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:
Showing posts with label classic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label classic. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
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)