Release Date:
19 October 2007 (USA)
Director:
Ben Affleck
Writers:
Ben Affleck and Aaron Stockard based on a Dennis Lehane novel.
Cast:
Casey Affleck
Michelle Monaghan
Morgan Freeman
Ed Harris
John Ashton
Amy Ryan
Amy Madigan
Titus Welliver
IMDb link and rating:
8.0
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452623/
Plot Synopsis:
A romantically involved pair of private detectives are hired by the aunt of missing 4-year old girl. Through their search the detectives learn more about their sordid Boston neighborhood and how the decisions we make shape our lives.
Stephen:
6.5
(viewed TU 5 Aug 2008)
This film had a clever plot; it took a long while to develop, but it turned out to reveal some surprises. Also, I was pretty impressed with Casey Affleck.
It’s unfair to make the comparison, but because of my recent immersion in the mysteries of Agatha Christie - and in particular, the magnificent movies that were made starring David Suchet as Christie’s unsurpassed sleuth Hercule Poirot - I inevitably hold these as a standard for anything that develops into a mystery story. In this case, my complaint, which (I repeat) is unfair, is that the setting kept the discourse and action at a disturbingly low level. What I mean is that there were a hundred parts trash talk, crassness, and squalor for each part brainwork. I suppose this can’t be helped when you set the movie in the tough part of town.
Lynne:
7.0
(viewed TU 5 Aug 2008)
Despite being from the suburbs of Boston, I found that I often had a hard time understanding what the characters were saying. (I could have turned up the TV, but since the f* bomb was approximately every third word, mother-judgment prevailed.) This movie made me squirm and was often hard to watch, yet I thought it was thought-provoking and well done.
In pitting parental responsibility against drug addiction and vigilante justice, Gone Baby Gone explores the devastating effects of both on the parents and children touched by them. Oddly, this movie seemed like both an indictment of Social Services and its raison d’etre. While there were no winners, a hero does emerge only to sit quietly watching the immediately disappointing results of his triumph of morality.
The facial nuances of the female detective, seemed to make her look alternatively like Liv Tyler and a young Marcia Gay Harden, which caused no small amount of distraction for me. Of course, that was not her fault, but her character ended up being only marginally necessary and while that was also not her fault, it was a downside of the movie.
Action Items:
None.
Supplementary Details:
Casey Affleck is a slow talker like Owen Wilson. I just can't stand slow talkers. (L)
Friday, August 15, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Snow Cake
Release Date:
8 Sep 2006 (UK)
Director:
Marc Evans
Writers:
Angela Pell
Cast:
Alan Rickman (Alex Hughes)
Emily Hampshire (Vivienne Freeman)
Sigourney Weaver (Linda Freeman)
Carrie-Anne Moss (Maggie)
IMDb link and rating:
7.7
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448124/
Plot Synopsis:
A man survives a deadly auto accident with a young woman he just met. When, grieving for her death, he goes to apologize to her family, his life becomes enmeshed with her autistic mother.
Stephen:
4.0
(viewed SA 29 Mar 2008)
Of course I liked the cast of this movie; Alan Rickman, Carrie-Anne Moss, and Sigourney Weaver are all accomplished actors. I simply wasn’t grabbed by the story. There was senseless tragedy in the form of two auto accidents, a little bit of irony which contributed to Hughes arriving at forgiveness (of himself and others), and a brief intersection of lives (with the beautiful and readily available neighbor, Maggie) that didn’t amount to much and wasn’t particularly convincing.
Also, the movie suffers from what I think of as “Rain Man syndrome.” Weaver may very well have done a magnificent job capturing the essence of autism, but how would I know? Or more to the point, for what purpose? I am mostly interested in characters that say something general or universal about humanity. Of course, I have no objection to the presence of characters that have handicaps or physical malfunctions, but I certainly would not gush about how brilliant or sensitive an actor must be to handle the part. It strikes me as relatively easy because the gimmick is the thing. So, by “Rain Man syndrome” I mean that I much prefer Dustin Hoffman’s performance in Marathon Man than in Rain Man.
Lynne:
7.0
(viewed SA 29 Mar 2008)
I mostly disagree with Stephen’s review. First, I think the overall theme of the movie, that human beings are capable of connecting in the strangest and strongest of ways, is pretty universal. Tragedy sometimes happens. Life is Good. More universals.
For me, the forced issue was mostly that of the curmudgeon, Rickman, falling so quickly under the spell of the hitchhiker. He smiled too easily, laughed too readily for believability (however, this may have more to do with my “always Severus” viewing of Mr. Rickman, whom I had cast in the part of Snape in my mind long before the Philosopher’s Stone became the Sorcerer’s Stone and any movie deal was discussed). After the accident, I was able to appreciate his character’s motivation much better. I suppose since the movie was mostly about what happens later, this “quick to thaw” aspect of his character was necessary.
Regarding Sigourney Weaver’s role, I thought it was interesting. What she lacked in consistency (looking, not looking in the eye; understanding, not understanding how some relationships worked), she more than made up for in showing that life, even for those who lack the ability to form a loving relationship, could be wondrous. Simple, but joyful at times. Okay, the sexy, sex-loving neighbor was convenient – but, hey - it could happen.
I really just enjoyed watching Rickman’s character plod through the mine fields of autistic behaviors with determination and benevolence despite his own demons.
Action Items:
None.
8 Sep 2006 (UK)
Director:
Marc Evans
Writers:
Angela Pell
Cast:
Alan Rickman (Alex Hughes)
Emily Hampshire (Vivienne Freeman)
Sigourney Weaver (Linda Freeman)
Carrie-Anne Moss (Maggie)
IMDb link and rating:
7.7
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448124/
Plot Synopsis:
A man survives a deadly auto accident with a young woman he just met. When, grieving for her death, he goes to apologize to her family, his life becomes enmeshed with her autistic mother.
Stephen:
4.0
(viewed SA 29 Mar 2008)
Of course I liked the cast of this movie; Alan Rickman, Carrie-Anne Moss, and Sigourney Weaver are all accomplished actors. I simply wasn’t grabbed by the story. There was senseless tragedy in the form of two auto accidents, a little bit of irony which contributed to Hughes arriving at forgiveness (of himself and others), and a brief intersection of lives (with the beautiful and readily available neighbor, Maggie) that didn’t amount to much and wasn’t particularly convincing.
Also, the movie suffers from what I think of as “Rain Man syndrome.” Weaver may very well have done a magnificent job capturing the essence of autism, but how would I know? Or more to the point, for what purpose? I am mostly interested in characters that say something general or universal about humanity. Of course, I have no objection to the presence of characters that have handicaps or physical malfunctions, but I certainly would not gush about how brilliant or sensitive an actor must be to handle the part. It strikes me as relatively easy because the gimmick is the thing. So, by “Rain Man syndrome” I mean that I much prefer Dustin Hoffman’s performance in Marathon Man than in Rain Man.
Lynne:
7.0
(viewed SA 29 Mar 2008)
I mostly disagree with Stephen’s review. First, I think the overall theme of the movie, that human beings are capable of connecting in the strangest and strongest of ways, is pretty universal. Tragedy sometimes happens. Life is Good. More universals.
For me, the forced issue was mostly that of the curmudgeon, Rickman, falling so quickly under the spell of the hitchhiker. He smiled too easily, laughed too readily for believability (however, this may have more to do with my “always Severus” viewing of Mr. Rickman, whom I had cast in the part of Snape in my mind long before the Philosopher’s Stone became the Sorcerer’s Stone and any movie deal was discussed). After the accident, I was able to appreciate his character’s motivation much better. I suppose since the movie was mostly about what happens later, this “quick to thaw” aspect of his character was necessary.
Regarding Sigourney Weaver’s role, I thought it was interesting. What she lacked in consistency (looking, not looking in the eye; understanding, not understanding how some relationships worked), she more than made up for in showing that life, even for those who lack the ability to form a loving relationship, could be wondrous. Simple, but joyful at times. Okay, the sexy, sex-loving neighbor was convenient – but, hey - it could happen.
I really just enjoyed watching Rickman’s character plod through the mine fields of autistic behaviors with determination and benevolence despite his own demons.
Action Items:
None.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
The Emperor's New Clothes (2002)
Release Date:
7 Nov 2002 (Australia)
Director:
Alan Taylor
Writers:
Simon Leys (novel)
Kevin Molony (screenplay)
Cast:
Ian Holm (Napoleon Bonaparte/ Sergeant Eugene Lenormand)
Iben Hjejle (Nicole “Pumpkin” Truchaut)
Tim McInnerny (Dr. Lambert)
IMDb link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0282768/
Stephen:
7
(viewed Jan 2008)
Superficially, since the plot of this film involves Napoleon being stripped of his greatness, even literally stripped of his name, and falling in love like “any regular guy,” it may seem that the premise is a negative statement about greatness itself – reducing the sublime to the trivial, as it were. But that is not at all what the movie is about; it does not belittle Napoleon, but simply uses an imaginative departure from history to recover dignity and life from what was actually an obscure and ignoble end. It’s a wonderful film with touches of humor and poignancy.
The fact that Eugene and Napoleon are in fact the same man creates a provocative irony in the relationship between Pumpkin and Eugene. After all, the very reason Pumpkin has lived her life in lonely solitude is that her husband, a soldier in Napoleon’s army, had marched off gloriously to follow his great emperor, this “man who had filled Paris with widows and orphans,” and had presumably never returned. Now Pumpkin finds love from this very same man who had carried off her husband, and Napoleon himself discovers love and manages to rescue at least one Parisian widow from her loneliness.[1]
Ian Holm (Bilbo Baggins from Lord of the Rings) was magnificent as Napoleon and Iben Hjejle (pronounced EE-behn YAY-leh, from High Fidelity) performed the role of Pumpkin with a warmth and simple beauty that was captivating.
Lynne:
6
(viewed Jan 2008) Review
Yeah. It was good. A little note on our viewing: I think my feelings about the film, or lack thereof, can be attributed to the fact that we watched it over at least three nights. I kept falling asleep during it – not because it was boring, as is sometimes the case, but because I was really tired. The continuity of the story suffered a little from this, and therefore, despite the fact that I do think it was beautifully filmed, acted, and a very creative little film, I’m not all that gaga over it.
Action Items:
None.
[1] It must be remembered that in the 1812 campaign alone, Napoleon set off with 700,000 men. Within a week, food became a problem and within two weeks there was no cavalry to speak of, the horses having been eaten. Snow and starvation reduced his army to 100,000 by the time he reached Moscow, and when Napoleon finally arrived home in squalid retreat, only 10,000 men remained. (S)
7 Nov 2002 (Australia)
Director:
Alan Taylor
Writers:
Simon Leys (novel)
Kevin Molony (screenplay)
Cast:
Ian Holm (Napoleon Bonaparte/ Sergeant Eugene Lenormand)
Iben Hjejle (Nicole “Pumpkin” Truchaut)
Tim McInnerny (Dr. Lambert)
IMDb link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0282768/
Stephen:
7
(viewed Jan 2008)
Superficially, since the plot of this film involves Napoleon being stripped of his greatness, even literally stripped of his name, and falling in love like “any regular guy,” it may seem that the premise is a negative statement about greatness itself – reducing the sublime to the trivial, as it were. But that is not at all what the movie is about; it does not belittle Napoleon, but simply uses an imaginative departure from history to recover dignity and life from what was actually an obscure and ignoble end. It’s a wonderful film with touches of humor and poignancy.
The fact that Eugene and Napoleon are in fact the same man creates a provocative irony in the relationship between Pumpkin and Eugene. After all, the very reason Pumpkin has lived her life in lonely solitude is that her husband, a soldier in Napoleon’s army, had marched off gloriously to follow his great emperor, this “man who had filled Paris with widows and orphans,” and had presumably never returned. Now Pumpkin finds love from this very same man who had carried off her husband, and Napoleon himself discovers love and manages to rescue at least one Parisian widow from her loneliness.[1]
Ian Holm (Bilbo Baggins from Lord of the Rings) was magnificent as Napoleon and Iben Hjejle (pronounced EE-behn YAY-leh, from High Fidelity) performed the role of Pumpkin with a warmth and simple beauty that was captivating.
Lynne:
6
(viewed Jan 2008) Review
Yeah. It was good. A little note on our viewing: I think my feelings about the film, or lack thereof, can be attributed to the fact that we watched it over at least three nights. I kept falling asleep during it – not because it was boring, as is sometimes the case, but because I was really tired. The continuity of the story suffered a little from this, and therefore, despite the fact that I do think it was beautifully filmed, acted, and a very creative little film, I’m not all that gaga over it.
Action Items:
None.
[1] It must be remembered that in the 1812 campaign alone, Napoleon set off with 700,000 men. Within a week, food became a problem and within two weeks there was no cavalry to speak of, the horses having been eaten. Snow and starvation reduced his army to 100,000 by the time he reached Moscow, and when Napoleon finally arrived home in squalid retreat, only 10,000 men remained. (S)
Notes on a Scandal (2006)
Release Date:
5 Jan 2007 (Canada)
Director:
Richard Eyre
Writers:
Patrick Marber (screenplay)
Zoe Heller (novel)
Cast:
Judi Dench (Barbara Covett)
Cate Blanchett (Sheba Hart)
Bill Nighy (Richard Hart)
Andrew Simpson (Steven Connolly)
Juno Temple (Polly Hart)
IMDb link and rating:
7.7
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465551/
Stephen:
8.2
(viewed SA 1 Mar 2008)
This is a magnificently acted film, with virtuoso performances by Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett . (I should include Bill Nighy in this list as well; he was terrific.) Blanchett in particular is so beguiling, it’s hard to take one’s eyes off of her in anticipation of the next subtle modulation of expression.
The hardened schoolteacher, Barbara (Dench), is drawn to the young newcomer of the faculty, Sheba (Blanchett), in an increasingly obsessive manner. When she voyeuristically discovers Sheba’s sexual relationship with a fifteen-year-old student, she is initially enraged out of jealousy. (Barbara has by this point already in her own mind constructed a future life with Sheba, an improbable fantasy that is none the less real to Barbara.) Upon second thought, however, Barbara realizes this discovery is an opportunity, a means of encircling Sheba and keeping her “bound by the secrets we share,” a chance to conquer her own loneliness by ensuring the devoted and blissful servitude of the unwitting seductress.
I say “unwitting” because Sheba does not deliberately draw Barbara in for her own purposes; unlike Barbara, Sheba is in no way calculating and manipulative. Even when she desperately needs Barbara’s help (in the form of keeping quiet about her ill-advised and, quite frankly, illegal affair), she does so almost naively, by begging and throwing herself at Barbara’s mercy. She is genuinely grateful to Barbara and in fact demonstrates friendship beyond the point that many a viewer might think is warranted. Thus, Sheba is alluring to Barbara, but does not intend to be so any more than the ancient Bathsheba intended to seduce David. She does not know until much later that her simple kindness is a seduction.
A fascinating question arises in the character of Barbara. Was she an ordinary person to begin with? The repetition of her predation (for let’s here not shrink from calling it what it is) is an indication that there is something seriously wrong with her character. But could it be sheer loneliness that can corrupt an otherwise normal soul so deeply? Can the absence of a human touch fester and rot one’s mind until there is nothing but obsessive cruelty and desperation?
As far as the affair with the student goes, it’s almost hard to watch Sheba blunder into the relationship; the peril is too obvious. But interestingly, as unwise as it was, it was also not hard to understand. Sheba had a sort of bohemian approach to life, which we glimpsed when Sheba invited Barbara to her home. (After dinner, Sheba’s whole family danced with abandon while Barbara looked on, her conservative nature hardly knowing what to make of it - but all the while, her desire for the gently writhing Sheba was stoked.) I think it was Sheba’s relatively loose approach - I wouldn’t call it loose morals - that permitted her to abandon herself to the affair, “like having another drink when you know you shouldn’t,” as she put it later. A more conservative nature would have put up blockers automatically to forbid it - but perhaps only out of fear.
In any case, as Lynne pointed out, the student represented a simplicity that Sheba did not have in her life, an escape from an older husband, a depressed daughter, and a retarded son. However wrong Sheba may have been in her submission to the flattery and pleasure of the affair, there is no doubt here about which of the characters - Barbara and Sheba - represents light and which represents darkness. After the whole scandalous affair is exposed and Sheba is reduced to the nadir of her wretchedness, she (symbolically and literally) ascends the steps up to her apartment to find forgiveness. In contrast, Barbara’s apartment is below street level, a private lair within which she pours her obsessions onto the pages of her diary.
A final note: Philip Glass’ music lends a distinct drama, even a suspense, to the film. It is perfectly suited.
Lynne:
8
(viewed SA 1 Mar 2008)
However less beguiled by Miss Blanchett I may have been than was Stephen, I agree that this was a fabulously produced movie. The subject matter, an old female predator, was not one I would expect to find compelling – but it was. This is in no small part due to the terrific performances of Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett.
I disagree that Sheba was innocent in either the affair with the student, or the deepening of her relationship with Barbara. Comparing the affair to “having another drink when you know you shouldn’t”, makes her motivation seem simple and her lack of self awareness seem justifiable. Meeting her student at night, touching him lovingly, and what ensues required more thought than she seemed to give it. She was not merely a passive player in the events that unfolded, merely an inactive thinker. She may have longed for the simple affection the boy offered, but her lack of introspection rippled violently not only through her life, but also that of her family.
Regarding her relationship with Barbara, Sheba’s initial overtures seem genuine but lack the same anticipation, preparation, or even clarity of thought. She is unapologetically herself, but does not seem to understand who she even is. She continued her relationship with Barbara even after knowing that Barbara had developed sexual feelings towards her because she needed Barbara to contain her knowledge about the affair.
Barbara is a fascinatingly creepy character. She appears cold and self-sufficient in the public light of day, but manages to rationalize complete, long-term relationships with other women without their consent or even knowledge. During some of the movie, I was torn between feeling sorry for and feeling repulsed by her. The last nail in the REPULSED coffin was hammered in when Barbara’s friend innocently inquired about her last “companion” and Barbara acted as if she had no idea what she was talking about. She was completely disingenuous toward the woman in a brilliant display of her depth of evasion and dishonesty.
Even with the significant moral errors made by both women, it was clear which of the two represented light, and which darkness. It was really good movie. The music added eerie support to the story.
Action Items:
None.
5 Jan 2007 (Canada)
Director:
Richard Eyre
Writers:
Patrick Marber (screenplay)
Zoe Heller (novel)
Cast:
Judi Dench (Barbara Covett)
Cate Blanchett (Sheba Hart)
Bill Nighy (Richard Hart)
Andrew Simpson (Steven Connolly)
Juno Temple (Polly Hart)
IMDb link and rating:
7.7
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465551/
Stephen:
8.2
(viewed SA 1 Mar 2008)
This is a magnificently acted film, with virtuoso performances by Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett . (I should include Bill Nighy in this list as well; he was terrific.) Blanchett in particular is so beguiling, it’s hard to take one’s eyes off of her in anticipation of the next subtle modulation of expression.
The hardened schoolteacher, Barbara (Dench), is drawn to the young newcomer of the faculty, Sheba (Blanchett), in an increasingly obsessive manner. When she voyeuristically discovers Sheba’s sexual relationship with a fifteen-year-old student, she is initially enraged out of jealousy. (Barbara has by this point already in her own mind constructed a future life with Sheba, an improbable fantasy that is none the less real to Barbara.) Upon second thought, however, Barbara realizes this discovery is an opportunity, a means of encircling Sheba and keeping her “bound by the secrets we share,” a chance to conquer her own loneliness by ensuring the devoted and blissful servitude of the unwitting seductress.
I say “unwitting” because Sheba does not deliberately draw Barbara in for her own purposes; unlike Barbara, Sheba is in no way calculating and manipulative. Even when she desperately needs Barbara’s help (in the form of keeping quiet about her ill-advised and, quite frankly, illegal affair), she does so almost naively, by begging and throwing herself at Barbara’s mercy. She is genuinely grateful to Barbara and in fact demonstrates friendship beyond the point that many a viewer might think is warranted. Thus, Sheba is alluring to Barbara, but does not intend to be so any more than the ancient Bathsheba intended to seduce David. She does not know until much later that her simple kindness is a seduction.
A fascinating question arises in the character of Barbara. Was she an ordinary person to begin with? The repetition of her predation (for let’s here not shrink from calling it what it is) is an indication that there is something seriously wrong with her character. But could it be sheer loneliness that can corrupt an otherwise normal soul so deeply? Can the absence of a human touch fester and rot one’s mind until there is nothing but obsessive cruelty and desperation?
As far as the affair with the student goes, it’s almost hard to watch Sheba blunder into the relationship; the peril is too obvious. But interestingly, as unwise as it was, it was also not hard to understand. Sheba had a sort of bohemian approach to life, which we glimpsed when Sheba invited Barbara to her home. (After dinner, Sheba’s whole family danced with abandon while Barbara looked on, her conservative nature hardly knowing what to make of it - but all the while, her desire for the gently writhing Sheba was stoked.) I think it was Sheba’s relatively loose approach - I wouldn’t call it loose morals - that permitted her to abandon herself to the affair, “like having another drink when you know you shouldn’t,” as she put it later. A more conservative nature would have put up blockers automatically to forbid it - but perhaps only out of fear.
In any case, as Lynne pointed out, the student represented a simplicity that Sheba did not have in her life, an escape from an older husband, a depressed daughter, and a retarded son. However wrong Sheba may have been in her submission to the flattery and pleasure of the affair, there is no doubt here about which of the characters - Barbara and Sheba - represents light and which represents darkness. After the whole scandalous affair is exposed and Sheba is reduced to the nadir of her wretchedness, she (symbolically and literally) ascends the steps up to her apartment to find forgiveness. In contrast, Barbara’s apartment is below street level, a private lair within which she pours her obsessions onto the pages of her diary.
A final note: Philip Glass’ music lends a distinct drama, even a suspense, to the film. It is perfectly suited.
Lynne:
8
(viewed SA 1 Mar 2008)
However less beguiled by Miss Blanchett I may have been than was Stephen, I agree that this was a fabulously produced movie. The subject matter, an old female predator, was not one I would expect to find compelling – but it was. This is in no small part due to the terrific performances of Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett.
I disagree that Sheba was innocent in either the affair with the student, or the deepening of her relationship with Barbara. Comparing the affair to “having another drink when you know you shouldn’t”, makes her motivation seem simple and her lack of self awareness seem justifiable. Meeting her student at night, touching him lovingly, and what ensues required more thought than she seemed to give it. She was not merely a passive player in the events that unfolded, merely an inactive thinker. She may have longed for the simple affection the boy offered, but her lack of introspection rippled violently not only through her life, but also that of her family.
Regarding her relationship with Barbara, Sheba’s initial overtures seem genuine but lack the same anticipation, preparation, or even clarity of thought. She is unapologetically herself, but does not seem to understand who she even is. She continued her relationship with Barbara even after knowing that Barbara had developed sexual feelings towards her because she needed Barbara to contain her knowledge about the affair.
Barbara is a fascinatingly creepy character. She appears cold and self-sufficient in the public light of day, but manages to rationalize complete, long-term relationships with other women without their consent or even knowledge. During some of the movie, I was torn between feeling sorry for and feeling repulsed by her. The last nail in the REPULSED coffin was hammered in when Barbara’s friend innocently inquired about her last “companion” and Barbara acted as if she had no idea what she was talking about. She was completely disingenuous toward the woman in a brilliant display of her depth of evasion and dishonesty.
Even with the significant moral errors made by both women, it was clear which of the two represented light, and which darkness. It was really good movie. The music added eerie support to the story.
Action Items:
None.
Waitress (2007)
Release Date:
25 May 2007 (USA)
Director:
Adrienne Shelly
Cast:
Keri Russell
Nathan Fillion
Cheryl Hines
Andy Griffith
IMDb link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473308/
Stephen:
8
(viewed 3 Jan 2008) This was a wonderful film, benevolent and uplifting. I loved Nathan Fillion already (from Firefly), and his performance as the somewhat clumsy lover did not disappoint. But the real surprise for me was Keri Russell, who I had never really seen before. She has such a serious face that her infrequent smiles really count.
The poignant interaction between the three waitresses grasping for a little bit of life in an otherwise dreary existence reminded a little of Vénus beauté (institut), (at least, I think it does – I’d have to re-watch that movie to be sure).
Lynne:
8
(viewed 3 Jan 2008) After reading Stephen’s review, it has just struck me that part of the beauty of this movie is that it is so like a little foreign film. Except for the Ride of the Valkyries which was judiciously used, the movie lacked a noticeable sound track, allowing the simplicity of the personal interactions to slowly flow over the watcher and carry the action. The portrayal of the friendship between the waitresses was as flawless as the oppression within the marriage was merciless. Always a sucker for a happy ending, I was satisfied, though my joy was offset. Keri Russell was wonderful.
Action Items:
Maybe we should check out Felicity, the television series.
25 May 2007 (USA)
Director:
Adrienne Shelly
Cast:
Keri Russell
Nathan Fillion
Cheryl Hines
Andy Griffith
IMDb link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473308/
Stephen:
8
(viewed 3 Jan 2008) This was a wonderful film, benevolent and uplifting. I loved Nathan Fillion already (from Firefly), and his performance as the somewhat clumsy lover did not disappoint. But the real surprise for me was Keri Russell, who I had never really seen before. She has such a serious face that her infrequent smiles really count.
The poignant interaction between the three waitresses grasping for a little bit of life in an otherwise dreary existence reminded a little of Vénus beauté (institut), (at least, I think it does – I’d have to re-watch that movie to be sure).
Lynne:
8
(viewed 3 Jan 2008) After reading Stephen’s review, it has just struck me that part of the beauty of this movie is that it is so like a little foreign film. Except for the Ride of the Valkyries which was judiciously used, the movie lacked a noticeable sound track, allowing the simplicity of the personal interactions to slowly flow over the watcher and carry the action. The portrayal of the friendship between the waitresses was as flawless as the oppression within the marriage was merciless. Always a sucker for a happy ending, I was satisfied, though my joy was offset. Keri Russell was wonderful.
Action Items:
Maybe we should check out Felicity, the television series.
Volver (2007)
Release Date:
26 Jan 2007 (USA)
Director:
Pedro Almodóvar
Writers:
Pedro Almodóvar
Cast:
Penélope Cruz (Raimunda)
Lola Dueñes (Sole)
Carmen Maura (Irene)
Blanca Portillo (Agustina)
Yohana Cobo (Paula)
Chus Lampreave (Tía Paula)
IMDb link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0441909/
Stephen:
4
(viewed 1 Feb 2008) Having come to expect a little more intensity or wisdom from Señor Almodóvar, I was largely disappointed with this film. It is not bad, but merely falls a little flat, I think. The basic story is actually somewhat interesting, with a family mystery that is eventually explained satisfactorily. But along the way we see two events that lead to three deaths – young Paula’s killing (in self-defense) of her father who tried to rape her, and Irene’s murder of her husband and lover years before. Both of these killings remain undiscovered and unpunished (unless Aunt Irene’s being invisibly cloistered with the invalid, Aunt Paula, may be considered a punishment).
Lynne:
3
(viewed 1 Feb 2008) You can’t have a pulse and not love Penelope Cruz. Somewhere in the movie I thought I saw flashes of the sumptuous Eat Drink Man Woman and at other times flashes of a triumphant woman pulling her self up from the ashes. In the end, however, the flashes amounted to less than nothing when the purposeful deletion of human beings goes unnoticed even by those who would delete them. Happy go lucky sister also performed well.
Action Items:
None.
26 Jan 2007 (USA)
Director:
Pedro Almodóvar
Writers:
Pedro Almodóvar
Cast:
Penélope Cruz (Raimunda)
Lola Dueñes (Sole)
Carmen Maura (Irene)
Blanca Portillo (Agustina)
Yohana Cobo (Paula)
Chus Lampreave (Tía Paula)
IMDb link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0441909/
Stephen:
4
(viewed 1 Feb 2008) Having come to expect a little more intensity or wisdom from Señor Almodóvar, I was largely disappointed with this film. It is not bad, but merely falls a little flat, I think. The basic story is actually somewhat interesting, with a family mystery that is eventually explained satisfactorily. But along the way we see two events that lead to three deaths – young Paula’s killing (in self-defense) of her father who tried to rape her, and Irene’s murder of her husband and lover years before. Both of these killings remain undiscovered and unpunished (unless Aunt Irene’s being invisibly cloistered with the invalid, Aunt Paula, may be considered a punishment).
Lynne:
3
(viewed 1 Feb 2008) You can’t have a pulse and not love Penelope Cruz. Somewhere in the movie I thought I saw flashes of the sumptuous Eat Drink Man Woman and at other times flashes of a triumphant woman pulling her self up from the ashes. In the end, however, the flashes amounted to less than nothing when the purposeful deletion of human beings goes unnoticed even by those who would delete them. Happy go lucky sister also performed well.
Action Items:
None.
Evita (1997)
Release Date:
10 Jan 1997 (USA)
Director:
Alan Parker
Writers:
Tim Rice (book)
Alan Parker (screenplay)
Cast:
Madonna (Eva Perón)
Antonio Banderas (Ché)
Jonathan Pryce (Juan Perón)
IMDb link and rating:
6.1
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116250/
Stephen:
6
(viewed FR 8 Feb 2008)
On the whole, the movie was better than I expected it would be. I’m not a big fan of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s music, with its insipid “four-on-the-floor” drum kit base driving pseudo-pop orchestral arrangements that don’t depart very far from Disney princess songs. The popular and over-played main theme (“Don’t cry for me, Argentina”) and the dreadfully boring ballads did nothing to improve that opinion. I know a lot of people like it but it seems very pedestrian to me.
On the other hand, much to my surprise the rest of the music was actually pretty interesting. In particular, I like the Latino-influenced tune that played as Eva first entered Buenos Aires; the song sung by Eva (a good performance by Madonna) when she meets Perón; the dance scene (during Eva’s anesthetization) with Antonio Banderas and Madonna, which featured not only a good tune but dramatic visuals – a bare dance hall, sharp angles of the floor design and shadows, and intense movements of the couple. The cinematography throughout the film was very good, conveying the weight of the hungry masses, mounted soldiers, and the cult of personality.
Jonathan Pryce can’t sing too well but played Perón convincingly as more of an opportunistic than evil dictator and genuinely in love with his wife. Antonio Banderas actually can sing and he was thoroughly engaging as always. He is definitely one my favorite actors.
I think I heard somewhere that Madonna was disappointed with the reception Evita got; she thought either the movie itself or her personal performance did not receive sufficient acclaim. I can see her point. It’s not that I thought she was necessarily brilliant – she was good, not great – but I can appreciate how much effort everybody put into the production. It is understandable how she could get caught up in that and think this was a great epic. (It was not.)
Lynne:
4
(viewed FR 8 Feb 2008)
I found the whole movie to be a little boring. I was interested in the story of the rise of Eva Peron to national icon, but hated all that singing! Seriously, I dislike when the entire story is told in forced songs – unlike Sound of Music where the songs add to the story. I was surprised that Madonna’s dance abilities were not put to better use. She did a fine job as did Jonathan Pryce, but I really do enjoy Antonio Banderas in all forms, and this was no exception.
Action Items:
None.
Perhaps rewatch Woman on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown and watch Zorro.
Supplementary Details:
10 Jan 1997 (USA)
Director:
Alan Parker
Writers:
Tim Rice (book)
Alan Parker (screenplay)
Cast:
Madonna (Eva Perón)
Antonio Banderas (Ché)
Jonathan Pryce (Juan Perón)
IMDb link and rating:
6.1
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116250/
Stephen:
6
(viewed FR 8 Feb 2008)
On the whole, the movie was better than I expected it would be. I’m not a big fan of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s music, with its insipid “four-on-the-floor” drum kit base driving pseudo-pop orchestral arrangements that don’t depart very far from Disney princess songs. The popular and over-played main theme (“Don’t cry for me, Argentina”) and the dreadfully boring ballads did nothing to improve that opinion. I know a lot of people like it but it seems very pedestrian to me.
On the other hand, much to my surprise the rest of the music was actually pretty interesting. In particular, I like the Latino-influenced tune that played as Eva first entered Buenos Aires; the song sung by Eva (a good performance by Madonna) when she meets Perón; the dance scene (during Eva’s anesthetization) with Antonio Banderas and Madonna, which featured not only a good tune but dramatic visuals – a bare dance hall, sharp angles of the floor design and shadows, and intense movements of the couple. The cinematography throughout the film was very good, conveying the weight of the hungry masses, mounted soldiers, and the cult of personality.
Jonathan Pryce can’t sing too well but played Perón convincingly as more of an opportunistic than evil dictator and genuinely in love with his wife. Antonio Banderas actually can sing and he was thoroughly engaging as always. He is definitely one my favorite actors.
I think I heard somewhere that Madonna was disappointed with the reception Evita got; she thought either the movie itself or her personal performance did not receive sufficient acclaim. I can see her point. It’s not that I thought she was necessarily brilliant – she was good, not great – but I can appreciate how much effort everybody put into the production. It is understandable how she could get caught up in that and think this was a great epic. (It was not.)
Lynne:
4
(viewed FR 8 Feb 2008)
I found the whole movie to be a little boring. I was interested in the story of the rise of Eva Peron to national icon, but hated all that singing! Seriously, I dislike when the entire story is told in forced songs – unlike Sound of Music where the songs add to the story. I was surprised that Madonna’s dance abilities were not put to better use. She did a fine job as did Jonathan Pryce, but I really do enjoy Antonio Banderas in all forms, and this was no exception.
Action Items:
None.
Perhaps rewatch Woman on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown and watch Zorro.
Supplementary Details:
The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996)
Release Date:
11 Oct 1996 (USA)
Director:
Renny Harlin
Writers:
Shane Black
Cast:
Geena Davis (Samantha Caine/ Charly Baltimore)
Samuel L. Jackson (Mitch)
Yvonne Zima (Caitlin Caine)
Brian Cox (Dr. Waldman)
David Morse (Luke)
Craig Bierko (Timothy)
IMDb link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116908/
Stephen:
7
(viewed 11 Jan 2008) This was an excellent adventure film, essentially equal to a Bond movie. Though the role didn't require a particularly sensitive performance, Geena Davis was terrific as the mom turned super-spy chick. (In her transformation to the tough, sexy, and very leggy agent with short-cropped blonde hair, she compares to Alias' Sydney Bristow – which is saying quite a lot!) Samuel L. Jackson was good as the rough-hewn and ultimately good-hearted comrade, and both David Morse and Craig Bierko were convincingly icy villains.
There was enough torture and violence to render this film inappropriate for kids, a fact that ruined the movie for Lynne because Katy watched it along with us.
Lynne:
No need
(viewed 11 Jan 2008) Stephen already gave my review, but I do remember watching it when it came out and thinking nothing but, “Cool superspy kick-ass chick”.
Action Items:
None.
Supplementary Details:
11 Oct 1996 (USA)
Director:
Renny Harlin
Writers:
Shane Black
Cast:
Geena Davis (Samantha Caine/ Charly Baltimore)
Samuel L. Jackson (Mitch)
Yvonne Zima (Caitlin Caine)
Brian Cox (Dr. Waldman)
David Morse (Luke)
Craig Bierko (Timothy)
IMDb link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116908/
Stephen:
7
(viewed 11 Jan 2008) This was an excellent adventure film, essentially equal to a Bond movie. Though the role didn't require a particularly sensitive performance, Geena Davis was terrific as the mom turned super-spy chick. (In her transformation to the tough, sexy, and very leggy agent with short-cropped blonde hair, she compares to Alias' Sydney Bristow – which is saying quite a lot!) Samuel L. Jackson was good as the rough-hewn and ultimately good-hearted comrade, and both David Morse and Craig Bierko were convincingly icy villains.
There was enough torture and violence to render this film inappropriate for kids, a fact that ruined the movie for Lynne because Katy watched it along with us.
Lynne:
No need
(viewed 11 Jan 2008) Stephen already gave my review, but I do remember watching it when it came out and thinking nothing but, “Cool superspy kick-ass chick”.
Action Items:
None.
Supplementary Details:
The Fugitive (1993)
Release Date:
6 Aug 1993 (USA)
Director:
Andrew Davis
Writers:
Roy Huggins
David Twohy
Cast:
Harrison Ford
Tommy Lee Jones
Sela Ward
Julianne Moore
Joe Pantoliano
IMDb link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106977/
Stephen:
4
(viewed 14 Jan 2008) This movie is not bad, but I was really struck by how dated it seems. It’s hardly fair to take off points because of the time the movie came out, but I think in this case it helps to explain the most prominent problem I had with the film: the banter between the cops, which was simply annoying, neither charming nor clever. The movie isn't old enough to be quaint, but it isn't new enough to be fresh. Example:
Gerard: Newman, what are you doing?
Newman: I’m thinking.
Gerard: Well, think me up a cup of coffee and a chocolate doughnut with some of those little sprinkles on top…
I don’t know. Is that funny? Or cool? Or even pleasantly corny? (Interestingly, even written on the page it seems better than the actual execution of it in the movie.) When Humphrey Bogart says corny things, it seems timeless, but it just doesn’t work for me here. And I really like Tommy Lee Jones. Sure, he played the same character he usually plays, but he does it well. Maybe the problem is that the cops surrounding Gerard (played by Jones) seemed dim. They were just dull; even a spectacular incompetence would have been something.
Lynne:
6
(viewed 14 Jan 2008) I liked it – and I’ll tell you why. I just love that Tommy Lee Jones. Sure he plays the same character, but damn, he’s good at it, and it’s a good character. The story was a little thin because I like to think that regular cops are a little better at their jobs, and the murder was horribly grisly because Sela Ward is so beautifully perfect it’s hard to see her head get bashed in repeatedly. I did not find the cop banter that unusual or distracting.
Action Items:
None.
Supplementary Details:
None.
6 Aug 1993 (USA)
Director:
Andrew Davis
Writers:
Roy Huggins
David Twohy
Cast:
Harrison Ford
Tommy Lee Jones
Sela Ward
Julianne Moore
Joe Pantoliano
IMDb link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106977/
Stephen:
4
(viewed 14 Jan 2008) This movie is not bad, but I was really struck by how dated it seems. It’s hardly fair to take off points because of the time the movie came out, but I think in this case it helps to explain the most prominent problem I had with the film: the banter between the cops, which was simply annoying, neither charming nor clever. The movie isn't old enough to be quaint, but it isn't new enough to be fresh. Example:
Gerard: Newman, what are you doing?
Newman: I’m thinking.
Gerard: Well, think me up a cup of coffee and a chocolate doughnut with some of those little sprinkles on top…
I don’t know. Is that funny? Or cool? Or even pleasantly corny? (Interestingly, even written on the page it seems better than the actual execution of it in the movie.) When Humphrey Bogart says corny things, it seems timeless, but it just doesn’t work for me here. And I really like Tommy Lee Jones. Sure, he played the same character he usually plays, but he does it well. Maybe the problem is that the cops surrounding Gerard (played by Jones) seemed dim. They were just dull; even a spectacular incompetence would have been something.
Lynne:
6
(viewed 14 Jan 2008) I liked it – and I’ll tell you why. I just love that Tommy Lee Jones. Sure he plays the same character, but damn, he’s good at it, and it’s a good character. The story was a little thin because I like to think that regular cops are a little better at their jobs, and the murder was horribly grisly because Sela Ward is so beautifully perfect it’s hard to see her head get bashed in repeatedly. I did not find the cop banter that unusual or distracting.
Action Items:
None.
Supplementary Details:
None.
The Right Stuff (1983)
Release Date:
21 Oct 1983 (USA)
Director:
Philip Kaufman
Writers:
Tom Wolfe (book)
Philip Kaufman (screenplay)
Cast:
Sam Shepard (Chuck Yeager)
Scott Glenn (Alan Shepard)
Ed Harris (John Glenn)
Dennis Quaid (Gordon Cooper)
Fred Ward (Gus Grissom)
Barbara Hershey (Glennis Yeager)
Veronica Cartright (Betty Grissom)
Scott Paulin (Deke Slayton)
Charles Frank (Scott Carpenter)
Donald Moffat (Lyndon B. Johnson)
Mary Jo Deschanel (Annie Glenn)
IMDb link and rating:
7.9
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086197/
Stephen:
7.0
(viewed SU 17 Feb 2008)
Combine a terrific cast with awesome aircraft and it is hard to go wrong. This is a wonderful film with true heroes.
One of my favorite moments of the film was when Vice President Johnson was refused entry into the Mrs. Glenn’s house, in which all the wives were gathering as John Glenn made the first human orbits around the earth. Johnson was livid because he so desperately wanted the photo-op. Perhaps the most heroic moment of the film – interesting, considering that this is a movie about astronauts and test pilots! – was when Glenn listened to his wife explain the situation over the telephone. Instead of trying to placate her and convince her to give in to the Vice President’s demands, he completely backed her up and angrily shouted down the men who were bullying his wife. More than in any other moment in the film, you realize: this is a real man.
If I may register a minor complaint about the movie, it is the introduction of the Aborigines in the scene located at the Australian outpost, and the preposterous suggestion that a tribal fire ritual could account for Glenn’s observation of “fireflies” while he was in orbit. (Can’t a film be made without introducing some form of mysticism?) But this did not interfere significantly with the rest of the film.
One more thing I’ll mention: it is an interesting – and effective – plot decision for Tom Wolfe to run the story of Chuck Yeager in parallel with the story of the astronauts. It presented a wider context to the film. Thus, The Right Stuff is not merely a story about the first astronauts, but the tales of heroes of a certain type – the men who fearlessly “pushed the outside of the envelope” during a critical time in American history.
Lynne:
8.0
(viewed TU 1 Jan 2008)
I love stories about real men. Okay, in this movie, John Glenn and Chuck Yeager, and not because they were bold – for Glenn is was because he was principled, for Yeager, the cowboy thing (I’m a simple girl). Both fiercely loved their wives (or at least were portrayed as such by the smart director who probably wanted to give the ladies something to like about the movie). I also really did like the history surrounding the development of the space program as a back drop (and was confused by the addition of mysticism in a film otherwise devoted to the heroic efforts of man).
Action Items:
None.
Supplementary Details:
21 Oct 1983 (USA)
Director:
Philip Kaufman
Writers:
Tom Wolfe (book)
Philip Kaufman (screenplay)
Cast:
Sam Shepard (Chuck Yeager)
Scott Glenn (Alan Shepard)
Ed Harris (John Glenn)
Dennis Quaid (Gordon Cooper)
Fred Ward (Gus Grissom)
Barbara Hershey (Glennis Yeager)
Veronica Cartright (Betty Grissom)
Scott Paulin (Deke Slayton)
Charles Frank (Scott Carpenter)
Donald Moffat (Lyndon B. Johnson)
Mary Jo Deschanel (Annie Glenn)
IMDb link and rating:
7.9
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086197/
Stephen:
7.0
(viewed SU 17 Feb 2008)
Combine a terrific cast with awesome aircraft and it is hard to go wrong. This is a wonderful film with true heroes.
One of my favorite moments of the film was when Vice President Johnson was refused entry into the Mrs. Glenn’s house, in which all the wives were gathering as John Glenn made the first human orbits around the earth. Johnson was livid because he so desperately wanted the photo-op. Perhaps the most heroic moment of the film – interesting, considering that this is a movie about astronauts and test pilots! – was when Glenn listened to his wife explain the situation over the telephone. Instead of trying to placate her and convince her to give in to the Vice President’s demands, he completely backed her up and angrily shouted down the men who were bullying his wife. More than in any other moment in the film, you realize: this is a real man.
If I may register a minor complaint about the movie, it is the introduction of the Aborigines in the scene located at the Australian outpost, and the preposterous suggestion that a tribal fire ritual could account for Glenn’s observation of “fireflies” while he was in orbit. (Can’t a film be made without introducing some form of mysticism?) But this did not interfere significantly with the rest of the film.
One more thing I’ll mention: it is an interesting – and effective – plot decision for Tom Wolfe to run the story of Chuck Yeager in parallel with the story of the astronauts. It presented a wider context to the film. Thus, The Right Stuff is not merely a story about the first astronauts, but the tales of heroes of a certain type – the men who fearlessly “pushed the outside of the envelope” during a critical time in American history.
Lynne:
8.0
(viewed TU 1 Jan 2008)
I love stories about real men. Okay, in this movie, John Glenn and Chuck Yeager, and not because they were bold – for Glenn is was because he was principled, for Yeager, the cowboy thing (I’m a simple girl). Both fiercely loved their wives (or at least were portrayed as such by the smart director who probably wanted to give the ladies something to like about the movie). I also really did like the history surrounding the development of the space program as a back drop (and was confused by the addition of mysticism in a film otherwise devoted to the heroic efforts of man).
Action Items:
None.
Supplementary Details:
The Apartment (1960)
Release Date:
16 Sep 1960 (West Germany)
Director:
Billy Wilder
Writers:
Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond
Cast:
Jack Lemmon (C.C. “Bud” Baxter)
Shirley MacLaine (Fran Kubelik)
Fred McMurray (Jeff D. Sheldrake)
Jack Kruschen (Dr. Dreyfuss)
IMDb link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053604/
Stephen:
6
(viewed SU 27 Jan 2008) This movie surprised me a bit in its frankness regarding extramarital affairs. It’s not that I didn’t think an American movie in 1960 could confront the topic seriously, but I thought it would be at least another few years before the subject could be treated so breezily and openly. In fact, the utter nonchalance with which the company executives chased skirts into Baxter’s apartment (they did not even bother to hide their activities behind winks and euphemisms!) was so shocking to me, the movie came across almost as a dark comedy, though I don’t think it was intended to be anything more than a light comic romance.
In the end, and far later than I would have, Baxter sticks up for the strangely inert Miss Kubelik (What on earth does she see in that scoundrel, Mr. Sheldrake?), so we can breathe a little easier and not worry about hiding the sleeping pills from her.
Jack Lemmon was engaging and likable as he always is, captivating (but not silly) in his haplessness, and Shirley MacLaine was quite charming.
Lynne:
5
(viewed SU 27 Jan 2008) Here’s another movie where I’m captivated by one or two performances rather than the overall message. Jack Lemmon is great as the slightly neurotic company man as is Shirley McLaine as the effervescent elevator girl. Both play the roles without being cloyingly pathetic. The story is ugly and unpalatable, to my mindset at least, in many ways – infidelity, suicide, expected personal favors in the work place are all treated with a light touch.
Action Items:
I am intrigued by Billy Wilder’s involvement with many classic films. In addition to The Apartment, he has written screenplays for Sabrina, Double Indemnity, Some Like It Hot, Ocean’s Eleven, and many others, all of which I either have seen and loved or would like to see. I would even give Ocean’s Eleven – the 1960 rat-pack version, of course, not the 2001 film – a try. (S)
I am more intrigued by Jack Lemmon. He is so fabulously understated and quirkily compelling in this movie, I must seek out some of his earlier work (Jim Carrey must have studied him at some point). Shirley McLaine (and her many lives) has never let me down. Both bear some more watching of their earlier movies. (L)
Supplementary Details:
16 Sep 1960 (West Germany)
Director:
Billy Wilder
Writers:
Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond
Cast:
Jack Lemmon (C.C. “Bud” Baxter)
Shirley MacLaine (Fran Kubelik)
Fred McMurray (Jeff D. Sheldrake)
Jack Kruschen (Dr. Dreyfuss)
IMDb link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053604/
Stephen:
6
(viewed SU 27 Jan 2008) This movie surprised me a bit in its frankness regarding extramarital affairs. It’s not that I didn’t think an American movie in 1960 could confront the topic seriously, but I thought it would be at least another few years before the subject could be treated so breezily and openly. In fact, the utter nonchalance with which the company executives chased skirts into Baxter’s apartment (they did not even bother to hide their activities behind winks and euphemisms!) was so shocking to me, the movie came across almost as a dark comedy, though I don’t think it was intended to be anything more than a light comic romance.
In the end, and far later than I would have, Baxter sticks up for the strangely inert Miss Kubelik (What on earth does she see in that scoundrel, Mr. Sheldrake?), so we can breathe a little easier and not worry about hiding the sleeping pills from her.
Jack Lemmon was engaging and likable as he always is, captivating (but not silly) in his haplessness, and Shirley MacLaine was quite charming.
Lynne:
5
(viewed SU 27 Jan 2008) Here’s another movie where I’m captivated by one or two performances rather than the overall message. Jack Lemmon is great as the slightly neurotic company man as is Shirley McLaine as the effervescent elevator girl. Both play the roles without being cloyingly pathetic. The story is ugly and unpalatable, to my mindset at least, in many ways – infidelity, suicide, expected personal favors in the work place are all treated with a light touch.
Action Items:
I am intrigued by Billy Wilder’s involvement with many classic films. In addition to The Apartment, he has written screenplays for Sabrina, Double Indemnity, Some Like It Hot, Ocean’s Eleven, and many others, all of which I either have seen and loved or would like to see. I would even give Ocean’s Eleven – the 1960 rat-pack version, of course, not the 2001 film – a try. (S)
I am more intrigued by Jack Lemmon. He is so fabulously understated and quirkily compelling in this movie, I must seek out some of his earlier work (Jim Carrey must have studied him at some point). Shirley McLaine (and her many lives) has never let me down. Both bear some more watching of their earlier movies. (L)
Supplementary Details:
Citizen Kane (1941)
Release Date:
1 May 1941 (USA)
Director:
Orson Welles
Writers:
Herman Mankiewicz (screenplay)
Orson Welles (screenplay)
Cast:
Orson Welles (Charles Foster Kane)
Joseph Cotton (Ledediah Leland)
Dorothy Comingore (Susan Alexander Kane)
Agnes Moorehead (Mary Kane)
Everett Sloane (Mr. Bernstein)
IMDb link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/
Stephen:
9
(viewed SA 26 Jan 2008) This movie is a masterpiece. The performances were exceptional; the drama is intense; the attention to cinemagraphic detail is remarkable; and above all, every concrete shown to the viewer is integrated and contributes to the film as a whole.
Charles Foster Kane is a monomaniac, a bully, and a second-hander. At root, all he wants is to be loved by others; every action of his, even those that seem to be out of love for others, is calculated (or miscalculated) to garner adoration. There are shades of Gail Wynand here, though with at least two crucial differences. Wynand earned his newspaper; Kane did not. And Wynand's soul was not that of a second-hander, though in the end both Wynand and Kane ended up destroyed by the ultimate second-handedness of their drive for power (Wynand) and love (Kane).
As a foe of political bosses, Kane comes across as essentially good, though there is nothing here to show that he had anything more than vaguely left-leaning ideas. He was denounced by the conservative "establishment" as a communist and denounced by communist labor leaders as a fascist.
What the film drives home, I think, is that one cannot invert causes with effects. Rewards must be earned. It's almost comical to hear the echo in the cavernous castle of Xanadu that Kane builds for Susan. Or perhaps after all he built it not for Susan but as a monument to himself. They can barely carry on a conversation in the ridiculously barren hall, which Susan occupies just a corner of in order to put together her jigsaw puzzles. She doesn't even like the place - in fact, she hates it. In its collosal and brutal misunderstanding, the structure itself stands as a symbol of futility, a testament to the principle I wrote above: rewards must be earned. A monument built to Charles Foster Kane's greatness could no more reflect true greatness than Kane's building of an opera house could make Susan a great singer.
The writing here is brilliant. Of the innumerable moments worth mentioning, I'll limit myself to a few. Kane's Inquirer, like Wynand's Banner, prints according to his personal agenda, and the movie makes clear that however good Kane's intentions are he is not constrained to the truth. (This despite the written declaration he makes to his audience promising to tell the truth, a marvelous plot device that comes back to haunt him at a key point later in the movie.) Kane's best friend, Jedediah Leland (played magnificently by Joseph Cotton), said he never believed anything the Inquirer printed, a poignant comment because it was uttered about Kane's last word being "Rosebud," which was in fact true.
Another moment: When the first Mrs. Kane begins, "People will think - ," Kane bursts out, "What I tell them to think!" Later, Kane revealingly described his second wife as "a cross-section of the American public," reminding me of something that Ellsworth Toohey might have uttered.
And then, when Kane is leaving Xanadu after throwing a fit over Susan's departure, he walks between two parallel mirrors, suddenly multiplying into countless identical images of himself, to be scattered to the public like crematory ashes. The observation is made when Kane first met Susan; there are two kinds of loneliness: Susan's, as a result of not knowing enough people, and Kane's, as a result of knowing too many.
I suppose on the surface Kane's behavior could be attributed to "selfishness" - we are repeatedly told that Kane clearly "loves himself" - but I think there is enough in the film for a critically-thinking viewer to identify that the opposite is true. In the end he ends up with nothing. A monomaniacal lust for power and adoration is not a formula for happiness.
Lynne:
7
(viewed SA 26 Jan 2008) I had seen this before. I’m sure it meant less to me the first time I saw it, but it was obvious where Mr. Kane went wrong. While he gave the appearance of a strong value system and self-service, his life was structured around the opinion of others. So it was a good movie – epic in scale, well-done, and interesting, but I wasn’t really keen on seeing the downward spiral of a vigorous man ending his large life not with a bang, but a whisper (I know it's whimper, it just doesn't end that way). The movie is reaching for something, but offers no heroes for the viewer to grasp.
Action Items:
None.
Supplementary Details:
1 May 1941 (USA)
Director:
Orson Welles
Writers:
Herman Mankiewicz (screenplay)
Orson Welles (screenplay)
Cast:
Orson Welles (Charles Foster Kane)
Joseph Cotton (Ledediah Leland)
Dorothy Comingore (Susan Alexander Kane)
Agnes Moorehead (Mary Kane)
Everett Sloane (Mr. Bernstein)
IMDb link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/
Stephen:
9
(viewed SA 26 Jan 2008) This movie is a masterpiece. The performances were exceptional; the drama is intense; the attention to cinemagraphic detail is remarkable; and above all, every concrete shown to the viewer is integrated and contributes to the film as a whole.
Charles Foster Kane is a monomaniac, a bully, and a second-hander. At root, all he wants is to be loved by others; every action of his, even those that seem to be out of love for others, is calculated (or miscalculated) to garner adoration. There are shades of Gail Wynand here, though with at least two crucial differences. Wynand earned his newspaper; Kane did not. And Wynand's soul was not that of a second-hander, though in the end both Wynand and Kane ended up destroyed by the ultimate second-handedness of their drive for power (Wynand) and love (Kane).
As a foe of political bosses, Kane comes across as essentially good, though there is nothing here to show that he had anything more than vaguely left-leaning ideas. He was denounced by the conservative "establishment" as a communist and denounced by communist labor leaders as a fascist.
What the film drives home, I think, is that one cannot invert causes with effects. Rewards must be earned. It's almost comical to hear the echo in the cavernous castle of Xanadu that Kane builds for Susan. Or perhaps after all he built it not for Susan but as a monument to himself. They can barely carry on a conversation in the ridiculously barren hall, which Susan occupies just a corner of in order to put together her jigsaw puzzles. She doesn't even like the place - in fact, she hates it. In its collosal and brutal misunderstanding, the structure itself stands as a symbol of futility, a testament to the principle I wrote above: rewards must be earned. A monument built to Charles Foster Kane's greatness could no more reflect true greatness than Kane's building of an opera house could make Susan a great singer.
The writing here is brilliant. Of the innumerable moments worth mentioning, I'll limit myself to a few. Kane's Inquirer, like Wynand's Banner, prints according to his personal agenda, and the movie makes clear that however good Kane's intentions are he is not constrained to the truth. (This despite the written declaration he makes to his audience promising to tell the truth, a marvelous plot device that comes back to haunt him at a key point later in the movie.) Kane's best friend, Jedediah Leland (played magnificently by Joseph Cotton), said he never believed anything the Inquirer printed, a poignant comment because it was uttered about Kane's last word being "Rosebud," which was in fact true.
Another moment: When the first Mrs. Kane begins, "People will think - ," Kane bursts out, "What I tell them to think!" Later, Kane revealingly described his second wife as "a cross-section of the American public," reminding me of something that Ellsworth Toohey might have uttered.
And then, when Kane is leaving Xanadu after throwing a fit over Susan's departure, he walks between two parallel mirrors, suddenly multiplying into countless identical images of himself, to be scattered to the public like crematory ashes. The observation is made when Kane first met Susan; there are two kinds of loneliness: Susan's, as a result of not knowing enough people, and Kane's, as a result of knowing too many.
I suppose on the surface Kane's behavior could be attributed to "selfishness" - we are repeatedly told that Kane clearly "loves himself" - but I think there is enough in the film for a critically-thinking viewer to identify that the opposite is true. In the end he ends up with nothing. A monomaniacal lust for power and adoration is not a formula for happiness.
Lynne:
7
(viewed SA 26 Jan 2008) I had seen this before. I’m sure it meant less to me the first time I saw it, but it was obvious where Mr. Kane went wrong. While he gave the appearance of a strong value system and self-service, his life was structured around the opinion of others. So it was a good movie – epic in scale, well-done, and interesting, but I wasn’t really keen on seeing the downward spiral of a vigorous man ending his large life not with a bang, but a whisper (I know it's whimper, it just doesn't end that way). The movie is reaching for something, but offers no heroes for the viewer to grasp.
Action Items:
None.
Supplementary Details:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)