible acting. Normally, I'd need more to put in a bid for Best Picture. But I think the Director gave the film a really great atmosphere and the script was certainly strong enough that I wish it would have won. And everyone thought it would win (I suspect a Vatican pay-off) but it was snubbed. I will say that I read about an alternate plot twist near the end that would have made it better but I won't share the details because I care enough about the film to not spoil it for my 3 1/2 readers. Some of the exchanges within the film are so toxic that I cringed on my couch. It makes you never want to get married ever. Which I'll use as my new excuse for continual solitude. "Dating anyone Domenic?" "Nope, watched Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? recently." "Makes sense." I'll just have to rewatch it every few months or so to complete the illusion. The sad thing is, if this came out today it'd probably win but not deserve it as much. If that makes any sense. I guess it just goes to show that we can track the injustices back to at least 1966, and that's what the escapade is all about.
Continuing on that note, no one expected this year's winner to win: A Man for All Seasons. I have many qualms with this movie. That's not really true, I have many qualms with the story itself and a few qualms with the movie. I also have a retrospective qualm with it. Wow, this is going to be long. That's what she said. Okay, here we go. My retrospective qualm is that after having seen The Tudors, basically every Henry VIII story is ruined. Because that show fleshed out Henry's friendship with Sir Thomas More for a whole season. And then it took five episodes for all of the dominoes to fall into place and Thomas to get executed. And the King felt terrible about it! It was all so wonderfully complicated and tragic and real. Plus (wait for it) it had more than five seconds of Anne Boleyn and she was way hotter. My qualm with the movie is that you can do the story well in two hours...they just didn't. It basically starts at a point where everyone is already trying to get him to agree to the King's divorce. No setup whatsoever. So it's two hours of the same conversation over and over again. "Will you sign it?" "NO! Because what is to sign but to say? And what is to say but to say before God? And what is to say before God but to..." FOR 2 WHOLE HOURS. The same conversation. They should have set up the marriage. Set up his relationship with Anne. Set up the friendship with Thomas. Then the dominoes start to fall slowly over time and the last twenty minutes is Thomas making his moral stand after a movie's worth of deliberating. Instead of the same exhausting back and forth conversation over and over. Paul Scofield does a great job in it, don't get me wrong. And the five minutes of Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey is easily the best part of the film (probably because Welles himself directed it). And this brings us to my problem with the story on a whole: really Thomas More? Really? By the end of the movie his family has no food, no candles, nothing. Why? Because he refuses to sign something and making literally no impact on anything by not signing it. He doesn't come off as righteous, he comes off as smug and self-important. If it had been a twenty minute struggle then it would've been heroic possibly. But it's the whole freaking movie. And since in real life he was locked up for a year or something crazy, it was even more excruciating in real life for the same reason. He basically says, "I don't want God to be mad because I lied. I'm sure he won't be mad at all that I'm royally screwing my family." Stupid. SIDE NOTE: I might have mentioned this before but I find it entertaining that without the Church of England the United States probably wouldn't exist. And the Church of England wouldn't exist if a man with too much power didn't want to bang a hot teenager. That is delightfully messed up and funny. So there you go. It's a movie about a stubborn guy who gets more stubborn as he goes along and Anne Boleyn is in it so little that I completely missed when she was in it. IMDB told me it happened and I believe them. So it's a waste. Just Netflix The Tudors and you'll have a much more enjoyable time.
Well that's it for 1966, it was a pretty good year overall. Definitely one of the better decades so far, no doubt about that. I'm strongly considering rebooting my 2009 post since I didn't really give it a proper post and I'm OCD like that. So keep an eye out for that "Director's Cut." But aside from that the other next entry should be pretty interesting. Or at least I presume so since it involves hiking Russians, cruising Jews, and singing Nazis.
But we begin with Alfie. And I would put it in my ever popular and all-too-prevalent "meh" category. I like that it breaks the fourth wall a lot. I'm always intrigued and excited by fourth wall breakings. But it doesn't do it in a particularly clever way like when Boston Legal had: "Denny, I've hardly seen you at all this episode." Brilliant. It's more like he narrates the story in the conventional way but he often walks toward the camera and addresses it directly in order to do so. And I'm sure it was way more revolutionary back then. If it wasn't: don't tell me because it'll make it suck more. The movie itself is a standard "lovable rogue" type story except he's not that lovable. He's actually the embodiment of that douchebag who goes out with that girl you've been wooing for months by simply spouting his cockney British accent a bit. So, not quite that douchebag you're familiar with...but similar! He ends up losing in the end because he's too old for women to be interested in him. I thought that was a nice touch. And it was probably some sort of vindication for the writer's life so you've got to love that. But it's not that funny and not that serious. As my dad would say it's "modestly entertaining." It's a little too zeitgeist-y to be truly effective now. Because even though he treats women like crap, he's a downright gentleman as compared to a lot of guys in the media today. Just not as compared to me (I'm so much of a gentleman I might as well be gay, which is not the best subliminal message to send to women while trying to ask them out). It also dealt with abortion (gasp!) as a major plot point and even though that's still a big deal today, it's anything but "not spoken of." My main issue with it is that as a character he falls into the "past his prime" category. This can be true of womanizers, adventurers, comedians, whatever. Basically it means that the movie tells you he's something but never really shows it to you because he's past his prime already. That pregnancy scare should have come 40 minutes into the movie, after we've already been sufficiently introduced to Alfie as he was. Otherwise you just feel like you're watching the sub-par sequel to a movie that never existed. But it's fairly short and Michael Caine is always great to watch so it's still better than almost any comedy today. Which should tell you what I think of most comedies.
A far better, though still not great, comedy is The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming. First off, they get points for not putting an exclamation mark there even though I'm sure it was tempting. Secondly, this maybe would be the only time an exclamation mark would be permissible. Because it's a satire and because when the line is spoken in the movie it's done in an over-the-top Paul Revere reference-y way. But anyway, this is a farcical representation of Cold War America. It's about a Russian sub that accidentally surfaces near a small town in Massachusetts and the passengers' journey to get back to Mother Russia. I love those kinds of stories because they're not only funny they're also brave. To promote a film that casts the Russians in a positive, or at least sympathetic, light during a time when the Cold War was in full swing was not a small feat. Because of this, it is impossible for me to experience it the way it was meant to be experienced. I'd say that a modern day equivalent would be that a group of terrorists accidentally comes ashore in America and tries to get home but it's not the same thing at all. And not just because terrorists are militant against us by nature and Russian soldiers were simply our enemies for political reasons. It's actually because the idea of painting a sympathetic portrait of Russians during a time when Russia and the U.S. came very close to nuking each other has no modern day equivalent (luckily). Obviously we have our fair share of enemies today but we don't wake up every day wondering if they'll nuke us. Well, I don't anyway. Members of the Russian government even saw and liked this movie and some were moved to tears when the two sides work together near the end to save a little kid. That was a nice scene and the movie is fairly enjoyable but it's not super funny. Of course, I was unfairly and inevitably comparing it to Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece with a similar story. But I'll talk more about that in...(checking Wikipedia) my 1964 post. Anyway, this film is enjoyable to be sure but since I was born just prior to the complete collapse of the Soviet Union it's tough for me to really watch it the way it's meant to be watched.
And maybe the same can be said for The Sand Pebbles. But I asked my dad and he said he never liked it either. It's about a U.S. gunboat in China and the racial strife that takes place therein. But it's racial strife with the Chinese. So...not to be insensitive to the people depicted in the pilot episode of Kung Fu or anything but it's tough to imagine anyone caring much when it came out. This was right in the middle of racial strife in America and the movie is basically saying, "hey if Steve McQueen can get along with Chinese people then maybe black people should be able to vote." Actually, many critics perceived the film as an anti-Vietnam piece before it was cool to be against Vietnam (in the movies anyway). But none of the people involved with the film felt that way. Except for the caterer, "Bring Our Po' Boys Home" of course. It's based on a book written by a dude who actually lived a similar experience in the 1920s. So...yeah...probably not about Vietnam then. Kind of like how V for Vendetta, the adaptation of the 1985 British graphic novel, isn't actually about post-9/11 America. Just a thought. Anyway, the word I'd use to describe this movie is: "anemic." How many war movies can you really make about how war is bad? "We should set aside our differences because we're not really so different from the people we're fighting" blah blah blah. At least the movie I was just talking about got creative. This one is too straightforward. Plus it's like 3 hours long and the only thing that happens in the first forty minutes is that a steam pipe in the ship breaks. Actually I should give some credit for that. Because any writer who can stretch "and then a steam pipe broke and somebody died fixing it" into about forty minutes has some serious skills and probably excelled in writing research papers. There's a fairly impressive sea battle at the end but most of it is one uninteresting scene after another. I don't define "character development" as "anything in a movie that wouldn't interest a 13-year-old boy." Interesting things should be conveyed. Let's hear some character history! Why is the one guy more militant than the other guy? What events in life led them to hold different viewpoints? In a 2 hour movie I wouldn't care. But come on, they had time. So it's a great cast and a great director (Robert Wise) but it's not particularly interesting. Probably only got nominated due to misunderstood anti-war intentions.
Easily the best film in the year is Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? That question mark is part of the title and does not denote my disbelief over it being good. Because as it is the only film in the history of the Oscars to be nominated for every award it was eligible for (13 total) I figured it was pretty good. And since it only won 5 or 6 of them, not including Best Picture or Director, I knew it was even better. It was so sad to hear about Elizabeth Taylor the other day because this movie perfectly illustrates what she brought to the world. She put on like 30 pounds or something for the movie and she was still gorgeous and her acting rightfully earned her a 2nd Academy Award. Richard Burton is also excellent and so is Sandy Dennis who won Supporting Actress that year. George Segal is good too but I can never take him seriously and he's not quite up to the other 3 people anyway. But it's a small complaint. Black and white was a wise choice for the film because it accurately depicts the dark, militant, and very two-sided environment that their (Richard and Elizabeth's) marriage had become. The entire film encompasses an awkward dinner party they have with a younger couple and how they use that couple to feud with each other. It's basically 2+ hours of amazing dialogue and incredible acting. Normally, I'd need more to put in a bid for Best Picture. But I think the Director gave the film a really great atmosphere and the script was certainly strong enough that I wish it would have won. And everyone thought it would win (I suspect a Vatican pay-off) but it was snubbed. I will say that I read about an alternate plot twist near the end that would have made it better but I won't share the details because I care enough about the film to not spoil it for my 3 1/2 readers. Some of the exchanges within the film are so toxic that I cringed on my couch. It makes you never want to get married ever. Which I'll use as my new excuse for continual solitude. "Dating anyone Domenic?" "Nope, watched Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? recently." "Makes sense." I'll just have to rewatch it every few months or so to complete the illusion. The sad thing is, if this came out today it'd probably win but not deserve it as much. If that makes any sense. I guess it just goes to show that we can track the injustices back to at least 1966, and that's what the escapade is all about.
Continuing on that note, no one expected this year's winner to win: A Man for All Seasons. I have many qualms with this movie. That's not really true, I have many qualms with the story itself and a few qualms with the movie. I also have a retrospective qualm with it. Wow, this is going to be long. That's what she said. Okay, here we go. My retrospective qualm is that after having seen The Tudors, basically every Henry VIII story is ruined. Because that show fleshed out Henry's friendship with Sir Thomas More for a whole season. And then it took five episodes for all of the dominoes to fall into place and Thomas to get executed. And the King felt terrible about it! It was all so wonderfully complicated and tragic and real. Plus (wait for it) it had more than five seconds of Anne Boleyn and she was way hotter. My qualm with the movie is that you can do the story well in two hours...they just didn't. It basically starts at a point where everyone is already trying to get him to agree to the King's divorce. No setup whatsoever. So it's two hours of the same conversation over and over again. "Will you sign it?" "NO! Because what is to sign but to say? And what is to say but to say before God? And what is to say before God but to..." FOR 2 WHOLE HOURS. The same conversation. They should have set up the marriage. Set up his relationship with Anne. Set up the friendship with Thomas. Then the dominoes start to fall slowly over time and the last twenty minutes is Thomas making his moral stand after a movie's worth of deliberating. Instead of the same exhausting back and forth conversation over and over. Paul Scofield does a great job in it, don't get me wrong. And the five minutes of Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey is easily the best part of the film (probably because Welles himself directed it). And this brings us to my problem with the story on a whole: really Thomas More? Really? By the end of the movie his family has no food, no candles, nothing. Why? Because he refuses to sign something and making literally no impact on anything by not signing it. He doesn't come off as righteous, he comes off as smug and self-important. If it had been a twenty minute struggle then it would've been heroic possibly. But it's the whole freaking movie. And since in real life he was locked up for a year or something crazy, it was even more excruciating in real life for the same reason. He basically says, "I don't want God to be mad because I lied. I'm sure he won't be mad at all that I'm royally screwing my family." Stupid. SIDE NOTE: I might have mentioned this before but I find it entertaining that without the Church of England the United States probably wouldn't exist. And the Church of England wouldn't exist if a man with too much power didn't want to bang a hot teenager. That is delightfully messed up and funny. So there you go. It's a movie about a stubborn guy who gets more stubborn as he goes along and Anne Boleyn is in it so little that I completely missed when she was in it. IMDB told me it happened and I believe them. So it's a waste. Just Netflix The Tudors and you'll have a much more enjoyable time.
Well that's it for 1966, it was a pretty good year overall. Definitely one of the better decades so far, no doubt about that. I'm strongly considering rebooting my 2009 post since I didn't really give it a proper post and I'm OCD like that. So keep an eye out for that "Director's Cut." But aside from that the other next entry should be pretty interesting. Or at least I presume so since it involves hiking Russians, cruising Jews, and singing Nazis.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
1967: The Year that Talking Animals Were Trying to Seduce You
If you're disturbed by such a notion, you should be. But that's 1967 for you, not a great year. Not terrible either I suppose. Actually, there's really just the one bad one now that I look at it. It really stuck with me though. And at least there's some variety so I can throw some flavor in my rant. I took a few weeks off from my Netflix adventure because this year's Oscars exhausted me (in case you couldn't tell). And now my PS3 may or may not be out of commission for a little while (with my Mad Men season 2 disc 2 DVD held captive within!) so I figured it was a good time to return. Luckily I'd already seen most of the year's movies by the time I wrote my 2010 post so it didn't take long to catch up.
And after all of my whining, of course the first movie is pretty great: Bonnie and Clyde. I saw this a while ago actually, almost exactly 4 years ago when they released the 40th anniversary DVD. I hadn't seen it, but that was back when I was employed and could buy classic movies I hadn't seen without selling my body to science first. I highly enjoyed it then, and it's even better for me now. Because I now realize the turning point that it represented for movies of its type. Tracking the "crime drama" through time is very interesting. Because back in the 30s and 40s many of them, like most of Jimmy Cagney's outstanding gangster films, were basically exceptionally made PSAs. They were real movies with good stories, but at the end of the day they were meant to say "hey kids, don't be criminals." Then came the era of film noir, which were meant to say "hey adults, don't fall in love with exotic women." I'm being facetious of course, because noir is about much more than that. They are especially about glorifying exceptionally dark lifestyles, people, and situations. They usually end up with everyone dying or at least losing, but up until then they're like chick flicks for men (I forget the colloquialism for that, actually I don't but my mother reads this). Booze! Broads! Black and White! Totally awesome. But before the era of the anti-hero began, there were a few interesting films like Bonnie and Clyde that took a more realistic look at the life of a criminal. In it, they find the life of crime appealing but we do not. We find it disturbing because of how much they seem to enjoy it. It's quite actually a turn-on for them. Not in an abstract "women who kick ass are hot" way (not that I know anyone like that at all). They actually derive pleasure from robbing banks, and the film even heavily implies that Clyde is impotent unless they are committing crimes. They become increasingly more violent with their heists and eventually end up in "one of the bloodiest death scenes in cinematic history." Judging by what had been in films up until that point, I'd say that's definitely true. The film really pushed the envelope, but in a good way. They weren't trying to be explicit just to do it, they were making a point. Because if the titular characters got killed off-screen or in a bloodless way, they would almost be martyrs. They'd be the lovers who went too far and ended up dying. A post-modern Romeo and Juliet. But by having a truly impactful and violent death scene, we see that there is nothing glamorous whatsoever about their lifestyle. The end for them was neither glorious nor pretty. So what we end up with is a very maturely done movie that takes a real look at characters that had previously been glorified both in fiction and reality. Pretty great stuff. Probably too extreme to win in that year, but I think it's the best of the nominees if you're looking at it from today's standards.
From the standards of any time frame the worst is Doctor Dolittle. And I'm not the only one that thinks so. It was panned at the time and no one thinks any more of it now. It was infamously nominated because the producers wined and dined the Academy. If this still goes on (and it probably does) then it explains a lot. The movie is just a mess. It's aimed toward children but it's pretty boring and it's like two and a half hours long. The only movies for kids I'm aware of that are that long and hold their attention involve wizardry and flying cars and most importantly: whomping willows. Talking ducks doesn't quite do it. And if I understood it correctly, everyone can hear the animals but only the Doctor can talk to them. Which doesn't make sense at all. I can buy the talking animals. But what kind of wonky rules determine a world where animals speak English but only one guy can talk back to them? I'm sure they had some kind of rule in mind such as "the animals are speaking their own languages but it's translated for the audience" but they don't seem to stick to it very well. Then there's a giant snail and a giant butterfly and a bunch of tribespeople and it's all very strange. I was also watching it whilst doing my 2010 write-up, so I felt like I was in a very strange haze of craziness. I was exhausted from ranting and upset from the awards and all the while there's a guy singing to a frigging monkey. Not that I remember many of the songs, because none of them were about anything. BUT I do remember one that I found quite disturbing and made sure to make a mental note about. It's basically a song addressing the hypocrisy of a person who talks to pigs but also eats sausage and bacon for breakfast. I wasn't even thinking about that angle of the story. It literally made me think about it and tried to justify it but only succeeded in making me disturbed. If I could talk to animals I'd be a vegetarian. Because you're basically an honorary cannibal otherwise. I don't remember what his reasoning was, but I think it boiled down to: "I'm a hypocritical, cannibalistic douche but I can sing so who cares?" I'm thankfully not alone in my dislike for this movie. And just because the opportunity will never come around again, I'd like to say this: "Eddie Murphy's version is better." I haven't seen it but it's shorter so it has to be. Definitely won't be saying that ever again in my life, so take a good look Michael. Because it's the last time.
A movie that is slightly better than I expected is The Graduate. And by that I mean: Dustin Hoffman isn't quite as annoying in it as he usually is. Only because his particular brand of bumbling buffoon works in this particular role. I still find the story to be unappealing and kind of pointless, but then again I'm an aimless 2010 graduate and not a 1967 one. Back then my review of it probably would have said, "see it man. It is a moonbeam." I will say that I'm happy it boosted the career of Simon and Garfunkel because I'm a big fan. I will also say that their songs are horribly misused in the movie. You have these excellent songs like "The Sound of Silence" which is an incredibly poetic social commentary, and it's being played over a scene where Hoffman is sitting in a pool all angsty over his affair with an older lady. Whenever the creative power of a band completely outshines the quality of a movie, it just doesn't work. The only one that does is, unsurprisingly, "Mrs. Robinson" which was the only one tweaked specifically for the movie. Apparently it originally was about "Mrs. Roosevelt." Actually, I also think "Scarborough Fair" was used well. That's it though. And it's more testament to the band than the filmmakers. I think the movie itself is probably a very good adaptation of a book I would never have any interest in reading. It's supposedly a comedy in parts, but it's too angsty to actually be funny. It accurately captures the mindset and uncertainty of the culture back then (so I'm told). And I suppose I could see that. The 60s were a turning point for the country because it was when the old ways fell by the wayside and the "new frontier" was on the rise. So should the youth of America shack up with the older way of doing things or with the hope of a different future? The famous last shot (and sole truly great part of the film I think) captures that uncertainty without being too obvious about it. Although it was apparently intended to be different (check Wikipedia) and the originally intended scene would have sucked. Like, terribly. As it stands, the interesting aspects of the story are all tied up in a movie that doesn't know what it is. It's either an unfunny comedy or a drama that isn't serious enough. It's the alcoholic cousin of rom-coms. Still better than a lot of today's drivel but Best Picture nominee is a bit much. Of course, if all it was up against was the terrible spoof version of Casino Royale then I guess I understand.
A surprisingly enjoyable film is Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. I say that it's surprising not because I thought it would be bad, but because I didn't expect it to be so delightful. If it's even possible for a movie about racial strife to be delightful then it is certainly achieved here. But I knew the film had to be good, considering the fact that it stars Spencer Tracy, Sidney Poitier, and Katharine Hepburn. I'm always struck by Hepburn's ability to really get up in people's faces and make them feel tiny. There's a specific sound I make when watching things that I'm sure my parents are all too familiar with. It's kind of a disturbed Santa laugh if that makes any sense. I only make it when somebody is being totally decimated. Either I'm doing the decimating in a video game or someone is in a show or movie. But I've only ever made that noise in response to dialogue when she delivers it. Whoever she happens to be talking to probably doesn't have to try very hard to look intimidated. The woman had a supreme presence. As did Tracy and Poitier of course, and they all have their great moments. Considering the movie that won for this year, it was interesting to see Poitier in a toned down role. His character spends almost the entire movie being uncomfortable and nervous, but still proud and sure of himself. Having the type of range as an actor to go from a movie where you have to be completely vulnerable to one where you have to dominate every scene you're in is very impressive. The movie itself feels very much like a stage play in the sense that it only has a few sets and a fairly limited cast of characters. But it doesn't feel like a stage play the way that Dangerous Liaisons did, where it all feels rehearsed. It all felt organic and even spontaneous at times. Sadly, it was also Spencer Tracy's final outing. But the good news is that it's only his first outing for me, and I look forward to watching more of his work that I have not yet experienced. All in all, the movie is funny at times and serious at times but it all seems to just fit together and it doesn't overstay its welcome by going on too long.
The aforementioned domination by Mr. Poitier occurs in this year's winner: In the Heat of the Night. It's also largely based in racial strife but it is in no way delightful. It focuses on a murder investigation in a racist town in the South and Poitier plays a black detective from Philadelphia who finds himself in the middle of the debacle. At first he's a suspect but he of course ends up helping out. Though the film thankfully never turns into a "buddy movie" wherein the two opposites, Poitier and the equally excellent Rod Steiger, put aside their differences and become best friends. They come to respect each other by the end of the film but in a very realistic way. It also includes one of the most famous movie quotes of all time, "they call me MISTER Tibbs!" I love that. It illustrates my "less is more" policy when it comes to good dialogue. Because if Steiger was mocking him in another movie, another screenwriter might have said something like, "you might not respect me because of the color of my skin but in response to your question, in Philadelphia they refer to me respectfully because I'm a damn good cop." That would suck. Well, it wouldn't suck necessarily but it wouldn't be very memorable either. To encapsulate that entire line of thinking along with the central racial conflict of the film into five words is far better. Aside from the acting and writing, the directing and music are also very good but the plot is pretty ordinary. Aside from the racist backdrop it's basically an episode of whatever the CSI of 1967 was. Lots of misdirects for who the killer is, all ending with a quick revelation by the hero and a humanizing portrait of the killer when they're finally tracked down. As such, it's not among the best of the Best Picture winners but it's certainly a good movie and Steiger earned every bit of his award for Actor.
Well that's about it for this year, now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go around town yelling "they call me MISTER Tibbs!" and if there's a woman around who A) knows what it is and B) knows why it's a great quote then I will ask her to marry me. If she says yes then I'll run in the other direction, because she sounds pretty clingy. While I'm off doing that I'll also be checking out 1966's offerings. I'm not sure I know enough about them to say anything clever so I'll just mention that they involve fighting the Russians, fighting the Chinese, and fighting the King of England. I haven't watched any of them yet so don't tell me who wins.
And after all of my whining, of course the first movie is pretty great: Bonnie and Clyde. I saw this a while ago actually, almost exactly 4 years ago when they released the 40th anniversary DVD. I hadn't seen it, but that was back when I was employed and could buy classic movies I hadn't seen without selling my body to science first. I highly enjoyed it then, and it's even better for me now. Because I now realize the turning point that it represented for movies of its type. Tracking the "crime drama" through time is very interesting. Because back in the 30s and 40s many of them, like most of Jimmy Cagney's outstanding gangster films, were basically exceptionally made PSAs. They were real movies with good stories, but at the end of the day they were meant to say "hey kids, don't be criminals." Then came the era of film noir, which were meant to say "hey adults, don't fall in love with exotic women." I'm being facetious of course, because noir is about much more than that. They are especially about glorifying exceptionally dark lifestyles, people, and situations. They usually end up with everyone dying or at least losing, but up until then they're like chick flicks for men (I forget the colloquialism for that, actually I don't but my mother reads this). Booze! Broads! Black and White! Totally awesome. But before the era of the anti-hero began, there were a few interesting films like Bonnie and Clyde that took a more realistic look at the life of a criminal. In it, they find the life of crime appealing but we do not. We find it disturbing because of how much they seem to enjoy it. It's quite actually a turn-on for them. Not in an abstract "women who kick ass are hot" way (not that I know anyone like that at all). They actually derive pleasure from robbing banks, and the film even heavily implies that Clyde is impotent unless they are committing crimes. They become increasingly more violent with their heists and eventually end up in "one of the bloodiest death scenes in cinematic history." Judging by what had been in films up until that point, I'd say that's definitely true. The film really pushed the envelope, but in a good way. They weren't trying to be explicit just to do it, they were making a point. Because if the titular characters got killed off-screen or in a bloodless way, they would almost be martyrs. They'd be the lovers who went too far and ended up dying. A post-modern Romeo and Juliet. But by having a truly impactful and violent death scene, we see that there is nothing glamorous whatsoever about their lifestyle. The end for them was neither glorious nor pretty. So what we end up with is a very maturely done movie that takes a real look at characters that had previously been glorified both in fiction and reality. Pretty great stuff. Probably too extreme to win in that year, but I think it's the best of the nominees if you're looking at it from today's standards.
From the standards of any time frame the worst is Doctor Dolittle. And I'm not the only one that thinks so. It was panned at the time and no one thinks any more of it now. It was infamously nominated because the producers wined and dined the Academy. If this still goes on (and it probably does) then it explains a lot. The movie is just a mess. It's aimed toward children but it's pretty boring and it's like two and a half hours long. The only movies for kids I'm aware of that are that long and hold their attention involve wizardry and flying cars and most importantly: whomping willows. Talking ducks doesn't quite do it. And if I understood it correctly, everyone can hear the animals but only the Doctor can talk to them. Which doesn't make sense at all. I can buy the talking animals. But what kind of wonky rules determine a world where animals speak English but only one guy can talk back to them? I'm sure they had some kind of rule in mind such as "the animals are speaking their own languages but it's translated for the audience" but they don't seem to stick to it very well. Then there's a giant snail and a giant butterfly and a bunch of tribespeople and it's all very strange. I was also watching it whilst doing my 2010 write-up, so I felt like I was in a very strange haze of craziness. I was exhausted from ranting and upset from the awards and all the while there's a guy singing to a frigging monkey. Not that I remember many of the songs, because none of them were about anything. BUT I do remember one that I found quite disturbing and made sure to make a mental note about. It's basically a song addressing the hypocrisy of a person who talks to pigs but also eats sausage and bacon for breakfast. I wasn't even thinking about that angle of the story. It literally made me think about it and tried to justify it but only succeeded in making me disturbed. If I could talk to animals I'd be a vegetarian. Because you're basically an honorary cannibal otherwise. I don't remember what his reasoning was, but I think it boiled down to: "I'm a hypocritical, cannibalistic douche but I can sing so who cares?" I'm thankfully not alone in my dislike for this movie. And just because the opportunity will never come around again, I'd like to say this: "Eddie Murphy's version is better." I haven't seen it but it's shorter so it has to be. Definitely won't be saying that ever again in my life, so take a good look Michael. Because it's the last time.
A movie that is slightly better than I expected is The Graduate. And by that I mean: Dustin Hoffman isn't quite as annoying in it as he usually is. Only because his particular brand of bumbling buffoon works in this particular role. I still find the story to be unappealing and kind of pointless, but then again I'm an aimless 2010 graduate and not a 1967 one. Back then my review of it probably would have said, "see it man. It is a moonbeam." I will say that I'm happy it boosted the career of Simon and Garfunkel because I'm a big fan. I will also say that their songs are horribly misused in the movie. You have these excellent songs like "The Sound of Silence" which is an incredibly poetic social commentary, and it's being played over a scene where Hoffman is sitting in a pool all angsty over his affair with an older lady. Whenever the creative power of a band completely outshines the quality of a movie, it just doesn't work. The only one that does is, unsurprisingly, "Mrs. Robinson" which was the only one tweaked specifically for the movie. Apparently it originally was about "Mrs. Roosevelt." Actually, I also think "Scarborough Fair" was used well. That's it though. And it's more testament to the band than the filmmakers. I think the movie itself is probably a very good adaptation of a book I would never have any interest in reading. It's supposedly a comedy in parts, but it's too angsty to actually be funny. It accurately captures the mindset and uncertainty of the culture back then (so I'm told). And I suppose I could see that. The 60s were a turning point for the country because it was when the old ways fell by the wayside and the "new frontier" was on the rise. So should the youth of America shack up with the older way of doing things or with the hope of a different future? The famous last shot (and sole truly great part of the film I think) captures that uncertainty without being too obvious about it. Although it was apparently intended to be different (check Wikipedia) and the originally intended scene would have sucked. Like, terribly. As it stands, the interesting aspects of the story are all tied up in a movie that doesn't know what it is. It's either an unfunny comedy or a drama that isn't serious enough. It's the alcoholic cousin of rom-coms. Still better than a lot of today's drivel but Best Picture nominee is a bit much. Of course, if all it was up against was the terrible spoof version of Casino Royale then I guess I understand.
A surprisingly enjoyable film is Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. I say that it's surprising not because I thought it would be bad, but because I didn't expect it to be so delightful. If it's even possible for a movie about racial strife to be delightful then it is certainly achieved here. But I knew the film had to be good, considering the fact that it stars Spencer Tracy, Sidney Poitier, and Katharine Hepburn. I'm always struck by Hepburn's ability to really get up in people's faces and make them feel tiny. There's a specific sound I make when watching things that I'm sure my parents are all too familiar with. It's kind of a disturbed Santa laugh if that makes any sense. I only make it when somebody is being totally decimated. Either I'm doing the decimating in a video game or someone is in a show or movie. But I've only ever made that noise in response to dialogue when she delivers it. Whoever she happens to be talking to probably doesn't have to try very hard to look intimidated. The woman had a supreme presence. As did Tracy and Poitier of course, and they all have their great moments. Considering the movie that won for this year, it was interesting to see Poitier in a toned down role. His character spends almost the entire movie being uncomfortable and nervous, but still proud and sure of himself. Having the type of range as an actor to go from a movie where you have to be completely vulnerable to one where you have to dominate every scene you're in is very impressive. The movie itself feels very much like a stage play in the sense that it only has a few sets and a fairly limited cast of characters. But it doesn't feel like a stage play the way that Dangerous Liaisons did, where it all feels rehearsed. It all felt organic and even spontaneous at times. Sadly, it was also Spencer Tracy's final outing. But the good news is that it's only his first outing for me, and I look forward to watching more of his work that I have not yet experienced. All in all, the movie is funny at times and serious at times but it all seems to just fit together and it doesn't overstay its welcome by going on too long.
The aforementioned domination by Mr. Poitier occurs in this year's winner: In the Heat of the Night. It's also largely based in racial strife but it is in no way delightful. It focuses on a murder investigation in a racist town in the South and Poitier plays a black detective from Philadelphia who finds himself in the middle of the debacle. At first he's a suspect but he of course ends up helping out. Though the film thankfully never turns into a "buddy movie" wherein the two opposites, Poitier and the equally excellent Rod Steiger, put aside their differences and become best friends. They come to respect each other by the end of the film but in a very realistic way. It also includes one of the most famous movie quotes of all time, "they call me MISTER Tibbs!" I love that. It illustrates my "less is more" policy when it comes to good dialogue. Because if Steiger was mocking him in another movie, another screenwriter might have said something like, "you might not respect me because of the color of my skin but in response to your question, in Philadelphia they refer to me respectfully because I'm a damn good cop." That would suck. Well, it wouldn't suck necessarily but it wouldn't be very memorable either. To encapsulate that entire line of thinking along with the central racial conflict of the film into five words is far better. Aside from the acting and writing, the directing and music are also very good but the plot is pretty ordinary. Aside from the racist backdrop it's basically an episode of whatever the CSI of 1967 was. Lots of misdirects for who the killer is, all ending with a quick revelation by the hero and a humanizing portrait of the killer when they're finally tracked down. As such, it's not among the best of the Best Picture winners but it's certainly a good movie and Steiger earned every bit of his award for Actor.
Well that's about it for this year, now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go around town yelling "they call me MISTER Tibbs!" and if there's a woman around who A) knows what it is and B) knows why it's a great quote then I will ask her to marry me. If she says yes then I'll run in the other direction, because she sounds pretty clingy. While I'm off doing that I'll also be checking out 1966's offerings. I'm not sure I know enough about them to say anything clever so I'll just mention that they involve fighting the Russians, fighting the Chinese, and fighting the King of England. I haven't watched any of them yet so don't tell me who wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)