1953: The Year that The Might of Rome Created Widescreen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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