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.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
1958: The Year that The French Ethnic Slur Beat the Thing that Rhymes With It
Yep, we're getting meta with our titles. And we're talking like Gollum now apparently. Oh man! I should have called it The French Mistake, because it's a famous meta sequence that also involves French things. Well this was a rough year. Because not only did I not enjoy most of the movies, they're not strange enough to warrant proper rantings. All I can really say is that they're dull. I'll try my best to be creative but I might risk sounding like the film snob elitist douches that I purport to despise. What a narrative this blog has, eh? I just hope that when I hit 1927 I don't Colonel Kurtz myself.
We start things off with Auntie Mame. To begin with, Rosalind Russell (the star who plays the titular character) grew up in my dad's hometown of Waterbury, Connecticut. So that's pretty cool. And I hope I see some of her more interesting work down the road. Because this was basically over-the-top nonsense. It was entertaining to see that her character was likely a large influence on the character of Edna in The Incredibles. But that character was clearly supposed to be funny. I wasn't sure what this movie was trying to tell me. Because near the end of the film she is supposed to be the heroic rebel standing against the upper class snobbery who came close to being her nephew's in-laws. But she's also an upper class snob. She eats alligator and caviar and travels the world so she can fit into that "life is for crazy adventures!" archetype. But people who are always on the move are running from something. From commitment or responsibility or reality or any number of things. The film doesn't have any sobering moments that cause her to take a step back and perhaps reveal why she is the way she is. Which means that what it should be is a comedy. Which means that it's about a half an hour too long to be an overly long comedy. The character is supposed to be uplifting in the sense that she's seeing the world and doing all of these crazy things with her nephew. But since her nephew just grows up to almost marry a snob anyway, what was the point? And then at the end she's taking her nephew's son on all of her adventures instead. But if the nephew just grew up to be like his father, a straight-laced disdainer of adventures, then why did we just watch the movie? Wasn't the kid supposed to be introduced to all these new things and then become like her? That would have been a rehash of lots of other movies but at least it would've given the film a point. Instead, the point becomes that everyone grows up except for Auntie Mame. Which makes her quite a bit pathetic in my opinion. Now I'm going to use my own Ebert-ism and reference her famous line: "life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death!" Well, (in my douchey New York Times esque reviewer voice) if life is a banquet than Aunie Mame is a glutton, taking too much for herself and leaving none of the joy for the audience.
A slightly more redeemable picture is Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. I always hear about this movie as being one of THE stage plays of the time. So when I finally saw it I think I was mostly underwhelmed. I thought the acting was very good but the plot was a little spotty. It wasn't quite a series of vignettes and it certainly didn't come together too well. Although I will admit that I spent most of the first part of the movie wondering when and how they'd mention the title and ogling Elizabeth Taylor. And I ogled during most of that spending. The cat in question is Liz herself, which is why it's quite odd that she isn't in most of the second half of the film. This was my problem. The first bit is mostly about her and her husband, the injured former sports hero. The second bit is mostly about her husband's father dying of cancer. Then there are some other characters sprinkled in here and there for little reason. I can't really take characters seriously who are named "Big Momma" and "Big Daddy." According to my parents it's more common in the South to hear things like that. Well it's common in Boston to hear things like "wicked smahrt!" but I wouldn't include those phrases in a Boston-set character study. Because it's unintentionally funny and it takes the audience out of the movie. But that's not really a huge deal. My main problem, as I already said, is that there's no real main character and it's not truly an ensemble piece either. Given the title, you figure Liz is playing the main character. But then she's not in it for like, forever. The whole thing plays like an unexpectedly well-cast pilot episode of some CW show. Family drama! Pregnancy drama! Relationship stuff! Boring. As you may recall, I referred to another such family drama, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? as being quite good. So I'm not inherently against movies with a small cast and only family drama to drive the plot. But this was all over the place. If it was just about the aging sports star and his father, or him and his wife, that could have been good. But it ends up jumping from one thing to another too quickly and everything is ultimately the same at the end of the day. Just like a cat on a hot tin roof! OH SNAP.
Next up is this year's only good offering: The Defiant Ones. Anytime Sidney Poitier is in anything it's always going to be that much better, even if the overall product isn't that great. But this particular character study is well-paced, well-written, and well-acted by not only Mr. Poitier but also Tony Curtis. It's basically a two-man show between them and they both did an excellent job. The film would have completely fallen apart if one of them wasn't up to the same level as the other. It's basically about two escaped prisoners, one white and one black (in the deep South mind you) who are chained to each other and try to reach freedom. What's interesting is that they seem to dislike each other at first not because of their difference in race but because of their personal differences. I'm finding progressive examples of black actors MUCH more back in time than I ever expected. Needless to say, the two end up respecting each other and becoming friends and yadda yadda. But it thankfully plays as more of a character study than a "races should get along" thing. Which is really good because the second message will come across anyway if you do the first one in an effective way. Of course, it was 1958 and since no one back then wanted to set a bad example for the kiddies the two men were never going to escape. Nowadays they might have, or even in the 60s perhaps. But it's largely irrelevant because the real story is the personal connection. Speaking of Tony Curtis, I found it amusing that he has a convincing Southern accent in this. Because it would've worked a lot better than his native New Yorker accent that he uses in Spartacus, which takes you out of the movie entirely. So one wonders why Kubrick had him do that...I guess 1960 came and went and I forgot to mention that Spartacus should have gotten a nomination that year. The battle at the end is a little anemic but the rest of it is fantastically well done and it features what may well be the greatest love theme ever written, by Mr. Alex North. Anyway, back to Poitier and Curtis, the film shows up on TCM from time to time so if you see it coming up then you should check it out. It's only about an hour and a half (perfect length for the movie) and it features some truly stellar performances.
Another performance-based film that's sadly a bore is Separate Tables. I guess it's refreshing that boring British movies about people whose time has gone by are not a new phenomenon. Know what's a movie about people whose time has passed? Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch. Excellent film. Know why? It has a plot. This is just people sitting around rehashing the same conversations over and over. I was actually expecting to like this, but mostly because Rita Hayworth is in it. I have no idea why, but I am lit-trally obsessed with her. Like, seriously. Possibly more than a lot of modern actresses. It's a good thing I wasn't around back then because I would have run the risk of pulling a Hinckley on her love interest from Gilda. She has an undeniable allure, on top of also being a great actress. That's why Domenic is Team Rita and not Team Marilyn. Let it be known. She was...40 I think...yes Wikipedia says 40, anyway she was 40 when she made this and she's playing the glamour model who's time has passed. In one sense that's appropriate since I guess that was her story at the time. But on the other hand it's a bit absurd since she was still gorgeous. So she's sitting around lamenting how no one pays attention to her anymore and I'm just not buying it. Even back then 40 wasn't that old! Maybe in the Old West or something but goodness. To tell you the truth, I don't remember much of the movie. And I watched it like 3 days ago. It was just a bunch of Soap-y mess. "Oh we'll never be happy together! But we'll never be happy apart either!" Maybe if I was an aged someone-or-other I would have felt for one or several of the characters and felt a personal connection to their story. In fact, I never thought I'd say this in a million blog posts but that sort of factor added to my enjoyment of Transformers 3. It was the best of the 3 anyway, but in it the main guy just graduated with a more prestigious degree than mine and couldn't find work. And he mostly wanted to help the Autobots so that he could feel like he mattered again, and that's something I can really relate to. So I enjoyed it more than if I had seen it last year at this time, or (hopefully) next year at this time. But a movie shouldn't be dependent on a sub-sect of people having a personal connection. There should have been some more variety with the characters, but even if there was it'd still be fairly boring.
And speaking of boring, we come to this year's winner: Gigi. This won 9, count them: 9! Academy Awards. Umm...why? Not that there was much competition this year, judging by the Picture nominees, but still. Instead of describing the plot myself, I'd like to share the description on my Netflix DVD. Because it's the most absurd thing I've ever seen. "Leslie Caron stars as Gigi, an avant-garde French waif being groomed as the fille de joie of affluent and handsome Gaston (Louis Jourdan). Soon Gigi metamorphoses into a stunning beauty, and the head-over-heels Gaston asks for her hand. But Gigi's courtesan grandmother is aghast: no one in the family has ever considered something as plebeian as matrimony!" Okay...so I have a better vocabulary than most people, and I've seen the movie, and I have no idea what that first sentence means. And the last sentence sets off your douche alarm doesn't it? Even though it's all supposed to be funny, you're still watching snobs be snobs. And much like Auntie Mame, the girl who is in apparent opposition to the snobbery is a snob herself. Maybe that was supposed to make it funny. I don't know. But it wasn't. And aside from a pretty great duet that involves the two older members of the cast remembering a date they once had in completely different detail (easily more charming and enjoyable than the entire rest of the movie) the songs were forgettable. Except, of course, for the opening/closing number: "Thank Heaven for Little Girls." I could not believe my ears. An old French guy singing about how great little girls are. I know it's not meant to be taken in a perverted way, but good lord. Even in 1958 there must have been people in the audience going: "really?" Not to mention, this whole thing is basically My Fair Lady with the charm turned down. AND I checked, and MFL was already in existence on stage before this movie or its own movie came out so: HA! It is a ripoff. And critics of the time pointed this out, even though they also didn't seem to care. The only redeeming quality it has is Mr. Jourdan's character, who complains of everything being a bore. He's pretty funny when he's going around hating everything. And then it's all nice because Gigi is the only person crazy and unpredictable enough to interest him. Everyone else and everything else is just so boring. And I think that's a nice story, but it reverse-reminded me of As Good As It Gets because as soon as they fall in love the movie loses its interest. Because then it's just canned drama. It should've ended with them getting together and left the rest to your imagination. It's always better that way. If you took out the absurd opening song, either made it shorter or made them not get together until the end, and lost some of the snobbery this would actually be an enjoyable little movie. Still not even close to deserving 9 Oscars, or even a few, but it would be far better than what it actually was.
Well this wasn't as glaringly bad as some other years, and the movies were almost all mercifully short. So that's a plus. Still, I'm kind of surprised because this is supposed to be an era of good movies. And there are a lot of good ones but there were a lot of boring ones too. I know for a fact there are some really good winners coming up, so I hope they'll be in good company. All I know for sure about next year is that there will be dancing Asians, warrior Asians, and arguing Cauc Asians.
We start things off with Auntie Mame. To begin with, Rosalind Russell (the star who plays the titular character) grew up in my dad's hometown of Waterbury, Connecticut. So that's pretty cool. And I hope I see some of her more interesting work down the road. Because this was basically over-the-top nonsense. It was entertaining to see that her character was likely a large influence on the character of Edna in The Incredibles. But that character was clearly supposed to be funny. I wasn't sure what this movie was trying to tell me. Because near the end of the film she is supposed to be the heroic rebel standing against the upper class snobbery who came close to being her nephew's in-laws. But she's also an upper class snob. She eats alligator and caviar and travels the world so she can fit into that "life is for crazy adventures!" archetype. But people who are always on the move are running from something. From commitment or responsibility or reality or any number of things. The film doesn't have any sobering moments that cause her to take a step back and perhaps reveal why she is the way she is. Which means that what it should be is a comedy. Which means that it's about a half an hour too long to be an overly long comedy. The character is supposed to be uplifting in the sense that she's seeing the world and doing all of these crazy things with her nephew. But since her nephew just grows up to almost marry a snob anyway, what was the point? And then at the end she's taking her nephew's son on all of her adventures instead. But if the nephew just grew up to be like his father, a straight-laced disdainer of adventures, then why did we just watch the movie? Wasn't the kid supposed to be introduced to all these new things and then become like her? That would have been a rehash of lots of other movies but at least it would've given the film a point. Instead, the point becomes that everyone grows up except for Auntie Mame. Which makes her quite a bit pathetic in my opinion. Now I'm going to use my own Ebert-ism and reference her famous line: "life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death!" Well, (in my douchey New York Times esque reviewer voice) if life is a banquet than Aunie Mame is a glutton, taking too much for herself and leaving none of the joy for the audience.
A slightly more redeemable picture is Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. I always hear about this movie as being one of THE stage plays of the time. So when I finally saw it I think I was mostly underwhelmed. I thought the acting was very good but the plot was a little spotty. It wasn't quite a series of vignettes and it certainly didn't come together too well. Although I will admit that I spent most of the first part of the movie wondering when and how they'd mention the title and ogling Elizabeth Taylor. And I ogled during most of that spending. The cat in question is Liz herself, which is why it's quite odd that she isn't in most of the second half of the film. This was my problem. The first bit is mostly about her and her husband, the injured former sports hero. The second bit is mostly about her husband's father dying of cancer. Then there are some other characters sprinkled in here and there for little reason. I can't really take characters seriously who are named "Big Momma" and "Big Daddy." According to my parents it's more common in the South to hear things like that. Well it's common in Boston to hear things like "wicked smahrt!" but I wouldn't include those phrases in a Boston-set character study. Because it's unintentionally funny and it takes the audience out of the movie. But that's not really a huge deal. My main problem, as I already said, is that there's no real main character and it's not truly an ensemble piece either. Given the title, you figure Liz is playing the main character. But then she's not in it for like, forever. The whole thing plays like an unexpectedly well-cast pilot episode of some CW show. Family drama! Pregnancy drama! Relationship stuff! Boring. As you may recall, I referred to another such family drama, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? as being quite good. So I'm not inherently against movies with a small cast and only family drama to drive the plot. But this was all over the place. If it was just about the aging sports star and his father, or him and his wife, that could have been good. But it ends up jumping from one thing to another too quickly and everything is ultimately the same at the end of the day. Just like a cat on a hot tin roof! OH SNAP.
Next up is this year's only good offering: The Defiant Ones. Anytime Sidney Poitier is in anything it's always going to be that much better, even if the overall product isn't that great. But this particular character study is well-paced, well-written, and well-acted by not only Mr. Poitier but also Tony Curtis. It's basically a two-man show between them and they both did an excellent job. The film would have completely fallen apart if one of them wasn't up to the same level as the other. It's basically about two escaped prisoners, one white and one black (in the deep South mind you) who are chained to each other and try to reach freedom. What's interesting is that they seem to dislike each other at first not because of their difference in race but because of their personal differences. I'm finding progressive examples of black actors MUCH more back in time than I ever expected. Needless to say, the two end up respecting each other and becoming friends and yadda yadda. But it thankfully plays as more of a character study than a "races should get along" thing. Which is really good because the second message will come across anyway if you do the first one in an effective way. Of course, it was 1958 and since no one back then wanted to set a bad example for the kiddies the two men were never going to escape. Nowadays they might have, or even in the 60s perhaps. But it's largely irrelevant because the real story is the personal connection. Speaking of Tony Curtis, I found it amusing that he has a convincing Southern accent in this. Because it would've worked a lot better than his native New Yorker accent that he uses in Spartacus, which takes you out of the movie entirely. So one wonders why Kubrick had him do that...I guess 1960 came and went and I forgot to mention that Spartacus should have gotten a nomination that year. The battle at the end is a little anemic but the rest of it is fantastically well done and it features what may well be the greatest love theme ever written, by Mr. Alex North. Anyway, back to Poitier and Curtis, the film shows up on TCM from time to time so if you see it coming up then you should check it out. It's only about an hour and a half (perfect length for the movie) and it features some truly stellar performances.
Another performance-based film that's sadly a bore is Separate Tables. I guess it's refreshing that boring British movies about people whose time has gone by are not a new phenomenon. Know what's a movie about people whose time has passed? Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch. Excellent film. Know why? It has a plot. This is just people sitting around rehashing the same conversations over and over. I was actually expecting to like this, but mostly because Rita Hayworth is in it. I have no idea why, but I am lit-trally obsessed with her. Like, seriously. Possibly more than a lot of modern actresses. It's a good thing I wasn't around back then because I would have run the risk of pulling a Hinckley on her love interest from Gilda. She has an undeniable allure, on top of also being a great actress. That's why Domenic is Team Rita and not Team Marilyn. Let it be known. She was...40 I think...yes Wikipedia says 40, anyway she was 40 when she made this and she's playing the glamour model who's time has passed. In one sense that's appropriate since I guess that was her story at the time. But on the other hand it's a bit absurd since she was still gorgeous. So she's sitting around lamenting how no one pays attention to her anymore and I'm just not buying it. Even back then 40 wasn't that old! Maybe in the Old West or something but goodness. To tell you the truth, I don't remember much of the movie. And I watched it like 3 days ago. It was just a bunch of Soap-y mess. "Oh we'll never be happy together! But we'll never be happy apart either!" Maybe if I was an aged someone-or-other I would have felt for one or several of the characters and felt a personal connection to their story. In fact, I never thought I'd say this in a million blog posts but that sort of factor added to my enjoyment of Transformers 3. It was the best of the 3 anyway, but in it the main guy just graduated with a more prestigious degree than mine and couldn't find work. And he mostly wanted to help the Autobots so that he could feel like he mattered again, and that's something I can really relate to. So I enjoyed it more than if I had seen it last year at this time, or (hopefully) next year at this time. But a movie shouldn't be dependent on a sub-sect of people having a personal connection. There should have been some more variety with the characters, but even if there was it'd still be fairly boring.
And speaking of boring, we come to this year's winner: Gigi. This won 9, count them: 9! Academy Awards. Umm...why? Not that there was much competition this year, judging by the Picture nominees, but still. Instead of describing the plot myself, I'd like to share the description on my Netflix DVD. Because it's the most absurd thing I've ever seen. "Leslie Caron stars as Gigi, an avant-garde French waif being groomed as the fille de joie of affluent and handsome Gaston (Louis Jourdan). Soon Gigi metamorphoses into a stunning beauty, and the head-over-heels Gaston asks for her hand. But Gigi's courtesan grandmother is aghast: no one in the family has ever considered something as plebeian as matrimony!" Okay...so I have a better vocabulary than most people, and I've seen the movie, and I have no idea what that first sentence means. And the last sentence sets off your douche alarm doesn't it? Even though it's all supposed to be funny, you're still watching snobs be snobs. And much like Auntie Mame, the girl who is in apparent opposition to the snobbery is a snob herself. Maybe that was supposed to make it funny. I don't know. But it wasn't. And aside from a pretty great duet that involves the two older members of the cast remembering a date they once had in completely different detail (easily more charming and enjoyable than the entire rest of the movie) the songs were forgettable. Except, of course, for the opening/closing number: "Thank Heaven for Little Girls." I could not believe my ears. An old French guy singing about how great little girls are. I know it's not meant to be taken in a perverted way, but good lord. Even in 1958 there must have been people in the audience going: "really?" Not to mention, this whole thing is basically My Fair Lady with the charm turned down. AND I checked, and MFL was already in existence on stage before this movie or its own movie came out so: HA! It is a ripoff. And critics of the time pointed this out, even though they also didn't seem to care. The only redeeming quality it has is Mr. Jourdan's character, who complains of everything being a bore. He's pretty funny when he's going around hating everything. And then it's all nice because Gigi is the only person crazy and unpredictable enough to interest him. Everyone else and everything else is just so boring. And I think that's a nice story, but it reverse-reminded me of As Good As It Gets because as soon as they fall in love the movie loses its interest. Because then it's just canned drama. It should've ended with them getting together and left the rest to your imagination. It's always better that way. If you took out the absurd opening song, either made it shorter or made them not get together until the end, and lost some of the snobbery this would actually be an enjoyable little movie. Still not even close to deserving 9 Oscars, or even a few, but it would be far better than what it actually was.
Well this wasn't as glaringly bad as some other years, and the movies were almost all mercifully short. So that's a plus. Still, I'm kind of surprised because this is supposed to be an era of good movies. And there are a lot of good ones but there were a lot of boring ones too. I know for a fact there are some really good winners coming up, so I hope they'll be in good company. All I know for sure about next year is that there will be dancing Asians, warrior Asians, and arguing Cauc Asians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)