Check this thread, Recently Seen in 2019, there have been at least a couple mentions of "Yesterday" in there. I might see it soon as well, if I do I will be giving it another mention.
Last edited:
Films Worth Viewing
- Thread starter zymurg
- Start date
Check this thread, Recently Seen in 2019, there have been at least a couple mentions of "Yesterday" in there. I might see it soon as well, if I do I will be giving it another mention.
Quick Hits
"The Story of the Kinks"-Martin Brierly-2019?
This appears to have been made in the mid to late 80's. It relies on interviews of Ray Davies and his managers/agent. This is interesting if you liked the Kinks or want to know a little about about the third major English Invasion Group. There quite a few videos, a fair amount of history, but no real analysis.
"The Music Never Stopped"-Jim Kohlberg-2011
This is an independent film based on an Oliver Sacks' case. "The Awakening" is another more familiar example.
This an excellent film,quality acting, fine script, and an interesting story. Based on IMDb comments; this film is almost universally considered excellent. With the exception of J.K. Simmons (Henry Sawyer) and Julia Ormond (Dianne Daley) the cast isn't known. Lou Taylor Pucci (Gabriel Sawyer) is the center of the story. He leaves home in the uproar of the late sixties. He is out of contact with his parents for more than 15 years. He originally left home to go to the Village and play music. His parents are re-connected with him when he faces an operation to remove a massive brain tumor. The tumor is benign, but its removal will affect his ability to form memories. Henry becomes desperate to re-connect with his son. His attitude towards his lifestyle forced him out the door.
In his search for treatment he comes across an article written by Dianne Daley which shows how music can be used to enhance old memories, and perhaps to help form new ones. The film is centered around this treatment and the reconnecting of father and son. The son's favorite band is the Grateful Dead; the father's taste run more to 50's pop. He educates himself, and he wins free tickets to a sold out Dead concert. The father and son bond together for a great concert experience. The father dies of a heart attack. The film closes with the funeral. Gabriel tells his mother (Cara Seymour) the story of how he first heard this new Dead song. He was able to form a new memory.
This film could have gone wrong in so many ways. It easily could have sunk into sentimental sludge. The tenuous balance of relationships could have become stilted and false. There could have been a miraculous cure. None of these things happened. The music is used artfully. There is no actual filming at a live Dead Concert. With a basically invisible budget this quality almost never happens. My highest recommendation.
"The Story of the Kinks"-Martin Brierly-2019?
This appears to have been made in the mid to late 80's. It relies on interviews of Ray Davies and his managers/agent. This is interesting if you liked the Kinks or want to know a little about about the third major English Invasion Group. There quite a few videos, a fair amount of history, but no real analysis.
"The Music Never Stopped"-Jim Kohlberg-2011
This is an independent film based on an Oliver Sacks' case. "The Awakening" is another more familiar example.
This an excellent film,quality acting, fine script, and an interesting story. Based on IMDb comments; this film is almost universally considered excellent. With the exception of J.K. Simmons (Henry Sawyer) and Julia Ormond (Dianne Daley) the cast isn't known. Lou Taylor Pucci (Gabriel Sawyer) is the center of the story. He leaves home in the uproar of the late sixties. He is out of contact with his parents for more than 15 years. He originally left home to go to the Village and play music. His parents are re-connected with him when he faces an operation to remove a massive brain tumor. The tumor is benign, but its removal will affect his ability to form memories. Henry becomes desperate to re-connect with his son. His attitude towards his lifestyle forced him out the door.
In his search for treatment he comes across an article written by Dianne Daley which shows how music can be used to enhance old memories, and perhaps to help form new ones. The film is centered around this treatment and the reconnecting of father and son. The son's favorite band is the Grateful Dead; the father's taste run more to 50's pop. He educates himself, and he wins free tickets to a sold out Dead concert. The father and son bond together for a great concert experience. The father dies of a heart attack. The film closes with the funeral. Gabriel tells his mother (Cara Seymour) the story of how he first heard this new Dead song. He was able to form a new memory.
This film could have gone wrong in so many ways. It easily could have sunk into sentimental sludge. The tenuous balance of relationships could have become stilted and false. There could have been a miraculous cure. None of these things happened. The music is used artfully. There is no actual filming at a live Dead Concert. With a basically invisible budget this quality almost never happens. My highest recommendation.
storrsroars
Exiled in Pittsburgh
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2012
- Messages
- 23,129
- Reaction Score
- 56,351
The "no real analysis" would be a major disappointment for any Kinks biopic.
I've often wondered if the Kinks would've had more success or less success if they hadn't been banned from performing in the US during the late 60s. Reason being, much of their catalog from 65-68 became UK focused and resulted in some incredible work that rarely saw light of day over here. Had they continued touring in the US, we might've just gotten more three-chord rockers and no "Days" or "Waterloo Sunset" (the latter reaching almost anthemic status in the UK).
Also, as a result of your mentioning this, I looked up some reviews. Apparently there's not much from the post-Lola to Arista period (69-76), which produced some dud concept albums, but also Schoolboys in Disgrace, which comprised most of the set the Kinks played in their one glorious appearance at the Jorgensen Center, which was a weird pairing of the Kinks with opening act Jean-Luc Ponty, and Ray thought he was in Hartford. And it didn't even sell out. I was there and still have a copy of the review from Daily Campus.
I haven't seen this film, but being a Kinkophile, I'll look for it.
EDIT: For anyone interested in Kinks@UConn, here's the article (sorry for quality of scan from 43 year old yellowed paper!)
Last edited:
storrsroars
Exiled in Pittsburgh
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2012
- Messages
- 23,129
- Reaction Score
- 56,351
and the rest:
I remember my older cousins being crazy about the Kinks in the mid and late 60's.
.-.
"Absolute Power"-Clint Eastwood-1997
I'm going to let the cat out of the bag early. I didn't like this film, but upon reflection don't pay attention to my opinion. Eastwood is a quality director. This was the 19th film he directed. He had already made a classic Western "Unforgiven" in 1992. He assembled one of the best casts ever. The script was an adaptation of a David Balsacci thriller. It was written by William Goldman one of the top screenwiters in recent memory. Eastwood has a reputation for being a highly efficient and painstaking director, not quite in the Hitchcock manner; he likes actors, and they like him, but given to meticulous planning. This film was brought in below budget and ahead of schedule.
Clint plays Luther Whitney, a semi retired world class burglar. He meticulously plans a job robbing billionaire Walter Sullivan (E.G. Marshall in his last role) while everyone is off in the Carribbean. Luther opens the film sketching in the National Gallery. He's quite good. He has a little exchange with an art student. This is an excellent beginning. It gets even better. Luther has really carefully planned this job. He defuses the alarm with seconds to spare. He goes right to the hidden room where the valuables are kept. He does pause to admire some of Sullivan's great art collection. It is clear that he doesn't plan to steal the art. His bag isn't big enough to hold even a single picture. No he has come for the jewels, and he finds a bonus; millions of dollars in cash.
That was the first false note for me; Sullivan is a man of impeccable reputation. There is no real reason for him to have all that cash.
The second false note comes quickly. Sullivan's wife hasn't left. Throughout the film Luther's care in planning and his patience is emphasized. How did he miss the wife staying behind? She returns to the mansion drunk with a drunk lover in tow. Luther watches unseen from the hidden room. there is rough sex which morphs into murder. The drunk lover is the president of the US (Gene Hackman); two secret service agents shoot the woman. They are accompanied by the chief of staff Judy Davis. This is a third plot hole in quick succession. There is no way a chief of staff would be a witness to the president's infidelity. The behavior of the agents is also suspect. The agents behave increibly; not only do they kill the woman, but they don't notify the police.
Some critics and viewers find Luther's escape unbelievable. I don't; Luther definitely knew the countryside around the mansion. Remember careful planning; so he had a huge advantage over Scott Glenn and Denis Haysbert. The investigation falls to a highly respected local lieutenant Ed Harris. The other major character, Laura Linney, is Luther's daughter Kate. Pretty great cast, right. The acting is pretty good and there is some snappy dialogue, but the plot holes keep coming.
They are too much for me to overcome. My opinion is not generally shared. I like many of Eastwood's films a lot. This one puzzles me. Watch it ad tell me what you think.
I'm going to let the cat out of the bag early. I didn't like this film, but upon reflection don't pay attention to my opinion. Eastwood is a quality director. This was the 19th film he directed. He had already made a classic Western "Unforgiven" in 1992. He assembled one of the best casts ever. The script was an adaptation of a David Balsacci thriller. It was written by William Goldman one of the top screenwiters in recent memory. Eastwood has a reputation for being a highly efficient and painstaking director, not quite in the Hitchcock manner; he likes actors, and they like him, but given to meticulous planning. This film was brought in below budget and ahead of schedule.
Clint plays Luther Whitney, a semi retired world class burglar. He meticulously plans a job robbing billionaire Walter Sullivan (E.G. Marshall in his last role) while everyone is off in the Carribbean. Luther opens the film sketching in the National Gallery. He's quite good. He has a little exchange with an art student. This is an excellent beginning. It gets even better. Luther has really carefully planned this job. He defuses the alarm with seconds to spare. He goes right to the hidden room where the valuables are kept. He does pause to admire some of Sullivan's great art collection. It is clear that he doesn't plan to steal the art. His bag isn't big enough to hold even a single picture. No he has come for the jewels, and he finds a bonus; millions of dollars in cash.
That was the first false note for me; Sullivan is a man of impeccable reputation. There is no real reason for him to have all that cash.
The second false note comes quickly. Sullivan's wife hasn't left. Throughout the film Luther's care in planning and his patience is emphasized. How did he miss the wife staying behind? She returns to the mansion drunk with a drunk lover in tow. Luther watches unseen from the hidden room. there is rough sex which morphs into murder. The drunk lover is the president of the US (Gene Hackman); two secret service agents shoot the woman. They are accompanied by the chief of staff Judy Davis. This is a third plot hole in quick succession. There is no way a chief of staff would be a witness to the president's infidelity. The behavior of the agents is also suspect. The agents behave increibly; not only do they kill the woman, but they don't notify the police.
Some critics and viewers find Luther's escape unbelievable. I don't; Luther definitely knew the countryside around the mansion. Remember careful planning; so he had a huge advantage over Scott Glenn and Denis Haysbert. The investigation falls to a highly respected local lieutenant Ed Harris. The other major character, Laura Linney, is Luther's daughter Kate. Pretty great cast, right. The acting is pretty good and there is some snappy dialogue, but the plot holes keep coming.
They are too much for me to overcome. My opinion is not generally shared. I like many of Eastwood's films a lot. This one puzzles me. Watch it ad tell me what you think.
"The Lincoln Lawyer"-Brad Furman-2011
The script by John Romano is based on a novel by Michael Connelly. Connelly is better known for his Bosch novels; he is a big favorite of mine. There is an original series on Amazon Prime which is pretty good. Mickey Haller ( Matthew McConaughey) is a slightly sleezy defense lawyer in LA. He does much of his business in a Lincoln. He goes from court to court in LA County defending clients; his most important is pay up front. A former client Earl (Lawrence Mason) drives the Lincoln. This practice began when Mickey's license was suspended for drunk driving. Mickey has a big money client recommended to him by Val (John Leguizamo) another ex-client. This individual Louis Rolet (Ryan Phillipe) is a major real estate broker. He was arrested for an attempted rape and severe bodily harm. Several other clients are folded into the plot most importantly a biker gang and a prostitute with a major drug problem. Mickey has a daughter by his ex wife Maggie McFierce (Marisa Tomei) an LA prosecutor. Tomei is a quality actress who has made too few films. Mickey's investigator is an ex Chicago cop Frank Levin (William H. Macey). As you might expect; the acting is first rate, and there is some excellent memorable dialogue: "You're nobody until somebody shoots you." The supporting characters are surprisingly well developed in plot sequences. The viewer is really placed inside Haller's life. The focus is on Haller but the viewer is an observer. There are many plot twists and turns. We meet a lot of interesting characters'character actors including Michael Pena, Bob Guiton, Josh Lucas, and Brian Cranston.
Without revealing more of the convoluted plot, I like this film quite a bit, perhaps more than I should. McConaughey was Connelly's choice for the role. It was an excellent choice. Sequels have been rumored, but as with the Bosch movies; this film made decent money but wasn't a box office smash. There are four other Haller novels, and he appears in at least half a dozen Bosch novels. Well worth viewing and a solid introduction to Connelly's work.
The script by John Romano is based on a novel by Michael Connelly. Connelly is better known for his Bosch novels; he is a big favorite of mine. There is an original series on Amazon Prime which is pretty good. Mickey Haller ( Matthew McConaughey) is a slightly sleezy defense lawyer in LA. He does much of his business in a Lincoln. He goes from court to court in LA County defending clients; his most important is pay up front. A former client Earl (Lawrence Mason) drives the Lincoln. This practice began when Mickey's license was suspended for drunk driving. Mickey has a big money client recommended to him by Val (John Leguizamo) another ex-client. This individual Louis Rolet (Ryan Phillipe) is a major real estate broker. He was arrested for an attempted rape and severe bodily harm. Several other clients are folded into the plot most importantly a biker gang and a prostitute with a major drug problem. Mickey has a daughter by his ex wife Maggie McFierce (Marisa Tomei) an LA prosecutor. Tomei is a quality actress who has made too few films. Mickey's investigator is an ex Chicago cop Frank Levin (William H. Macey). As you might expect; the acting is first rate, and there is some excellent memorable dialogue: "You're nobody until somebody shoots you." The supporting characters are surprisingly well developed in plot sequences. The viewer is really placed inside Haller's life. The focus is on Haller but the viewer is an observer. There are many plot twists and turns. We meet a lot of interesting characters'character actors including Michael Pena, Bob Guiton, Josh Lucas, and Brian Cranston.
Without revealing more of the convoluted plot, I like this film quite a bit, perhaps more than I should. McConaughey was Connelly's choice for the role. It was an excellent choice. Sequels have been rumored, but as with the Bosch movies; this film made decent money but wasn't a box office smash. There are four other Haller novels, and he appears in at least half a dozen Bosch novels. Well worth viewing and a solid introduction to Connelly's work.
ClifSpliffy
surf's up
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2018
- Messages
- 9,490
- Reaction Score
- 14,198
we generally enjoy depression era films as they portray American culture and values put to the test. recently, we saw a visually attractive one titled 'so big,' 1931 I think. wonderful. have you seen this? thoughts?
I
I know that it is from an Edna Ferber novel. There was another version in the 50's which I believe I saw. The Stanwyck 30's version is virtually impossible to find. As far as I can tell it is not available on DVD. Did you find it on Turner Classic Movies? I checked the usual sources for streaming, and I couldn't find anything. I ran into something similar with the film "City of Lies." This film featured Brad Pitt and Forrest Whittaker; iy was supposed to be released to theaters in late 2018 or early 2019. The releasing company said they weren't going to make a theatrical release, but as far as I can tell it hasn't been released in any other forms. This film covers some of the same material as "Training Day" which is next up.
"Training Day"-Antoine Fuqua-2001
This is an interesting and controversial film. It is very loosely based on Raphael Perez's career and the whole Ramparts situation. Unusually for Hollywood, David Ayer is the only person to work on the script. It was filmed in the gang infested neighborhoods where the story is set. The film negotiated with T Rogers, the gang leader, for the right to film in the areas. He agreed and got several gang members on as extras. Denzil Washington (Alonzo) and Ethan Hawkes (Jack) are cast as the experienced narcotics detective and the hopeful rookie. Jack is experiencing a training day on the streets with his potential mentor. Jack is new to the force, an idealist, and recently married and even more recently a father. He is ambitious; he wants to have a successful career. He envisions a placement on this well known narcotics squad putting him on the road to becoming a detective. Alonzo isn't so transparent; however, when he forces Jack to smoke pot laced with PCP at gunpoint we are given a glimpse of his total perversity.
The film cost $22,500,000 to make and had a box office of over $104,000,000 word wide. The Quality Cafe was used as the initial meeting point; it appears in four other films. It features several rap stars in supporting roles. Dr. Dre is responsible for the sound track. This results in an outstanding sense of place. The sets were local houses and exteriors. There are some problems; many people cite the language 211 uses of the worst four letter word, and a casual use of demeaning language to women are omnipresent. The death toll is only two, but the violence is omnipresent. Corruption is a normal part of this world. The saving grace is the acting; Washington won the Oscar; Ethan Hawke was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. They were deserved. Is Washington over the top, yes, but in a creative way. Even at the end when his life is in doubt, he is still threatening:"King Kong ain't got s... on me."
No punches are pulled. This is dark, but with a flair. Alonzo is mesmerizing. He isn't liked;in fact he was despised by almost everyone. He is a validation of Machiavelli: "It is better to be feared than to be loved." Jack is tempted, but ultimately he sees Alonzo as worse than corrupt. Would Jack have really passed up the opportunity to execute Alonzo? Wasn't his taking the money the same as shooting Alonzo?
Well worth viewing, but I didn't find it enjoyable. Still it makes for riveting viewing.
This is an interesting and controversial film. It is very loosely based on Raphael Perez's career and the whole Ramparts situation. Unusually for Hollywood, David Ayer is the only person to work on the script. It was filmed in the gang infested neighborhoods where the story is set. The film negotiated with T Rogers, the gang leader, for the right to film in the areas. He agreed and got several gang members on as extras. Denzil Washington (Alonzo) and Ethan Hawkes (Jack) are cast as the experienced narcotics detective and the hopeful rookie. Jack is experiencing a training day on the streets with his potential mentor. Jack is new to the force, an idealist, and recently married and even more recently a father. He is ambitious; he wants to have a successful career. He envisions a placement on this well known narcotics squad putting him on the road to becoming a detective. Alonzo isn't so transparent; however, when he forces Jack to smoke pot laced with PCP at gunpoint we are given a glimpse of his total perversity.
The film cost $22,500,000 to make and had a box office of over $104,000,000 word wide. The Quality Cafe was used as the initial meeting point; it appears in four other films. It features several rap stars in supporting roles. Dr. Dre is responsible for the sound track. This results in an outstanding sense of place. The sets were local houses and exteriors. There are some problems; many people cite the language 211 uses of the worst four letter word, and a casual use of demeaning language to women are omnipresent. The death toll is only two, but the violence is omnipresent. Corruption is a normal part of this world. The saving grace is the acting; Washington won the Oscar; Ethan Hawke was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. They were deserved. Is Washington over the top, yes, but in a creative way. Even at the end when his life is in doubt, he is still threatening:"King Kong ain't got s... on me."
No punches are pulled. This is dark, but with a flair. Alonzo is mesmerizing. He isn't liked;in fact he was despised by almost everyone. He is a validation of Machiavelli: "It is better to be feared than to be loved." Jack is tempted, but ultimately he sees Alonzo as worse than corrupt. Would Jack have really passed up the opportunity to execute Alonzo? Wasn't his taking the money the same as shooting Alonzo?
Well worth viewing, but I didn't find it enjoyable. Still it makes for riveting viewing.
"The Thing From Another World"-Christian Nyby 1951
This is one of a half dozen significant films with science fiction or scientific/horror themes which were released in the '50's. We discussed "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Most of the best of these films were re-made; The Thing had a John Carpenter re-make which many of you have probably seen. This is the original. It was an RKO picture; they weren't known for quality productions. It is widely considered that Howard Hawks, the producer, had an outsized interest in the film. This has a cast of unknowns, but they do a more than competent job. This isn't filled with special effects. It holds up remarkably well; that is primarily due to the quality story and well constructed characterizations.
There was a large a large scientific team at the North Pole. They were supported by the US Air Force. Several disturbing messages from the Pole are received at the Air force base in Anchorage. A team is sent to investigate which includes a visiting journalist. It turns out that a flying saucer has landed/crashed close to the polar scientific site. It is embedded in the ice. The team develops a plan to get the saucer out of the ice. They use thermite bombs, but they cause the saucer to explode. This makes visible a body encased in ice. The balance of the film develops the story of results of freeing the body from the ice.
Google the film, and you will find several streaming options including archive.org. I will refrain from disclosing more of the plot, but this one is well worth your time particularly if you are interested in sci fi films. Highly recommended.
This is one of a half dozen significant films with science fiction or scientific/horror themes which were released in the '50's. We discussed "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Most of the best of these films were re-made; The Thing had a John Carpenter re-make which many of you have probably seen. This is the original. It was an RKO picture; they weren't known for quality productions. It is widely considered that Howard Hawks, the producer, had an outsized interest in the film. This has a cast of unknowns, but they do a more than competent job. This isn't filled with special effects. It holds up remarkably well; that is primarily due to the quality story and well constructed characterizations.
There was a large a large scientific team at the North Pole. They were supported by the US Air Force. Several disturbing messages from the Pole are received at the Air force base in Anchorage. A team is sent to investigate which includes a visiting journalist. It turns out that a flying saucer has landed/crashed close to the polar scientific site. It is embedded in the ice. The team develops a plan to get the saucer out of the ice. They use thermite bombs, but they cause the saucer to explode. This makes visible a body encased in ice. The balance of the film develops the story of results of freeing the body from the ice.
Google the film, and you will find several streaming options including archive.org. I will refrain from disclosing more of the plot, but this one is well worth your time particularly if you are interested in sci fi films. Highly recommended.
.-.
ClifSpliffy
surf's up
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2018
- Messages
- 9,490
- Reaction Score
- 14,198
tcm last week. it was part of a similar block of films. asparagus !
"The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie"-Luis Bunel-1972
In 1929 Bunel and Salvador Dali made "Un Chien Andalou". This short film, time estimates vary, was hugely popular with European intellectuals and is considered to be a surrealist masterpiece. The opening sequence where an eye is cut open is still considered one of the most shocking sequences in cinema history. The film ends with the two principal actors buried in sand up to their torsos. This is one of those films I saw in the college film society. I can't remember what was in the rest of the program. I hadn't viewed this film since until I checked it out on YouTube. It runs 21 and a half minutes. It is replete with shocking images'has no discernible plot, and for extras the two principal actors both committed suicide; thankfully not on screen. Itcould have been "Last Year at Marienbad" Alan Renais' convoluted new wave piece. Which I disliked pretty intensely. Well, I've spent a good deal of time and effort and I haven't written a word about the supposed feature of this commentary.
"Charm" features as part of the plot several of Bunel's dreams. "Un Chien Andalou" features both Dali's and Bunel's dreams. "Charm" has six principals of whom only Alejandro Rey is probably familiar. They try and have a meal together and they never quite make it. In the beginning it appears to be a mere mix-up of times. Later on the obstacles become more complicated. The attempts are often divided by scenes of the six walking down a deserted country road. Much has been written about this film attempting to answer to answer the simple question, what does it mean. It is supposed to be a criticism of the class. There are some obvious points relating to hypocrisy. The three principal male characters are all big time drug dealers. A bishop when giving last rites to a gardener discovers he murdered his parents. He proceeds to murder him with a shot gun. I could go on, but the central point is that this class is pretty despicable. It is important to acknowledge that the French bourgeoise is not the American middle class. It is closer to what is termed in
common parlence here as the elite. The film came out in a time of tumult and revolutionary fervor. It reflects a certain point of view. As cinema it is worthy of attention. It is well acted and shot. This is worth viewing,
but I understand if this may not be something you want to spend a couple of hours on. It's available on Amazon Prime.
In 1929 Bunel and Salvador Dali made "Un Chien Andalou". This short film, time estimates vary, was hugely popular with European intellectuals and is considered to be a surrealist masterpiece. The opening sequence where an eye is cut open is still considered one of the most shocking sequences in cinema history. The film ends with the two principal actors buried in sand up to their torsos. This is one of those films I saw in the college film society. I can't remember what was in the rest of the program. I hadn't viewed this film since until I checked it out on YouTube. It runs 21 and a half minutes. It is replete with shocking images'has no discernible plot, and for extras the two principal actors both committed suicide; thankfully not on screen. Itcould have been "Last Year at Marienbad" Alan Renais' convoluted new wave piece. Which I disliked pretty intensely. Well, I've spent a good deal of time and effort and I haven't written a word about the supposed feature of this commentary.
"Charm" features as part of the plot several of Bunel's dreams. "Un Chien Andalou" features both Dali's and Bunel's dreams. "Charm" has six principals of whom only Alejandro Rey is probably familiar. They try and have a meal together and they never quite make it. In the beginning it appears to be a mere mix-up of times. Later on the obstacles become more complicated. The attempts are often divided by scenes of the six walking down a deserted country road. Much has been written about this film attempting to answer to answer the simple question, what does it mean. It is supposed to be a criticism of the class. There are some obvious points relating to hypocrisy. The three principal male characters are all big time drug dealers. A bishop when giving last rites to a gardener discovers he murdered his parents. He proceeds to murder him with a shot gun. I could go on, but the central point is that this class is pretty despicable. It is important to acknowledge that the French bourgeoise is not the American middle class. It is closer to what is termed in
common parlence here as the elite. The film came out in a time of tumult and revolutionary fervor. It reflects a certain point of view. As cinema it is worthy of attention. It is well acted and shot. This is worth viewing,
but I understand if this may not be something you want to spend a couple of hours on. It's available on Amazon Prime.
"The Counterfeit Traitor"-George Seaton-1962
This is an unusual WWII film. It tells the story of Erik Erickson ,sort-of, an American born naturalized Swedish naturalized citizen involved in the global oil industry. There is little violence. In the movie, but it is well done particularly the last 45 minutes. Erickson appears on a black list because he was trading with the Nazis. In the movie Erickson (William Holden) is forced into becoming a spy by a British agent Collins (Hugh Griffiths). His team recorded him listening to the recruitment pitch on what looks somewhat similar to the old Edison recording cylinder. This was problematic because Sweden was neutral; Erickson could end up in a Swedish jail
for violating neutrality. Erickson uses his contacts in the Germany oil industry to pinpoint Germany's industrial areas and how they were being affected by the war. He meets a beautiful German woman Marianne Mollendorf (Lily Palmer) who is an Allied agent; they fall in love, and they work together as spies. Marianne is caught and executed, but Erickson makes it through the war. Seaton wrote the screenplay based on Alexander Kirk's book.
The film was shot in several different countries and features many European actors including Klaus Kinski as a Jewish refugee. The acting by the principals is excellent. By contemporary standards this moves slowly, but as I mentioned the last 45 minutes are suspenseful, and involving. The actual story is even more interesting; Erickson recruited a member of the Swedish Royal Family, and he went to the Americans on his own. This is a quality film about a little known area of WWII espionage. Highly recommended.
This is an unusual WWII film. It tells the story of Erik Erickson ,sort-of, an American born naturalized Swedish naturalized citizen involved in the global oil industry. There is little violence. In the movie, but it is well done particularly the last 45 minutes. Erickson appears on a black list because he was trading with the Nazis. In the movie Erickson (William Holden) is forced into becoming a spy by a British agent Collins (Hugh Griffiths). His team recorded him listening to the recruitment pitch on what looks somewhat similar to the old Edison recording cylinder. This was problematic because Sweden was neutral; Erickson could end up in a Swedish jail
for violating neutrality. Erickson uses his contacts in the Germany oil industry to pinpoint Germany's industrial areas and how they were being affected by the war. He meets a beautiful German woman Marianne Mollendorf (Lily Palmer) who is an Allied agent; they fall in love, and they work together as spies. Marianne is caught and executed, but Erickson makes it through the war. Seaton wrote the screenplay based on Alexander Kirk's book.
The film was shot in several different countries and features many European actors including Klaus Kinski as a Jewish refugee. The acting by the principals is excellent. By contemporary standards this moves slowly, but as I mentioned the last 45 minutes are suspenseful, and involving. The actual story is even more interesting; Erickson recruited a member of the Swedish Royal Family, and he went to the Americans on his own. This is a quality film about a little known area of WWII espionage. Highly recommended.
"The Blue Angel"-Josef von Sternberg-1930
Von Sternberg is generally considered to be a German director. That is wrong on several counts. He was of Austrian descent, but he was born in the US. He served in the American Army in the first World War. His entry into the film business was in the US, specifically Fort Lee, NJ. This was a film center at the time. He made several important films in the silent era. "Last Command" starred Emil Jannings who won the Oscar. We've gone over how WWI changed the international film industry. It was not totally surprising that a German film company reached out to this immigrant to make the first German sound film. The added benefit was that they could simultaneously film both German and English versions.
The story came from an obscure work of Heinrich Mann, the great German novelist. A bevy of writers worked on the script; von Sternberg wanted sole writing credit; he received no writing credit. Sternberg was a proponent of the "auteur" theory of film-making before it was developed by French intellectuals. He needed to control everything. This brought him into conflict with actors; in this film with Emil Jannings Professor Immanuel Rath.
Jannings wanted another actress to play Lola Lola. Sternberg chose Marlene Dietrich who at the time wasn't well known and didn't speak English. She also wasn't known for her singing. She had a very limited vocal range, but almost magically Friedrich Hollander the composer/song writer wrote songs in her limited range. Dietrich was amazing. "Falling in Love Again" is certainly one of the top five film songs in history. Lola Lola is the star of a group of traveling performers. She is a singer/dancer in a tawdry stage show with a female chorus, clowns, and a magician. When the film opens they are performing at "The Blue Angel." We see a Lola Lola poster in a window and a cleaning woman poses trying to re-create Lola's sex appeal. Meanwhile, Professor Rath is preparing for his teaching job. He is a professor of English in a local secondary school. He tries whistling to his caged bird, but it doesn't respond. The bird is dead, and his housekeeper discards the body in the stove. The professor's first class is at eight o'clock. We see an elaborate clock where figures rotate marking the hour with the chimes. Rath discovers a postcard being passed around. It features Lola Lola in a feathered skirt, When you blow on the postcard; the skirt comes up. Rath confiscates the card,and he finds that the performer in question is appearing at the "Blue Angel." Rath goes there to remove his students from the pernicious influence.
Of course Rath falls in love/adoration with Lola Lola. He loses his job, marries her. The job loss is a result of his spending a night in Lola Lola's rooms. He is awakened by a caged bird singing. After the marriage Rath ends up selling those postcards with the feather skirts. Rath continues to deteriorate. In the end of the film we see him in a clown costume preparing to go on stage as the magician's foil. This final degredation breaks
him down totally. He leaves the club and goes back to his old school. He dies with the clock (unseen) tolling out eight o'clock.
After he leaves the club Lola Lola reprises "Falling in Love Again." This time the wistfulness is gone; there is an almost brutal edge to this rendition. "Falling in love again, never wanted to. What's a girl to do? I can't help it. ...Men swarm around me like moths round a flame. And if their wings singed, surely I can't be blamed."
The film did well in the German market, but the English language version flopped. Dietrich and Sternberg came to America. This was a famous illicit romance. They made a half dozen films together. 'Morocco" was released in the US before "Blue Angel." By the time of "Shanghai Express" , Dietrich had remade herself; she was thinner, blonder, and her accented English was superb. This is considered by many critics to be a masterpiece. I was surprised that with all the problems in the transfers; this is still a remarkable film. I found Jannings arresting; and Dietrich had that ineffable star quality; you are drawn to her, just as Rath was in the movie. Jannings stayed in Germany and became a Nazi film icon. Kurt Geron (the magician) was a Jew and he was gassed in a camp. Sternberg's creative peak was in the '30's; he ran afoul of Ernst Lubitsch who oversaw films at Paramount for a year. Sternberg lost control of his pictures. Dietrich made dozens of films and had a major second career as a singer. She has been the subject of multiple documentaries, the most famous one directed by Max Schell.
This is a true classic. The only problem is that it is difficult to find. For some reason unknown to me Criterion has never done a version. There is a handsome and expensive box of all the other Sternberg/Dietrich films. I watched the streaming English language version; the German language version with subtitles is preferred because most of the cast is hard to understand in English. Fortunately, this isn't a dialogue heavy film. Watch this film any way you can.
Von Sternberg is generally considered to be a German director. That is wrong on several counts. He was of Austrian descent, but he was born in the US. He served in the American Army in the first World War. His entry into the film business was in the US, specifically Fort Lee, NJ. This was a film center at the time. He made several important films in the silent era. "Last Command" starred Emil Jannings who won the Oscar. We've gone over how WWI changed the international film industry. It was not totally surprising that a German film company reached out to this immigrant to make the first German sound film. The added benefit was that they could simultaneously film both German and English versions.
The story came from an obscure work of Heinrich Mann, the great German novelist. A bevy of writers worked on the script; von Sternberg wanted sole writing credit; he received no writing credit. Sternberg was a proponent of the "auteur" theory of film-making before it was developed by French intellectuals. He needed to control everything. This brought him into conflict with actors; in this film with Emil Jannings Professor Immanuel Rath.
Jannings wanted another actress to play Lola Lola. Sternberg chose Marlene Dietrich who at the time wasn't well known and didn't speak English. She also wasn't known for her singing. She had a very limited vocal range, but almost magically Friedrich Hollander the composer/song writer wrote songs in her limited range. Dietrich was amazing. "Falling in Love Again" is certainly one of the top five film songs in history. Lola Lola is the star of a group of traveling performers. She is a singer/dancer in a tawdry stage show with a female chorus, clowns, and a magician. When the film opens they are performing at "The Blue Angel." We see a Lola Lola poster in a window and a cleaning woman poses trying to re-create Lola's sex appeal. Meanwhile, Professor Rath is preparing for his teaching job. He is a professor of English in a local secondary school. He tries whistling to his caged bird, but it doesn't respond. The bird is dead, and his housekeeper discards the body in the stove. The professor's first class is at eight o'clock. We see an elaborate clock where figures rotate marking the hour with the chimes. Rath discovers a postcard being passed around. It features Lola Lola in a feathered skirt, When you blow on the postcard; the skirt comes up. Rath confiscates the card,and he finds that the performer in question is appearing at the "Blue Angel." Rath goes there to remove his students from the pernicious influence.
Of course Rath falls in love/adoration with Lola Lola. He loses his job, marries her. The job loss is a result of his spending a night in Lola Lola's rooms. He is awakened by a caged bird singing. After the marriage Rath ends up selling those postcards with the feather skirts. Rath continues to deteriorate. In the end of the film we see him in a clown costume preparing to go on stage as the magician's foil. This final degredation breaks
him down totally. He leaves the club and goes back to his old school. He dies with the clock (unseen) tolling out eight o'clock.
After he leaves the club Lola Lola reprises "Falling in Love Again." This time the wistfulness is gone; there is an almost brutal edge to this rendition. "Falling in love again, never wanted to. What's a girl to do? I can't help it. ...Men swarm around me like moths round a flame. And if their wings singed, surely I can't be blamed."
The film did well in the German market, but the English language version flopped. Dietrich and Sternberg came to America. This was a famous illicit romance. They made a half dozen films together. 'Morocco" was released in the US before "Blue Angel." By the time of "Shanghai Express" , Dietrich had remade herself; she was thinner, blonder, and her accented English was superb. This is considered by many critics to be a masterpiece. I was surprised that with all the problems in the transfers; this is still a remarkable film. I found Jannings arresting; and Dietrich had that ineffable star quality; you are drawn to her, just as Rath was in the movie. Jannings stayed in Germany and became a Nazi film icon. Kurt Geron (the magician) was a Jew and he was gassed in a camp. Sternberg's creative peak was in the '30's; he ran afoul of Ernst Lubitsch who oversaw films at Paramount for a year. Sternberg lost control of his pictures. Dietrich made dozens of films and had a major second career as a singer. She has been the subject of multiple documentaries, the most famous one directed by Max Schell.
This is a true classic. The only problem is that it is difficult to find. For some reason unknown to me Criterion has never done a version. There is a handsome and expensive box of all the other Sternberg/Dietrich films. I watched the streaming English language version; the German language version with subtitles is preferred because most of the cast is hard to understand in English. Fortunately, this isn't a dialogue heavy film. Watch this film any way you can.
The German language version of The Blue Angel shows up every once in a while on Turner Classic Movies. I saw it several years ago, no question it turned Dietrich into a star. Definitely worth watching just for that alone.
"Miracle Woman"-Frank Capra-1931
It is time to discuss the Motion Pictures Production Code. The heads of the major studios feared government regulation, so they attempted to self regulate. However, serious regulation didn't come until mid 1934. We often think of the code denying the ability of film makers to portray even the simplest potential references to sex. Even a married couples had to sleep in separate beds is one of the more notable limits. However, it also practically eliminated criticism of foreign governments. There were several Hollywood films in 1938 critical of the Nazi's which were denied licenses .
"The Blue Angel" is one of the most famous pre-code pictures which showed an attitude to sex which was not possible after the strict enforcement of the code. "Miracle Woman" touched on another tabu subject, religion
Barbara Stanwyck portrays Florence Fallon a revivalist preacher with services carried on radio. It is an adaptation of a failed Broadway play. It is based on the life/career of Amy Semple McPherson a hugely successful California preacher. Miracle cures are part of the tent show. They are fakes; they are shills employed by Bob Hornsby (Sam Hardy). He found Florence at her lowest ebb; her father had just died while dictating his weekly sermon.
She appears before the congregation and delivers what her father had written. Then she switches to an angry
denunciation of the congregation. Hornsby is sitting in the pews, and he is very interested. This young woman can be marketed.
This religious business has been successful. A blind former pilot hears her sermon over the radio, and he comes back from the brink of suicide. John Carson (David Manners) and Florence develop a relationship.
The balance of the picture deals with the conflict between the relationship and the religious con business.
Capra in his autobiography admits that he pulled back from full on confrontation with revival style religion.
Not only was this made in the pre-code era, but it was the pre-special effects era. The lions are real and the fire which burns the revival hall is real. Stanwyck literally was in the lions den, and Capra literally carried her
away from the fire. The Turner Classic DVD edition has some decent extras including a short with Ron Howard discussing this film. It's available for free streaming. Worth viewing particularly for Stanwyck.
It is time to discuss the Motion Pictures Production Code. The heads of the major studios feared government regulation, so they attempted to self regulate. However, serious regulation didn't come until mid 1934. We often think of the code denying the ability of film makers to portray even the simplest potential references to sex. Even a married couples had to sleep in separate beds is one of the more notable limits. However, it also practically eliminated criticism of foreign governments. There were several Hollywood films in 1938 critical of the Nazi's which were denied licenses .
"The Blue Angel" is one of the most famous pre-code pictures which showed an attitude to sex which was not possible after the strict enforcement of the code. "Miracle Woman" touched on another tabu subject, religion
Barbara Stanwyck portrays Florence Fallon a revivalist preacher with services carried on radio. It is an adaptation of a failed Broadway play. It is based on the life/career of Amy Semple McPherson a hugely successful California preacher. Miracle cures are part of the tent show. They are fakes; they are shills employed by Bob Hornsby (Sam Hardy). He found Florence at her lowest ebb; her father had just died while dictating his weekly sermon.
She appears before the congregation and delivers what her father had written. Then she switches to an angry
denunciation of the congregation. Hornsby is sitting in the pews, and he is very interested. This young woman can be marketed.
This religious business has been successful. A blind former pilot hears her sermon over the radio, and he comes back from the brink of suicide. John Carson (David Manners) and Florence develop a relationship.
The balance of the picture deals with the conflict between the relationship and the religious con business.
Capra in his autobiography admits that he pulled back from full on confrontation with revival style religion.
Not only was this made in the pre-code era, but it was the pre-special effects era. The lions are real and the fire which burns the revival hall is real. Stanwyck literally was in the lions den, and Capra literally carried her
away from the fire. The Turner Classic DVD edition has some decent extras including a short with Ron Howard discussing this film. It's available for free streaming. Worth viewing particularly for Stanwyck.
.-.
"No Turn Left Unstoned"-1995 "The Pretenders With Friends (Live)"2006
I was feeling a little out of sorts, so I decided to take Pretenders day. That consisted of watching "The Pretenders Greatest Hits" which is the DVD containing 20 music videos from 1979 through 1999. It includes two singles by Chrissie Hynde with UB40. "I've Got You Babe" was directed by Jonathan Demme. This hard to find and pretty expensive, only used copies are available now; however it includes the documentary "No Turn Left Unstoned." This is cleverly done cuts of an interview with Hynde appear among comments by friends and musical associates and short cuts of songs. This is probably streaming somewhere. Well worth viewing.
I also recommend Hynde's autobiography "My Life As a Pretender" 2015. She arrived in England in 1973 and worked as a writer for" New Musical Express" a weekly journal of the British Pop music scene. She became involved in the punk movement, but after several tries in different bands; she formed her own band writing her own music. The demo tape was sent around. It was listened to by many producers. Finally, she got her contract with a group named "The Pretenders." This is a reference The Platter's song "The Great Pretender."
The first single, produced by Nick Lowe, was "Stop Your Sobbing" a Kinks album cut. It did well in Britain. It was followed up by "Kid." The third single, "Brass in Pocket", hit #1 in the UK and made top 20 in the US. The original group was James Honeyman Scott, Peter Farandon, and Martin Chambers. The first album reached #1 in the UK and top 20 in the US. Those who know something about the group know that both Farandon and Scott died early and with drug involvement.
Hynde has an exceptional rock voice and she is also a top songwriter. Her lyrics can be particularly cutting; for instance: "We are all of us in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." She has been the only constant in various line-ups called "The Pretenders." They were inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2005. The second selection is a live concert from 2006 in Atlantic City . It features a number of guest stars including Iggy Pop. Hynde was mid fifties when this was made. Don't expect a "Stop Making Sense", but the music goes from good to compelling. This is streaming free on Amazon Prime.
I highly recommend "No Turn Left Unstoned," the autobiography, and "The Pretenders Greatest Hits." The "With Friends" is decent and more if you are a fan.
I was feeling a little out of sorts, so I decided to take Pretenders day. That consisted of watching "The Pretenders Greatest Hits" which is the DVD containing 20 music videos from 1979 through 1999. It includes two singles by Chrissie Hynde with UB40. "I've Got You Babe" was directed by Jonathan Demme. This hard to find and pretty expensive, only used copies are available now; however it includes the documentary "No Turn Left Unstoned." This is cleverly done cuts of an interview with Hynde appear among comments by friends and musical associates and short cuts of songs. This is probably streaming somewhere. Well worth viewing.
I also recommend Hynde's autobiography "My Life As a Pretender" 2015. She arrived in England in 1973 and worked as a writer for" New Musical Express" a weekly journal of the British Pop music scene. She became involved in the punk movement, but after several tries in different bands; she formed her own band writing her own music. The demo tape was sent around. It was listened to by many producers. Finally, she got her contract with a group named "The Pretenders." This is a reference The Platter's song "The Great Pretender."
The first single, produced by Nick Lowe, was "Stop Your Sobbing" a Kinks album cut. It did well in Britain. It was followed up by "Kid." The third single, "Brass in Pocket", hit #1 in the UK and made top 20 in the US. The original group was James Honeyman Scott, Peter Farandon, and Martin Chambers. The first album reached #1 in the UK and top 20 in the US. Those who know something about the group know that both Farandon and Scott died early and with drug involvement.
Hynde has an exceptional rock voice and she is also a top songwriter. Her lyrics can be particularly cutting; for instance: "We are all of us in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." She has been the only constant in various line-ups called "The Pretenders." They were inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2005. The second selection is a live concert from 2006 in Atlantic City . It features a number of guest stars including Iggy Pop. Hynde was mid fifties when this was made. Don't expect a "Stop Making Sense", but the music goes from good to compelling. This is streaming free on Amazon Prime.
I highly recommend "No Turn Left Unstoned," the autobiography, and "The Pretenders Greatest Hits." The "With Friends" is decent and more if you are a fan.
"Seven Years in Tibet"-Jean-Jacques Arnaud-1997
The film is based on the book with the same title by Heinrich Harrer. John Williams wrote the score. There is an almost second score which features a variety of Tibetan chants and songs performed by monks. In the Western score Yo Yo Ma is featured playing his cello. The score reflects the division in the movie. When Harrer arrived in Tibet during WWII; foreigners were banned from Tibet. When Harrer left, Communist China had crushed independent Tibet and had begun the process of absorbing Tibet. This cost a million lives and limited the religion. The 14th Dalai Lama escaped to India in 1959. Harrer is the viewers way in to help understand the culture and religion of Tibet.
Harrer (Brad Pitt) was both a world class skier and mountain climber. He was also a member of the Nazi Party.
It isn't clear if he was an ideologue or just someone who joined the party for advantages that membership provided. Importantly the Dali Lama didn't repudiate him after his backstory came out. Harrer was a self-centered jerk in the begining of the movie. This in contrast with Peter Aufschnaiter (David Thewlis) the leader of the expedition to climb a Himalayan peak. They failed and they were scooped up by the Indian army and interred as enemy citizens at the start of World War II. After multiple failed attempts Herrer escapes along with Peter Aufschnaiter. They finally reach Tibet and both men undergo transformations. Peter marries a Tibetan woman, and Herrer becomes involved with the young Dali Lama.
The Dali Lama (Janyang Jantsho Wagchuck) is a bright, curious 14 year old. Herrer becomes an informal tutor and builder for the holy one. Harrer is changed by the association; he becomes a better more caring person. He attempts to convince the Dali Lama to leave Tibet when the Chinese Communists invade. He stays until 1959 until he escapes to India.
This is beautifully filmed; Annaud filmed in multiple countries including secret filming in Tibet. This is a huge
expensive production which did okay at the box office. The base story is compelling. Without Pitt's participation, the film wouldn't have been made. His acting has been criticized, but I didn't find it distracting.
The transition Herrer undergoes is well handled. This is a film which is well worth watching, but I can't ignore the little voice in my head which tells me that it could have been much better. I'm not sure that is fair because making a film like this involves huge problems. Still when I compare it to Attenborough's "Gandhi", I have to believe more could have been done.
The film is based on the book with the same title by Heinrich Harrer. John Williams wrote the score. There is an almost second score which features a variety of Tibetan chants and songs performed by monks. In the Western score Yo Yo Ma is featured playing his cello. The score reflects the division in the movie. When Harrer arrived in Tibet during WWII; foreigners were banned from Tibet. When Harrer left, Communist China had crushed independent Tibet and had begun the process of absorbing Tibet. This cost a million lives and limited the religion. The 14th Dalai Lama escaped to India in 1959. Harrer is the viewers way in to help understand the culture and religion of Tibet.
Harrer (Brad Pitt) was both a world class skier and mountain climber. He was also a member of the Nazi Party.
It isn't clear if he was an ideologue or just someone who joined the party for advantages that membership provided. Importantly the Dali Lama didn't repudiate him after his backstory came out. Harrer was a self-centered jerk in the begining of the movie. This in contrast with Peter Aufschnaiter (David Thewlis) the leader of the expedition to climb a Himalayan peak. They failed and they were scooped up by the Indian army and interred as enemy citizens at the start of World War II. After multiple failed attempts Herrer escapes along with Peter Aufschnaiter. They finally reach Tibet and both men undergo transformations. Peter marries a Tibetan woman, and Herrer becomes involved with the young Dali Lama.
The Dali Lama (Janyang Jantsho Wagchuck) is a bright, curious 14 year old. Herrer becomes an informal tutor and builder for the holy one. Harrer is changed by the association; he becomes a better more caring person. He attempts to convince the Dali Lama to leave Tibet when the Chinese Communists invade. He stays until 1959 until he escapes to India.
This is beautifully filmed; Annaud filmed in multiple countries including secret filming in Tibet. This is a huge
expensive production which did okay at the box office. The base story is compelling. Without Pitt's participation, the film wouldn't have been made. His acting has been criticized, but I didn't find it distracting.
The transition Herrer undergoes is well handled. This is a film which is well worth watching, but I can't ignore the little voice in my head which tells me that it could have been much better. I'm not sure that is fair because making a film like this involves huge problems. Still when I compare it to Attenborough's "Gandhi", I have to believe more could have been done.
Last edited:
The first Pretenders albums was a big favorite of mine. Learning to Crawl is very good as well, too bad half the band was dead by that time.
Turner Classic Movies is showing this movie Monday night at 10:15pm.
Blow-up-Michelangelo Antonioni-1966
This is a film which is out of fashion today. It is still studied in film schools, but even in film societies it has become a rarity. In its day it was one of the most influential films ever made. This was Antonioni's first English language and his second in color. It was adapted from a short story by Antonioni. He picked Herb Hancock to do the score, but the score is almost non-existent. The action isn't taking place over a musical background. The principal characters aren't even properly named. "What's in a name?...A rose by any other name would smell as sweet?" In stories the mere knowledge of the true name gives one power.
In Western culture our plays, novels, and yes even our stories follow certain rules. They have a starting point, a middle, and a conclusion. Normally time progresses from here to there in the story. We have flashbacks sometimes, but even then they are somehow within the basic story. We normally have a protagonist, and the story is told from his point of view some times, and in others we are observing him. Of course even on this planet there are other conventions in storytelling.
A famous fashion photographer in '60's London is working on a photographic book which shows how the poorest live. He has been staying overnite in homeless shelters or "doss houses" to Brits. He has been secretly filming the inhabitants. A large vehicle careens around the streets; it is filled with noisy college students out on a "rag"; in costume they go out to collect money for charity. Our protagonist gives them some money and goes to work. His studio is also his home. He is late, but everyone has to wait for him. David Hemmings plays the lead role. He certainly is no hero, but the story, such as it is, is told from his perspective. He first photographs one of the 60's iconic fashion models, Verushka, never using her name. One of the iconic images in the film is Verushka writhing on the floor with Hemmings straddling her while he snaps his camera. Next he moves to photographing a group of models; he treats them like crap. After a short session in glass enclosed spaces; he leaves them. He doesn't tell them that the session is ended.
He drives his Rolls Royce to a dilapidated antiques shop. We find out that he is thinking about buying the shop. He then drives to the park. It is here that he photographs a couple. He doesn't tell them what he is doing he just takes the pictures. The young woman discovers him. She wants the film of her interacting affectionately with a distinguished older man. Hemmings brushes her off.
This provides with the central material to develop the rest of the story. In the process of developing and enlarging these shots from the park; the photographer uncovers something not visible to the naked eye. He finds someone holding a gun. Has he prevented a murder, that is his first thought. As he further manipulates the film;he finds a corpse. The young woman appears at his studio before he has made his discoveries. She wants the film. Hemmings gives her an empty roll; Vanessa Redgrave gives him a false phone number.
The audience is led to believe that the photographer has uncovered a hidden reality. That reality is a murder committed in the park. The viewers are trying to create a story along with Hemmings. Would what we see on the screen make more sense if we were to use another template of story-telling? In many ways what we see is not synoptic. Many scenes including Hemmings observing his neighbors making love, a strange rock concert with zombie like fans, a sexual romp with aspiring models, and an imaginary tennis game with the students now made up as mimes have no relationship with what we have been led to believe is the central story. In Sanskrit drama for example "Shakuntala" by Kalidasa the emphasis is not on a synoptic storyline leading to a conclusion, but on the "rasa" the flavor of the moment. Each of the previously mentioned scenes
is a vignette confirming Hemmings distance from others in the scene. Hemmings doesn't connect with the other people. For instance in the rock concert, at the rock concert a guitar is demolished and the neck is thrown into the audience. Hemmings struggles with the suddenly animated fans. He escapes with this wondrous souvenir, but once he eludes the fans; he assesses it is worthless. He throws it away, a man on the street picks it up, examines it then throws it away.
His studio is trashed and all the photographs are stolen save one which shows? the body. How will Hemmings confirm what he has found on the film? He wants to bring his book editor along to confirm what he has discovered. This leads him to a 60's party; there is drug use a lot of drug use. His editor is out of it, so he will be useless as a witness. Verushka is at the party. Hemings asks her: "Weren't you supposed to be in Paris/" She replies: "I am in Paris." Hemmings goes out alone and views the body of the distinguished gentleman. Unfortunately, he is without his camera. He sees the body. The next morniing he returns with camera, but the body is no longer there. The students arrive and they begin a mime tennis match. Hemmings watches, becomes involved, and throws back an imaginary ball. The camera shoots him from above he becomes smaller and smaller; finally he is vanished.
I saw this with a group of friends in a Theater. Fifty years later I re-visited this film. I watched it twice, once with a commentary. I read some background materials. If you choose to view this film; read Roger Ebert's review at Ebert.com. I don't agree with everything there, but it makes sense of the film. Recommended for those who are interested in film history. This is not a film I will be returning to; yet, I still remembered some of the images clearly for fifty years.
This is a film which is out of fashion today. It is still studied in film schools, but even in film societies it has become a rarity. In its day it was one of the most influential films ever made. This was Antonioni's first English language and his second in color. It was adapted from a short story by Antonioni. He picked Herb Hancock to do the score, but the score is almost non-existent. The action isn't taking place over a musical background. The principal characters aren't even properly named. "What's in a name?...A rose by any other name would smell as sweet?" In stories the mere knowledge of the true name gives one power.
In Western culture our plays, novels, and yes even our stories follow certain rules. They have a starting point, a middle, and a conclusion. Normally time progresses from here to there in the story. We have flashbacks sometimes, but even then they are somehow within the basic story. We normally have a protagonist, and the story is told from his point of view some times, and in others we are observing him. Of course even on this planet there are other conventions in storytelling.
A famous fashion photographer in '60's London is working on a photographic book which shows how the poorest live. He has been staying overnite in homeless shelters or "doss houses" to Brits. He has been secretly filming the inhabitants. A large vehicle careens around the streets; it is filled with noisy college students out on a "rag"; in costume they go out to collect money for charity. Our protagonist gives them some money and goes to work. His studio is also his home. He is late, but everyone has to wait for him. David Hemmings plays the lead role. He certainly is no hero, but the story, such as it is, is told from his perspective. He first photographs one of the 60's iconic fashion models, Verushka, never using her name. One of the iconic images in the film is Verushka writhing on the floor with Hemmings straddling her while he snaps his camera. Next he moves to photographing a group of models; he treats them like crap. After a short session in glass enclosed spaces; he leaves them. He doesn't tell them that the session is ended.
He drives his Rolls Royce to a dilapidated antiques shop. We find out that he is thinking about buying the shop. He then drives to the park. It is here that he photographs a couple. He doesn't tell them what he is doing he just takes the pictures. The young woman discovers him. She wants the film of her interacting affectionately with a distinguished older man. Hemmings brushes her off.
This provides with the central material to develop the rest of the story. In the process of developing and enlarging these shots from the park; the photographer uncovers something not visible to the naked eye. He finds someone holding a gun. Has he prevented a murder, that is his first thought. As he further manipulates the film;he finds a corpse. The young woman appears at his studio before he has made his discoveries. She wants the film. Hemmings gives her an empty roll; Vanessa Redgrave gives him a false phone number.
The audience is led to believe that the photographer has uncovered a hidden reality. That reality is a murder committed in the park. The viewers are trying to create a story along with Hemmings. Would what we see on the screen make more sense if we were to use another template of story-telling? In many ways what we see is not synoptic. Many scenes including Hemmings observing his neighbors making love, a strange rock concert with zombie like fans, a sexual romp with aspiring models, and an imaginary tennis game with the students now made up as mimes have no relationship with what we have been led to believe is the central story. In Sanskrit drama for example "Shakuntala" by Kalidasa the emphasis is not on a synoptic storyline leading to a conclusion, but on the "rasa" the flavor of the moment. Each of the previously mentioned scenes
is a vignette confirming Hemmings distance from others in the scene. Hemmings doesn't connect with the other people. For instance in the rock concert, at the rock concert a guitar is demolished and the neck is thrown into the audience. Hemmings struggles with the suddenly animated fans. He escapes with this wondrous souvenir, but once he eludes the fans; he assesses it is worthless. He throws it away, a man on the street picks it up, examines it then throws it away.
His studio is trashed and all the photographs are stolen save one which shows? the body. How will Hemmings confirm what he has found on the film? He wants to bring his book editor along to confirm what he has discovered. This leads him to a 60's party; there is drug use a lot of drug use. His editor is out of it, so he will be useless as a witness. Verushka is at the party. Hemings asks her: "Weren't you supposed to be in Paris/" She replies: "I am in Paris." Hemmings goes out alone and views the body of the distinguished gentleman. Unfortunately, he is without his camera. He sees the body. The next morniing he returns with camera, but the body is no longer there. The students arrive and they begin a mime tennis match. Hemmings watches, becomes involved, and throws back an imaginary ball. The camera shoots him from above he becomes smaller and smaller; finally he is vanished.
I saw this with a group of friends in a Theater. Fifty years later I re-visited this film. I watched it twice, once with a commentary. I read some background materials. If you choose to view this film; read Roger Ebert's review at Ebert.com. I don't agree with everything there, but it makes sense of the film. Recommended for those who are interested in film history. This is not a film I will be returning to; yet, I still remembered some of the images clearly for fifty years.
Funny thing, I recall watching Blowup on television when I was a kid before I went to college, I think it was shown by one of the major networks. 40 or 50 years later I recall virtually nothing about the film, but I do remember that at the time and for several years later I was somewhat mesmerized by the images that come across in this film. I haven't really thought about Blowup for a number of years now. However, thinking about now because of this review, I realize that for me it was an early excursion into the world of cinema.
Last edited:
.-.
It had been many years since I had seen "The Thing From Another World". I watched it last night on Turner Classic Movies. Good stuff. The thing the struck me about this film is the intelligent approach that the filmmakers took with the material. A group of people working together intelligently to try to solve the problems that crop up when they discover the saucer and its occupant. The intelligent approach of this film brought to mind another early 1950's sci fi movie, "The Day the Earth Stood Still". As far as my favorite 1950's science fiction movie, that still remains "Forbidden Planet", but this one is certainly worth watching.
"Roman Holiday"-William Wyler-1953
Ian McLellan Hunter and John Dighton are the listed screenwriters, but this is one of those films which the black listed Dalton Trumbo received belated credit. He received an Oscar for the story years later, then years later after his death his wife picked up another Oscar for the screenplay. William Wyler did his usual very solid job directing. The film was shot entirely in Rome. Paramount had bank accounts in Italy which could only be accessed for productions in Italy. Audrey Hepburn was a virtual unknown. Cary Grant was originally considered for the reporter romantic lead. He thought he was too old, but a decade later he made "Charade" with Hepburn. (That's another film worth viewing.) Gregory Peck took the role to change his image. Eddie Albert made a solid comic foil as the photographer.
This is very much Audrey's picture. Peck lobbied to have her name appear the title. He remarked that she was a sure thing for the Oscar. Of course she did win the Oscar. It has always surprised me how few films she made. She died early of abdominal cancer, and she took a decade off to raise her sons. She wasn't only an actress; she was a fashion icon impeccably dressed by Givanchey. She won a Grammy for "Moon River" and a Tony for Ondine. She spent most of the last years of her life as a representative for UNICEF. She won the Gene Hersholt Humanitarian Award and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
The story is simple. The princess of an un-named European country is ending her multi-country tour in Italy. She is bored and frustrated; the doctor gives her a shot to relax her and let her sleep. She escapes from the embassy to go on an adventure. Rather than admit that she has gone missing; the embassy puts out the story
the story that she has become severely ill. She was found sleeping on a bench by an American journalist, Peck. Somehow he doesn't recognize her. He ends up bringing her back to his apartment. He discovers who she is and he believes he can get a great story. The rest of the film covers their day in Rome. Of course Peck falls in love, and he ditches the story and at the end of the film Eddie Albert returns the very candid pictures of her adventure.
There are numerous clever bits in the film. The first is at the ball in the embassy. The princess loses her shoe, and in a clever scene she regains it so she can dance. Probably the most famous bit is when Peck takes her to a famous statue. If you insert your hand into the statue's mouth; it will eat your hand if you lie. She partially inserts her hand and quickly withdraws it. Peck fully inserts hand. He withdraws it and conceals the hand inside his coat sleeve. Audrey screams; Peck hadn't told her what he planned to do. Her reaction is unrehearsed and natural. The film is filled with clever bits. Hepburn's reactions are amazing. The shots of Rome were so evocative that tourism took a definite up tick. Vespa scooters became a hot item because Peck and Hepburn ride one. The film seems to have an effortless charm.
Some people find the film dated, but I believe you need to relax and just watch and enjoy. This isn't a great film, but it is great entertainment. My highest recommendation, great family viewing.
Ian McLellan Hunter and John Dighton are the listed screenwriters, but this is one of those films which the black listed Dalton Trumbo received belated credit. He received an Oscar for the story years later, then years later after his death his wife picked up another Oscar for the screenplay. William Wyler did his usual very solid job directing. The film was shot entirely in Rome. Paramount had bank accounts in Italy which could only be accessed for productions in Italy. Audrey Hepburn was a virtual unknown. Cary Grant was originally considered for the reporter romantic lead. He thought he was too old, but a decade later he made "Charade" with Hepburn. (That's another film worth viewing.) Gregory Peck took the role to change his image. Eddie Albert made a solid comic foil as the photographer.
This is very much Audrey's picture. Peck lobbied to have her name appear the title. He remarked that she was a sure thing for the Oscar. Of course she did win the Oscar. It has always surprised me how few films she made. She died early of abdominal cancer, and she took a decade off to raise her sons. She wasn't only an actress; she was a fashion icon impeccably dressed by Givanchey. She won a Grammy for "Moon River" and a Tony for Ondine. She spent most of the last years of her life as a representative for UNICEF. She won the Gene Hersholt Humanitarian Award and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
The story is simple. The princess of an un-named European country is ending her multi-country tour in Italy. She is bored and frustrated; the doctor gives her a shot to relax her and let her sleep. She escapes from the embassy to go on an adventure. Rather than admit that she has gone missing; the embassy puts out the story
the story that she has become severely ill. She was found sleeping on a bench by an American journalist, Peck. Somehow he doesn't recognize her. He ends up bringing her back to his apartment. He discovers who she is and he believes he can get a great story. The rest of the film covers their day in Rome. Of course Peck falls in love, and he ditches the story and at the end of the film Eddie Albert returns the very candid pictures of her adventure.
There are numerous clever bits in the film. The first is at the ball in the embassy. The princess loses her shoe, and in a clever scene she regains it so she can dance. Probably the most famous bit is when Peck takes her to a famous statue. If you insert your hand into the statue's mouth; it will eat your hand if you lie. She partially inserts her hand and quickly withdraws it. Peck fully inserts hand. He withdraws it and conceals the hand inside his coat sleeve. Audrey screams; Peck hadn't told her what he planned to do. Her reaction is unrehearsed and natural. The film is filled with clever bits. Hepburn's reactions are amazing. The shots of Rome were so evocative that tourism took a definite up tick. Vespa scooters became a hot item because Peck and Hepburn ride one. The film seems to have an effortless charm.
Some people find the film dated, but I believe you need to relax and just watch and enjoy. This isn't a great film, but it is great entertainment. My highest recommendation, great family viewing.
Roman Holiday is one of those classic old movies that I haven't seen. For whatever reason in recent months it has become a movie that I definitely want to see, so it is another one that has made my watch list (a rather lengthly list, I have to admit). One of these days I'll get around to it. One other thing that I've noticed recently is that it is often on television on the channels that we get. I just have to make time for it.
"Forbidden Planet"-Fred Wilcox-1956
This one stuck in my craw. I couldn't think how I wanted to review this film. It had a huge budget for any '50's film, $1.8 million. It's the first SCFI film I remember in color. It was made by a major studio, MGM. It had top flight special effects. It is loosely based on Shakespeare's "The Tempest." It has the first theme made using electronic instruments. It has Robby the Robot; one of the most iconic special characters in SCIFI. When this costume was sold in 2017, it brought $5.375 million; it cost $125,000 in 1956. There is so much to like, but this is a case of the sum of the parts being much greater than the whole for me.
The two basic weak elements are the cast and the plot. Walter Pidgeon is first rate as Dr. Morbius. He is a professor of linguistics who deciphers much of the language of the Krell, the mysterious race who previously inhabited this planet. Some years ago a spaceship was sent to this planet, and it wasn't heard from. Now a new ship is sent to investigate and report back to the Federation about what happened to the Bellaraphon and its crew. Belllaraphon is a hero of a Greek myth; he destroys Chimera. The new ship is commanded by Captain Adams, Leslie Nielson. Nielson as a romantic lead is a bridge too far. Then there is Altaira, Morbius' daughter, Ann Francis. I've always thought she looked a little strange; not the "Oh brave new world that has such creatures in it..." strange. Her mini-skirts before there were mini-skirts got the film banned in Spain until 1967.
Two years of research preceded filming. It had a great test viewing, but it didn't make money. It did provide inspiration for the original Star Trek. This is a film that is almost mandatory viewing, but it is like learning to decline a verb for me. Hopefully, you will find it much more enjoyable. Well worth viewing for its many excellent qualities.
This one stuck in my craw. I couldn't think how I wanted to review this film. It had a huge budget for any '50's film, $1.8 million. It's the first SCFI film I remember in color. It was made by a major studio, MGM. It had top flight special effects. It is loosely based on Shakespeare's "The Tempest." It has the first theme made using electronic instruments. It has Robby the Robot; one of the most iconic special characters in SCIFI. When this costume was sold in 2017, it brought $5.375 million; it cost $125,000 in 1956. There is so much to like, but this is a case of the sum of the parts being much greater than the whole for me.
The two basic weak elements are the cast and the plot. Walter Pidgeon is first rate as Dr. Morbius. He is a professor of linguistics who deciphers much of the language of the Krell, the mysterious race who previously inhabited this planet. Some years ago a spaceship was sent to this planet, and it wasn't heard from. Now a new ship is sent to investigate and report back to the Federation about what happened to the Bellaraphon and its crew. Belllaraphon is a hero of a Greek myth; he destroys Chimera. The new ship is commanded by Captain Adams, Leslie Nielson. Nielson as a romantic lead is a bridge too far. Then there is Altaira, Morbius' daughter, Ann Francis. I've always thought she looked a little strange; not the "Oh brave new world that has such creatures in it..." strange. Her mini-skirts before there were mini-skirts got the film banned in Spain until 1967.
Two years of research preceded filming. It had a great test viewing, but it didn't make money. It did provide inspiration for the original Star Trek. This is a film that is almost mandatory viewing, but it is like learning to decline a verb for me. Hopefully, you will find it much more enjoyable. Well worth viewing for its many excellent qualities.
"Equalizer 2-Antoine Fuqua-2018
I was a big fan of the original TV series "The Equalizer" 1985-1989. For those of you who didn't see this interesting show, it featured Edward Woodward as Robert McCall. McCall is a retired agent from a CIA off shoot the Company. He helps ordinary citizens in trouble. He has an add in the newspaper: "Got a problem? Odds against you? Call the Equalizer: 212-555-4200. McCall is often able to solve problems with a minimum of violence using specialists from his former career. One notable aspect of this show is how many guest stars went on to solid careers in movies and TV.
I liked the first movie in this series. Yes, I realize that it is violent, and Fuqua is a director with some real pluses and minuses, but for me Denzil Washington does so many things so well, that it was enjoyable. I think Chloe Grace Moretz is a very solid young actress. I liked her in "Let Me In" the tween American vampire movie, and her performance as a teenage prostitute is very good. So I was set up for the sequel. I admit to liking action/adventure films, and Equalizer 2 has plenty of action. The opening is solid. Instead of working in a Walmart, McCall is a Lyfte driver. Even before we settle in, McCall has a scene on a train where he rescues a kidnapped child. This sets us up for the quirks; McCall has this ability to anticipate what his opponents will do
in fight sequences. This carries over into almost every situation he is hyper aware. The most obvious current equivalent is Jack Reacher; however, Washington is platinum and Reeves is silver plate. The Jason Bourne franchise is the gold standard for this type of action film. Damon is very good in his role, the supporting cast is always very solid, and until the most recent film, "Jason Bourne" everything was superbly and skillfully done.
Sequels are always difficult to pull off. Generally they fall into the trap of being more of the same. Of course they often fall into the bigger is better trap. I've always thought that character development was key to making the sequels interesting. Jason Bourne is discovering more about himself, Al Pacino is doing the same in "The Godfather" trilogy. This doesn't happen in "Equalizer 2." Even more disappointing the quality supporting player, Melissa Leo is killed off. There shouldn't be an "Equalizer 3." 2 is okay, but it is a step down from 1 which was a solid film.
I was a big fan of the original TV series "The Equalizer" 1985-1989. For those of you who didn't see this interesting show, it featured Edward Woodward as Robert McCall. McCall is a retired agent from a CIA off shoot the Company. He helps ordinary citizens in trouble. He has an add in the newspaper: "Got a problem? Odds against you? Call the Equalizer: 212-555-4200. McCall is often able to solve problems with a minimum of violence using specialists from his former career. One notable aspect of this show is how many guest stars went on to solid careers in movies and TV.
I liked the first movie in this series. Yes, I realize that it is violent, and Fuqua is a director with some real pluses and minuses, but for me Denzil Washington does so many things so well, that it was enjoyable. I think Chloe Grace Moretz is a very solid young actress. I liked her in "Let Me In" the tween American vampire movie, and her performance as a teenage prostitute is very good. So I was set up for the sequel. I admit to liking action/adventure films, and Equalizer 2 has plenty of action. The opening is solid. Instead of working in a Walmart, McCall is a Lyfte driver. Even before we settle in, McCall has a scene on a train where he rescues a kidnapped child. This sets us up for the quirks; McCall has this ability to anticipate what his opponents will do
in fight sequences. This carries over into almost every situation he is hyper aware. The most obvious current equivalent is Jack Reacher; however, Washington is platinum and Reeves is silver plate. The Jason Bourne franchise is the gold standard for this type of action film. Damon is very good in his role, the supporting cast is always very solid, and until the most recent film, "Jason Bourne" everything was superbly and skillfully done.
Sequels are always difficult to pull off. Generally they fall into the trap of being more of the same. Of course they often fall into the bigger is better trap. I've always thought that character development was key to making the sequels interesting. Jason Bourne is discovering more about himself, Al Pacino is doing the same in "The Godfather" trilogy. This doesn't happen in "Equalizer 2." Even more disappointing the quality supporting player, Melissa Leo is killed off. There shouldn't be an "Equalizer 3." 2 is okay, but it is a step down from 1 which was a solid film.
.-.