First up we have a movie that I've actually been a fan of for a long time: High Noon. Funny story, on Safari this seems to be working normally. Crisis averted! Right then. The thing I like about this movie, or one of the things anyway, is that it was actually pretty innovative for the time. Because it takes place in real time. The bad guys are coming for him at High Noon and the clock ticks onward for most of the film. That's basically the whole plot. But here's a great example of how a movie can be thin on plot but high on style. It was robbed for Best Picture and I'm not the only one who says so. I'll explain why near the end. The film begins with the hauntingly beautiful tune "Do Not Forsake Me, Oh My Darlin.'" I'm not a big fan of folksy country tunes (unless they're sung by hot blondes) but this one is truly beautiful. Not just because of the lyrics but also because of how the lyrics pertain to the story. Hear that Michael Bay? It can be done. And unlike many of the nauseatingly cheerful films of the time, especially Westerns, this one is misery the whole way through. NOBODY wants to help this guy. No one except for a kid who's too young to fight and an old man who's too frail. He might've even been blind or something, it's been a while since I've seen it. There's also the added plot element of Gary Cooper's wife in the movie, who is played by Grace Kelly. Before you get all excited for him, she's a Quaker who opposes violence of all kinds. So if he is to stay and fight the bandits, will he die or will he lose his wife? That's some actual drama there. Seriously. Because they don't hammer it into you. You're just aware of it and it adds suspense. Without spoiling anything, the finale of the film packs a lot of personal emotion and is surprisingly well done. It's not overdone and it's not done unrealistically. One guy versus four guys. No matter how good you are, you aren't going to gun down all four at once. They keep that in mind, thus not ruining the realistic feel of the story. Don't worry, it has a happy ending. But it earns it. Those are my kind of happy endings: the ones that come at the end of a full movie of misery and pain. Also: the show, Happy Endings. Also: no, nevermind.
A film I'm much less enthusiastic about, but don't hate, is Ivanhoe. This is one of my dad's favorites actually. And it was funny because when I told him I thought it was so-so he presumed I was miffed at the lack of fighting. While I do think the fighting could have been improved, I'm actually more bored during fighting scenes nowadays than anything else. Unless it's a really personal confrontation. Back when I was younger, not even too long ago, I'd zone out until the fight scenes. I'd sort of pay attention of course but the fights were the highlight. Then last year I was watching an episode of The Tudors and looked down to read an article during this big battle because I was bored. I sat, stunned...waiting for my AARP card to come in the mail. Anyway, my real issue with this movie is that they focus too heavily on the love story. Which is funny, considering how many movies I've ripped lately for not focusing on the love story enough. So why does a movie that's about far more interesting things than shagging spend so much time with the love triangle? It's got Richard the Lionheart and Robin Hood (though they don't call him that) and the Crusades are going on and family feuds and all kinds of mess. But what do they focus on? Hammy romance. Any movie that has a woman overly swooning and falling into the main character's arms while saying, "oh (title character)!" then they've lost me. And nothing against Joan Fontaine, but who would pick her over Elizabeth Taylor? No one. Literally no one. I'd pick Rita Hayworth above Liz but that's about it. And this was back in the days when women weren't exactly big in the character development department (nor the men in many cases) so it's not like you can say "oh well Joan had a better personality." They were both Penelope Pitstops in distress and one is way hotter than the other. Just saying. So the parts that weren't the love triangle I thought were quite good. The fight at the end was a little ridiculous because it was two people on horseback fighting each other (not jousting) and since this would be a difficult battle to do in real life, let alone in a fake fight where no one can actually get hurt, it just ends up being a little slow and awkward. They continue on foot eventually and then it picks up, so I suppose that was good anyway. Overall though, I found the movie to be too "Hollywood-ized" to be overly great. It still beats most of the 50s movies I've had to sit through though.
Next up is a movie that shares almost an entire title with another nominee but almost entirely no plot elements: Moulin Rouge. I say almost the same because it's sans the exclamation mark. And man is it ever...this film is freaking depressing. Loved it! It takes place in the same historical location, the actual Moulin Rouge, and it's also a story of lost loves. But it's based on a lot of true events, or at least a real person: Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. I presume many of the events actually happened too. But I also don't care because it's a great movie so whatever artistic liberties they took were good ones. I did mix up the blondes in the movie, because I could only tell which one was Zsa Zsa Gabor when she was speaking. She was the only weak point actually. Both because I mixed her up with the other girl, causing some confusion, and because her acting was a bit hammy. Although as the movie went on, I actually saw the wisdom in that. Because her character is shallow and fake. So it's only fitting that she would act so fake all the time. Everyone fades into the background as compared to José Ferrer though, as Henri. He was a real-life disfigured painter and hopeless romantic. He wasn't Phantom of the Opera disfigured, but instead incredibly short. Not a midget or a dwarf exactly...he had some kind of medical condition (due to inbreeding, gross) that prevented his legs from healing after a childhood injury. The flashbacks throughout the film of course being some of the best parts. I'm a sucker for flashbacks. As many already know, I'm a big fan of the disfigured in movies. Also the villains. Because they're usually products of a cruel society. As I might have mentioned before, in a non-shallow society the Phantom of the Opera would've been a billionaire playboy. Because he was a musical genius, an athlete, and even an inventor. In this case, Henri's disfigurement is what makes him an incredible painter. Like many though, he falls for the wrong sort of woman. The tragedy being that he really believed she wouldn't care about his legs. When she eventually leaves him, is it really due to his condition or is it because of his self-perception? It's a moot point, because he'll never be rid of either. Lots of other tragic and beautifully done stuff happens but I'll spare you, because I want you to have a pleasant day without medication. I'll just point out that at the end of the movie, as happened in real life, he became the only living man to have his work displayed in the Louvre. As he is being given this news, he drifts off into eternal sleep; not dreaming of his accomplishments but instead the Moulin Rouge and its wonderful dancers, whose world he could never truly be a part of.
What could top that in terms of drama this time around? Nothing. So it's good that I'm about to annihilate The Quiet Man. It was the only "real movie" made by Republic Pictures, a company mostly known for whatever the 50s version of lesbian robot vampires was. I actually saw this movie in like 9th grade or something crazy like that. When I say in 9th grade, I mean in class. Like actually in a 9th grade classroom with other 9th graders. Not exactly the best environment for watching an intense character study. Or for terrible movies that try and fail to be intense character studies, in this case. The overall plot sounds pretty good: an American boxer who accidentally kills a man in the ring decides to get away from it all and go back to the peaceful Irish town where he was born. I don't know how they got John Ford to direct this and I don't want to know. They say it's known for its lush photography. Well I'm sure there are lots of "On Golden Blonde" type movies that have some non-euphemistic lush photography too. People also love the comical fight at the end. Which to me was neither funny nor dramatic. Maybe the movie is entertaining if you're living in a small Irish town where all of the ridiculous cultural norms are still in play. Such as appealing to a woman's brother before being able to marry her. On that subject: who would believe that Maureen O'Hara in a small town is still single in her 30s? NO ONE. She would be the first person every guy in town would be after. So how do they explain this? "Well, she's feisty." So she's finally won over by John Wayne? Okay I don't know where John Wayne ranks for women, but is he a 9? I doubt it. And that's where I'd put her. Once again: we're talking about a romance that's entirely based on looks because they haven't given us anything else to work with. Makes no sense. But her brother still hates him and so she doesn't receive her birthright. So he has to beat up her brother and take her rightful land ownership or something. Instead of having a High Noon esque moral dilemma of "should I fight him and lose myself? Or should I leave it alone and lose her?" he has a Marx Brothers style fight with the brother. A fight that culminates with them getting drunk in the bar, while still fighting. The happy ending is John Wayne stumbling home drunk to his wife, and she's all happy because he did his duty as a husband. For realsies. That's the ending. It so much defies what a good movie is, or even how a good movie should be built, that I really felt like I was missing some kind of satire. As far as I can tell: I wasn't.
Now we move on to this year's winner: the empirically overrated The Greatest Show on Earth. Since the behind the scenes is far more interesting than the movie, I'll start with that. Apparently, the only reason this won was that it was directed by Cecil B. DeMille and he helped McCarthy. This gave him some obvious street cred. I might not believe this except that I know for a fact that a ton of what happened back then in Hollywood was McCarthy related. Including, but not limited to, casting choices, who was and wasn't allowed to be listed in the credits, and of course who was allowed to work in the town ever again. Pretty crazy stuff, and not too long ago really. We have Mel Gibson but that's about it. And he's still allowed to make stuff obviously, he's just societally blacklisted. For the record, I stand by what South Park says: "Mel Gibson is crazy but he knows how to make movies." Now then, to the movie. It's pretty bad. Actually, it's more that it's not really a movie. It's basically a scripted documentary. Most of it does little more than show you a behind the scenes of what it's like to work at a circus. Interesting? Sure. But it's not a movie. There are very few actual characters, especially for a 150 minute movie, and most of it is just circus acts. You might as well just go to the circus. It has all of the excitement with none of the forced character scenes. Also more excitement. And probably shorter. Even still, there are exactly 3 things I liked about it. Only one of which is intentional. 1st: Charlton Heston is dressed an awful lot like Indiana Jones, and since this was the first movie Spielberg ever saw...I have to wonder. 2nd: Jimmy Stewart plays a clown. Jimmy Stewart has what is possibly the most ridiculous voice in the history of acting, and this was the one time that I've seen where he toned it down for a part. I find this very amusing. 3rd: there was a line in the movie where I was about to blurt out "that's what she said!" only to have a snarky woman in the movie give a 50s era implied "that's what she said." This was hilarious because it was 1952, the era of good wholesome movies. Amazing! That one line was literally worth sitting through the rest of the movie. Almost. There's a lot more plot in there than I give it credit for, true, but there's still too much fluff. And if you're going to foreshadow someone falling to their death from the trapeze, make sure they actually do. That's how Chekov's trapeze is supposed to work. But no, DeMille seemingly figured that if he pumped enough budget and extras into a movie, it'll be good all on its own. He was 50s James Cameron. I'm not alone in my thoughts. My dad, who is a fan of old movies almost exclusively, said it wasn't very good. And it was given the equivalent of an honorary Razzie award in a book written by one of the guys who gives out the Razzies nowadays. McCarthy did a lot of things that were of questionable morality. Propelling this to Best Picture over High Noon and Moulin Rouge? Probably the worst.
Kidding! I normally like to let my sarcasm sit and fester, but you know...sore spots. I've actually already seen most of 1951 for whatever reason. Actually the reason is that I like to keep my Netflix disc queue moving and I watch Instant Watch movies less often because I can watch them anytime. If that makes sense. Anyway, next year promises to be rant-inducing like always. All I know for now is it will include one of the most iconic performances in film history, the most gorgeous starlet in film history, and the most excessive scene in film history.
1 comment:
Nice. I love that you write as if your mother wasn't reading.
:)
Post a Comment