 One of cinema's best slimy celebrity characters Director: Federico Fellini Writer: Federico Fellini, Tullio Pinelli, and Ennio Flaiano; Story by Michelangelo Antonioni, Federico Fellini, Tullio Pinelli Cinematographer: Arturo Gallea Producer: Luigi Rovere by Jon Cvack With a signature magical realism style that would carry on throughout most of Fellini's major works, it’s no surprise that his first film would contain the same elements. It was the director’s solo feature debut, having co-directed Variety Lights with Alberto Lattuada two years prior, and for a debut, it’s no wonder that Fellini would rocket to the top of world cinema. It’s a lean 86 minute film that cuts straight to the good stuff and doesn’t relent until the very last minute; full of all the memorable characters you’d expect from Fellini - even Giulietta Masina. The story involves newlywed couple Wanda (Brunella Bovo) and Ivan (Leopold Trieste) who arrive in Rome to celebrate their honeymoon. Ivan’s family then comes arrives in town the next day in order to meet the new bride. Ivan is an anxious and high-strung man, clearly out of Wanda’s league and all them more anxious because of it. He likes to keep a tight control on things, planning out each day to the hour. Obsessed with “The White Sheik” soap opera photo story (think a comic book that uses actual photographs), specifically the title character. When The White Sheik arrives in town for the latest production, Wanda convinces Ivan to run her a bath, which she then ditches to go and try and meet her obsession. Her journey is successful, as she’s taken away with the wild and magical production and they head to the beach in order to shoot the story’s latest installment. As Fellini does best, we get to watch as these fascinating characters operate behind the scenes, with their temperaments and colorful personalities creating chaos, shining in each and every moment. Eventually Wanda is able to meet The White Sheik (Alberto Sordi), discovering a towering and lecherous man who’s anxious to seduce his newfound superfan. Soon the two end up alone on a boat, where Wanda gets to see her celebrity crush as the scumbag he really is. She quickly leaves the production, begrimed and embarrassed, attempting to kill herself and ending up in a mental institution. Meanwhile, Ivan does all he can to try and find her, finding a mistakenly suggestive letter to the “White Sheik”, ending up at the police who offer little help. His parents arrive the next day to meet the bride, forcing Ivan to create every excuse in the book in order to prevent embarrassment; made all the worse by his family’s piety and determination to see the pope before they leave. Looking at the trivia, it turns out that Woody Allen’s recent 2012 To Rome With Love stole this exact plot line. The White Sheik is a perfect romantic comedy, offering all you’d want from the master, balancing irreverent humor with great heart. From the leads to the minute supporting roles, each character in White Sheik is memorable, with Leopoldo Trieste stealing the entire show; possessing a magnificent ability to play such a goofy role with such heart, as each new scene punches his personality up just a little bit more than before. It’s a funny and fast film. BELOW: No subtitles, but with Fellini you don't need them Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page
0 Comments
 In terms of lizards used as dinosaurs, this is one of the better sequences Director: Henry Levin Writer: Charles Brackett and Walter Reisch; based on Journey to the Center of the Earth by Jules Verne Cinematographer: Leo Tover Producer: Charles Brackett by Jon Cvack My mother had bought me the four-books-in-one volume of Jules Verne’s classic quad - 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Mysterious Island, Around the World in 80 Days, and Journey to the Center of the Earth. Similar to when I read a four-books-in-one from H.G. Wells, discovering that while the stories overall are appealing to young kids, the reading level can be fairly difficult, and best reserved for much later in life. I had read 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea some time in grade school, expecting some type of wild adventure story where a submarine dives deep down into unexplored waters, 20,000 leagues beneath the surface, where terrifying creatures reside and attack them. Instead, similar to what makes Moby Dick so boring, are the, at times, unbearably dense taxonomy and geography passages that drone on for pages upon pages. For aspiring scientists everywhere, I’m sure it’s thrilling. To the lay reader, it’s distracting. Still, considering when the books were published I can appreciate what Vernes’ prescient writings, though I still think the movie is far greater than the book, as it takes out all of the boring parts. However, it was The Mysterious Island that really took me for a loop, allowing Verne’s imagination to soar in impressive and imaginative ways as he creates his Lincoln Island from scratch, walking us precisely through how a group of men would survive on the Island, along with a plot that leaves you unable to put the book down. It was one of the best books I had read in 2016, leaving me excited to take on Journey to the Center of the Earth, as it had to be the best book of the series. While not terrible, and containing some exciting puzzles, again Verne falls victim to his own gross knowledge, leaving us with more geology lessons than we hope for, though still better than 20,000 Leagues. I was excited for the movie version, expecting that like Disney’s 20,000, it would remove most of the boring elements and cut right to the action. Instead, it takes about 45 minutes of not all that exciting exposition until we finally begin the journey. It focuses on geologist Professor Sir Oliver Lindenbrook (James Mason) who’s given a piece of volcanic rock by one of his students. With the help of his assistant Mr Paisley (Ben Wright), they begin running experiments on the mysterious element and discover a plumb bob inside with a mysterious inscription. They soon discover it was made by the Icelandic scientist Arne Saknussemm who allegedly found a passage to the center of the Earth. The two then embark on a mission to Iceland in order to find the passage, joined by Icelander Hans Bejlke (Petur Ronson) and Saknussemm’s widowed wife Carla (Arele Dahl). However, they’re not the only ones who are determined to get to the center of the earth, with a villainous Count Saknassem’s (Ivan Triesault and Arne’s descendant) also making the journey with his band of cronies who will stop at nothing to make the discovery. Even after 45 minutes, it takes quite some time before we end up seeing anything all that interesting. By about halfway through, we see where Spielberg grabbed his inspiration for Indiana Jone’s boulder run. Later they discover a room with overgrown mushrooms that satiates their starving bodies, which quickly leads to discovering the book’s best section - the vast underworld ocean that’s guarded by dinosaur sized reptiles. It was here that that the classic special effects really shine, as they make the lizards they superimposed look fairly real - fitted with stegosaurus-like derma plates. The problem is that Verne’s commitment to staying within the limits of science prohibits the story from ever going to the places that you hope it will go. I’m not rushing to go check out the 2008 remake with Brendon Frasier, but I do think the set pieces could benefit from today’s technology, as the 1957 didn’t seem the best year to create extravagant designs that were dependent on the limits of science. It’s a film that fails to meet the expectations you have for a movie called Journey to the Center of the Earth. BELOW: Hate watching clips of people shooting clips on their tv but at least you can see the dinosaurs Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Charles Laughton seems like one of few who could play a solid Donald Trump Director: David Lean Writer: Harold Brighouse, Wynyard Browne, David Lean, and Norman Spencer Cinematographer: Jack Hildyard Producer: David Lean by Jon Cvack Drifting from Daivd Lean’s usual fair, Hobson’s Choice is neither a romance nor a war film, but instead a type of chamber drama, movie-based-on-a-play, taking place within a boot making shop, owned by the tippling and officious Henry Hobson (Charles Laughton). Each day he barks orders to his three daughters and single employee, before heading off to the public house to get crocked, with Lean immersing the viewer into Hobson’s drunkenness, tripling up the frame and adding a spinning effect to perfectly capture what one too many does. In one brilliant scene, Henry chases the moon that’s reflecting on a bunch of puddles, before finally into a storage container, destroying a bunch of property and being slapped with a hefty lawsuit. Henry refuses to acknowledge that he has any type of drinking problem, worsened by the fact that once fully loaded, he starts deriding his friends with harsh personal attacks. As funny as the performance is at times, David Lean is a master at making us just as quickly feel embarrassed and pity the man. Given that most of his days are spent in bed, recovering from a hangover, before checking in on the books, and heading off to the public house once again, Hobson’s reluctant to marry off his three daughters who control the shop. His best weapon is refusing the dowry that any man would covet in order to marry one of the daughters, leaving them with few options. That is, except for Henry’s eldest Vicky (Prunella Scales), who wishes to open her own boot making shop when an elderly and wealthy patron enters, demanding the cobbler who made her boots; considering them the greatest pair she’s ever owned. She discovers that the artisan is the soft-spoken and passive Willie Missop (John Mills) who works in the shop’s basement. Vicky pursues Willie, much to his discomfiture, using sex as her primary weapon to lure him away from Hobson in order to create her own boot business. Willie and Vicky’s shop proves to be a wild success, with Vicky showing that Henry’s domineering attitude runs deep in the genes. She’s a formidable competitor, and within a year the pair attract most of Henry’s clients. Henry’s drinking eventually catches up to him, leaving him bedridden, to which Vicky and Willie offer a partnership between the stores. After a lengthy and entertaining argument, Henry finally capitulates and they shake on it. Charles Laughton’s performance is genius, with Mills and Scales following just behind, but I’m just not sure what the film was necessarily about. It didn’t seem to take on a meaning or scope the way Lean’s other films have. And while I can look past the lack of scope in that this is very much a film version of a play, the nebulous theme left me kind of disappointed. It felt far more about focused on characters than theme or message. In refusing to let his daughters marry off in order to preserve his drunken lifestyle, Henry seems to embody capitalist vice; to make enough so that you can make others work for you while reaping all the profits and benefits. Henry is entirely oblivious or even careless about his own selfishness that I found myself resenting the man far more than I did at the beginning of the film. Vicky continued this tradition by coveting Willie for his talent and profitability than any type of genuine love. With her complete teetotalism, it left me wondering if she too would one day fall victim to the bottle like Henry; except she seems so hungry for the work and in need of Willie’s abilities that it doesn’t seem likely. It all left me wondering what I’m supposed to take from this beyond a few great performances. BELOW: A nice taste of Laughton Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  The Rival Men each furtively tip the bartender to make the other's drink stronger, providing the movie's best scene Director: George Seaton Producer: William Perlberg and George Seaton Writer: Fay Kanin and Michael Kanin Cinematographer: Haskell B. Boggs by Jon Cvack Every time I see Clark Gable in his later films, I’m left wondering how in the world this dude ever pulled off the charming and attractive older man who was able to get beautiful women; with his rugose and pot marked face, his lower mouth which is either missing a tooth or in serious need of some fine orthodontics, or that disgusting mustache. Gable isn’t the phlegmatic or stoic type by the likes of Eastwood or Charles Bronson, so how this haggard man had become one of the most popular Romantic Leads of all time is beyond me. Teacher’s Pet is the epitome of the Rom Com structure - featuring a structure that would continue to this day with films like She's All That, 10 Things I Hate About You, etc. - with the rough, though charming Leading Man who meets a Beautiful Woman, tells a Big Lie in order to increase his chances with the Beautiful Woman, which the Beautiful Woman will of course discover, leading to the Official Break Up, reconciled by the Leading Man’s Changed Behavior and then they Fall in Love. It’s a tale that I’ve seen so many times that the only thing I could appreciate was that this formula has been around in films far longer than I ever knew. The Leading Man in this case is James Gannon (Clark Gable), a successful and older newspaper man, whose office is filled with young aspiring writers. Gannon believes it best that they all start from the bottom and work their way up, whether a high school dropout or Phi Keppa Beta Ivy League honor student. Gannon is invited to Professor Eric Stone’s (Doris Days) classroom, where she teaches novice students the fundamentalism of journalism. Gannon resents the offer, but is implored to accept by his boss, eventually giving in and there he meets the beautiful Doris Da, later pretending to be a student in order to woo her over. His first assignment is a 250 word piece on a recent murder, which Gannon completes in minutes, much to Stone’s amazement. She believes she has found a wunderkind and wants to take Gannon under her guidance to hone and craft his skill. This eventually leads to her hitting up Gannon’s boss, urging him to hire Gannon, and blah blah blah - you know where this goes. She finds out who Gannon actually is, breaks things off, and it’s only once her friend and psychological Dr. Hugo Pine (Gig Young) implores her to given Gannon another chance that the two reconcile and all is resolved. I haven’t seen much from Doris Day, but the song that kicks off the film during the title credits reminds me just how great her voice is. She’s an exceptionally charming and attractive individual, sexy in that conservative and clean cut way, exuding confidence, and giving her all to the role. While it’s a little hard to believe she couldn’t piece the puzzle together within the first five minutes of Gannon’s arrival, her enthusiasm and commitment to creating honest future journalists always plays true. I never saw her as the larger than life Doris Day playing a fluffy character (as a few of her the films provide), but as a strong woman, pushed a bit too much in the role of hot teacher, though still giving the character depth. Her love for her father is one of the most touching moments, providing a great quote that further depresses me to the state of modern media - “If you deceive, you’ll sell papers tomorrow… If you’re honest, you’ll sell papers for all of time” (or something like that). I always have appreciation for Rom Coms that attempt to integrate heavier ideas into the shallow story. Beneath the hackneyed plot is a great discussion about the state of journalism at the time, offering a prescient view of where we were going, and making you all the more frustrated for where we are today. If only more of these lessons were taken to heart, then maybe we wouldn’t be at this point where the we’re covering presidential races as a form of reality television, ostensibly ignoring every other piece of news going on in the world, unless it’s about another mass murder or disaster, or a politician’s infidelities, or whatever bleeding news there is. As much as I’d want to believe that deceit can only last so long, I just don’t think it’s true. Deceit directed toward the right minds will last just as long as any amount of honesty. It leaves me wondering if maybe that’s why Netflix streams these films. Between this and Desk Set’s analysis of the oncoming technological revolution, I think Netflix is providing a look back at history - of how some films knew what was coming, with a few anticipating exciting new directions, and others seeing the terror in where we’re going. Teacher’s Pet is 75% Rom Com. The other 25% has left me thinking for quite a few days. BELOW: I'm not sure if Doris Day falling for Clark Gable should be disgusting or commendable (due to his writing abilities, that is). Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  James Stewart as a Clown, opposite Charlton Heston (not as a clown) Director: Cecil B. DeMilleProducer: Cecil B. DeMille Writer: Fredric M. Frank, Theodore St. John, Frank Cavett, and Barré Lyndon Cinematography: George Barnes by Jon Cvack Considered one of the least deserving Best Picture Winners of all time, beating out the perennial classic High Noon - likely do to McCarthy’s Commy Witch Hunt - Cecil B. Demille at least exudes the fortitude that most other silent era filmmakers failed to exhibit. This is not a great film, but aside from High Noon, none of the other Best Picture nominees (Ivanhoe, Moulin Rouge, and The Quiet Man) were all that good either. It’s a big, long film, that I actually kind of enjoyed, having broken it up into smaller forty-five minute fragments. The story is as simple as it gets - basically capturing the Barnum & Bailey Circus on screen, creating a decent story within the two and a half hour run time. It’s this latter point that pales in comparison to the former. Allegedly this was the first movie Steven Spielberg had ever remembered seeing. There’s something very magical about that bit of trivia, as this movie embodies the grandness that films should possess. I can’t imagine seeing this story in the theaters, having never seen the circus, or having any other method other than print photos or news reels to see what it was all about. Interjected between the hackneyed narrative is a voice over that highlights the “army” it takes to run the circus - everything from raising the tent (which was one of the coolest scenes) to herding the animals (which showed how aged the film is) and various performance acts involved (most played by actual B&B performers). Charlton Heston plays Brad Braden, the manager of the circus, who has just been informed by the Executives that the circus is losing money and needs to either cut its tour down significantly, or find an act that could bring in new and larger audiences. Brad vies for the former, offering the coveted Center Ring to “The Great Sebastian” (Cornel Wilde), who’s a death defying trapeze artist and braggart, taking the position away from Brad’s kind of/maybe girlfriend Holly (Betty Hutton), whose endless whining and starfuckering really ends up driving you crazy by the end, as she first starts with Brad because he’s the top dog of the show, but then goes to Sebastian as he takes center ring, but when Sebastian gets hurt (in a really cool scene, involving getting rid of his safety rope), she then goes back to Brad for the final time, essentially demonstrating that she only wants to be with the person who has the most power and/or could elevate her in the quickest manner possible; that is, getting to the center ring, which she does when Sebastian falls. Added is Betty Hutton’s strident voice that makes her politicking all the more annoying. Sebastian then finds a different woman who - counter to Holly - doesn’t care that he has a deformed hand and now sells peanuts. Charlton Heston finds his perfect role, as even though this entire movie is about the Circus, his conviction in the role feels as though it’s the most important thing in the world. I kept thinking of Brad Pitt from Moneyball and how strangely similar the parallels are between a Circus Manager and General Manager, as both have to answer to the Money Men and remain profitable, all while dealing with the seemingly endless colorful personalities. And yet the best role goes to James Stewart, who I had no idea was even in this, playing Buttons the Clown, having his face painted up throughout the entire film, serving as the Master Guru who has an answer for every problem and done in a way that makes you love James Stewart all the more. However, Button has a larger secret in that he was once a Doctor who killed a man and the reason he’s a clown is because he’s hiding from the law. When the Detective finally comes into the show, for a reason that’s about as carelessly constructed as it can get - essentially, that for no reason at all, he just figured he’d come to this traveling circus in the middle of nowhere on this random day to see if the murderer was around. While Button repairs Brad’s ruptured artery after the train derails due to some Mafia People involved in the circus driving a car into an oncoming engine - where again, the Mafia characters seemed only here to get us to this disaster porn sequence, which is pretty cool. The Detective then sees Button helping the hurt, revealing his skills as a Doctor. When Holly decides to then set up the circus in a random field next to the train wreckage, even though people are hurt and they have no permit, Buttons decides he wants help, and the film’s most heart wrenching moment, no more than a flash, he forfeits the act. With those deeply expressive eyes, accentuated by Stewart’s untouchable prowess, we see him finally accept his fate. Beyond the uninspired plot(s), this is a film that captures the Circus and its utter magnificence, provided with all the escape, grandeur, and mystery that cinema is supposed to provide. BELOW: The thrilling moment where The Great Sebastian falls. Holds up well. Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  Would have been awesome to visit at Disney Land Director: Richard Fleischer Writer: Earl Felton; Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne Cinematographer: Franz Planer by Jon Cvack My mom texted a picture of a Jules Verne anthology that she found on clearance at some used book. I had read an H.G. Wells anthology earlier in the year, having attempted some of his work in high school, getting overwhelmed by the dense language, but loving it this time around. Being at the peak of summer I figured I’d dive right in and see if, like Wells, Verne got better with age. It didn’t. Similar to "Moby Dick", I’d say about half the book is mired with endless taxonomic discussions about every single fish, reptile, and creature the group comes across, spouting additional lessons on both present day and historical geography, causing your eyes to glaze over or breeze across the language, no different than if you were reading some dense Encyclopedic entry. While I was hoping for a sheer adventure story, I found myself failing to follow the plot as I was unable to retain interest as Verne got into most mundane details page after page after page. Sure, I was impressed with his discussions on technology, and his freakishly accurate expectations on where the world was headed, but even these at times were far too overwrought, causing me sigh, thinking, “Okay - I get it, I get it.” I was just explaining to a former professor how Jonathan Franzen’s early work was much too focused on showing off his erudition rather than providing a coherent story. While 20,000 Leagues isn’t nearly as difficult to follow as "The Twenty-Seventh City" he too falls victim to showing off his knowledge rather than accommodating the reader. The thing is, after just finishing John Steinbeck’s "Log from the Sea of Cortez", which also has a barrage of taxonomic prose, necessitating a glossary positioned at the end of the book to assist with the many terms, it works on account of Steinbeck’s balance between exploring these exotic people, creatures, and lands while offering his own insight and analysis into what it meant in the grander scheme of things. His book wasn’t sold as a wild adventure story (though it was), but rather as an insight into a journey out to sea. I can appreciate what Verne was attempting to do in taking on a hyper realistic style. I just rather he focused on the characters and their dynamics than on the many color schemes of sea plankton. And so - in a rare moment that I’ve only experienced one another time (with Conrad’s "Heart of Darkness") - the movie version greatly exceeds the source material, with the film essentially taking out all of that god awful boring shit and focusing entirely on the adventure aspects. With near complete reliance on practical effects (though given the year, even the practical effects are impressive, relatively speaking), this film is yet another example of a movie they just don’t make anymore. Once upon a time, many of these set pieces were at Disneyland, allowing kids to immerse themselves within Nemo’s universe, leaving you wishing they were still there. It’s is the perfect summer film, comparable to the pure escapist adventurism of Back to the Future. Few movies reach this level of quality, where you’d give near anything to have the same type of adventure, having a fairly powerful emotional reaction when understand that you never will, which then makes the film all the better or having achieved this. Coincidentally the film stars James Mason as Captain Nemo, who I watched in A Star is Born only a few weeks ago, fascinated over Cukor’s decision to cast the man after the recommendation from Marlon Brando on account of Mason’s fall from grace. Strange enough, 20,000 Leagues came out the same year as A Star is Born, and still Mason failed to properly recover. Mason is perfect for Nemo, capturing the man’s instability, passion for the seas, and willingness to stay below the water at any cost. I was most surprised by the departure from the novel’s focus on Professor Pierre M. Aronnax (Paul Lukas). While he narrated the entire book, the movie version opts to focus on his crew members Ned Land (Kirk Douglas) and Aronnax’s apprentice Conseil (Peter Lorre). This isn’t to say it wasn’t appreciated, as theoretically it was Aronnax’s constant barfing out of taxonomic functions that made so bored, with Ned Land serving as a much more interesting character, who was fortunately bumped to a leading role, making me wonder if anyone actually enjoyed Aronnax as a character. Ned Land is a temperamental drunkard who’s quick to fight and voice his opinions. When the three are brought aboard the Nautilus as prisoners with guest-like privileges all is well and good until time starts taking its toll. While remaining beneath the sea forever is fine for a man like Nemo and his team, forcing it upon the others causes them to go stir crazy, setting the fuse on Ned’s short circuited temperament. It’s as the story progresses that I realize how much I tuned out from the book during the last hundred pages, eager to wrap it up and get onto the next Verne story in the anthology. Embarrassed to say, I didn’t even comprehend that Nemo had a secret compound, or that Ned sent letters in a bottle, or - SPOILER! - that Nemo dies, illustrating how poorly the book actually read, and yet how much good stuff it contained. When the film I ended I was left wanting more - discovering that Nemo’s return in The Mysterious Island has also been made into a film. I’m a bit nervous about the book discussing rocks for twenty five pages, but if the film is anything like 20,000 Leagues, it should be a decent follow up. * *NOTE: I ended up reading The Mysterious Island a few months later and it's by far the best Verne story I've yet read. BELOW: Is he bad in any movies? Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  One of the most cringeworthy scenes in a film Director: George Cukor Writer: Moss Hart Cinematographer: Sam Leavitt by Jon Cvack For a three hour film this movie felt small, as though spending too much time on the juicy parts of the story and too little on their causes. It charts the rise of lounge singer Esther Blodgett (Judy Garland) who’s discovered by A-list performer Norman Maine (James Mason). The film opens up at some type of theatrical performance at the Shrine Auditorium, with all of the who’s who of Hollywood in attendance. Esther has a bit part and everything seems to be going pretty well until Norman arrives, drunk out of his mind, laughing as he bumps into people, nearly heading out onto the live stage before Esther tames him. Norman then takes her out to dinner in gratitude, watches a club performance and sees her as destined for the stars. Thus begins the rise of Esther Blodgett, renamed Vicky Lester, soon marrying Norman, while, for some reason, his own career takes the opposite direction, abetting his alcoholism. Having let the movie bake a bit, I think the first problem is the film doesn’t really know what it wants to be, shifting between a romanticized epic drama and a musical that never matches the movie’s scale. The early musical numbers, particularly in the club are fantastic and engaging, but when Lester gets to Hollywood they’re hackneyed and awkward. For instance, after Norman is fired and attempts the domesticated life, Lester comes out. Norman has made sandwiches that are too big to eat and asks Lester to performer her new musical piece. And so instead of seeing it as written, with the lyrics focused on exotic destinations all around the world, we instead watch as she dances around a living room. And let me just note that this number is big; basically, it’s about as exciting as you could make a song and dance number that takes place in an expensive living room. So on the one hand we’re empathizing with Norman’s job loss, but then this uneventful musical kicks in, making us forget this fact, serving the exact purpose of musical numbers in that it takes our mind off the bad, but then I also just feel bad for Norman, making the scene awkward, and because it takes place in such a boring setting, it’s not even that gripping to begin with. For instance, if Cukor had kept cutting to Norman and his fake smile, rather than creating such a big and elaborate routine, it could have been a brilliant scene. Instead, he shift tones with such speed that you’re not sure what you should feel, forcing you into some strange neutral territory. Worse, is when Norman loses his contract, which comes out of absolutely nowhere, and while I understand it might have been caused by his excessive drinking, Norman hasn’t really been drinking at all up to this point, even promising Lester he’d cut it down once they got married. Even after discovering Esther and having produced monuments of success for the studio, they’ve now decided to cut him loose. This would have been a bit more justified if he had another episode like the opening scene, having embarrassed the studio once again. Instead, they’re watching a newsreel, the Head of the Studio takes Norman aside and cut him loose. It all seemed much too convenient and quick for the more interesting story - what happens to a person who falls from the top, when their partner keeps on rising? Or what happens when a man's unable to avoid destroying himself? There were so many opportunities to explore jealousy and envy, never really explored or provided. Norman’s love for Esther was impenetrable, with nothing except his love of liquor standing between them. There were even a few moments, such as when Norman is before judge after crashing his car, with the Judge mentioning on how his unappreciated and lucky success is reason enough to send him to jail. It felt as though as all these issues were only grazed upon, with Cukor favoring a cut to another song and dance number, no matter how inappropriate or awkward. For how big the film was, Norman’s arc felt so small. When reading the trivia, I discovered that many A-list stars turned down the role, either because their egos were too large, or because they felt their name wasn’t fitting for what the part demanded. In fact, when turning down the role, Marlon Brando actually mentioned James Mason. Mason is perfect. He’s the type of actor where you find yourself wondering what else he’d been in, having seen him before. And while there were a of couple incredible films (Lolita, North by Northwest, ), he never really took off, and I’d assume it’s because of his similarity to Cary Grant; functioning as the Deep Impact to Armageddon. Even with the limited material, Mason gives an incredible performance, especially as he veers off the deep end. Coincidentally, Judy Garland had a severe addiction to pain meds during the film, eventually pushing the production back 41 days. With her self-conscious professions, she perfectly captures a role of someone who feels inadequate, but is determined to power through to reach her dreams. She ended up losing the Oscar to Grace Kelly (in The Country Girl; in what sounds like a strangely similar and pretty good film I’ve never heard of). Even with awkward song and dance numbers, Garland was still able to find the humanity within each scene, such as when, during a brief lighting change, she talks to the Head of Studio about Norman’s decline, then returning in Close Up to the same song. We see as she stares off, worried, and once the music kicks, taking but a second, she immediately shifts back to the happy go lucky performer. Grace Kelly would have to give a pretty killer performance to beat what Garland pulls off, and all while on the influence of pain meds. It’s a pretty good film, never really having the confidence it needed - too worried to get into the depths of Norman’s condition, thinking that cheerful musical numbers were enough to compensate. Seeing that On the Waterfront came out and won Best Picture that year, I wish Cukor had the same confidence to go as far as Kazan. It’s all the perfect formula, executed just okay. BELOW: Judy Garland shifting on a dime from concerned wife to happy-go-lucky performer Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  One of the all time great coming of age stories Director: Satyajit Ray Writer: Satyajit Ray Cinematographer: Subrata Mitra by Jon Cvack Continued from Part 1... I was blown away by how similar Apu was to my own college experience and many other people I know; where you begin to take the studies seriously, preparing you for what a career will be like upon graduation. I recall a drive with my dad as I was explaining how stressed I was about my second to last semester’s finals, with my dad telling me that I’d be surprised how much free time I’d actually had upon looking back. It wasn’t to diminish the commitment to my schoolwork, so much as to try and explain that I should appreciate the time college often offers, as it will fade fast and you will long for the experience, possibly regretting taking it far too seriously at the expense of experiencing new things. Of course, as I saw with my own cousin just as I had entered the workforce, you’re often caught up in the puerile belief that your parents just don’t understand, all while trying to take life more seriously. Apu gets so wrapped up in his studies that he forgets what’s important. For all his intelligence he fails to empathize or understand his parents. Like many, he assumes that they’ll be around forever. But just as his father passed after he went back out with his friends, he lost his mother all too soon. The selfishness that many experience during their early to mid twenties is a fascinating moment to reflect upon. And it’s only now as I’ve entered my thirties that I’m closer to grasping what family and friends mean, and how important it is to strike a balance between your own ambitions and the important people in your life. The world always feels smaller after I watch a Satyajit Ray film. To think that a Bengali film from the 1950s connects more to my own experiences than most other American coming of age films shows Ray’s ability to penetrate into the universal human emotions that we all experience. I know my own mother was sad when I went to college. I recall the tears when they finally left me in my dorm, and how similar it all was when I finally took off for Los Angeles, with them fully grasping that I was not returning any time soon, and that our moments together would now be reserved for bi-annual visits and vacations. It’s films like this that can unite us all. Having finished the memoir "Novel Without a Name" and admiring author Dương Thu Hương’s ability to portray the North Vietnamese experience as not all that different from the American soldier’s, I wish more people could watch these types of films or read these stories. Rather than seeing foreigners, or even our enemies, as “The Other”, we could see that we all experience the same emotions - loss, selfishness, taking family for granted. To think that something as simple as language or politics can lead to such hate and destruction is tragic to contemplate. It’s stories like this that would show much unites us all. It all sounds so cheesy, but when so many are so quick to judge what’s different rather than what’s similar, and with the older I get the more I’m learning and discovering this fact, I can’t help but feel myself changing. As David Foster Wallace mentions in This is Water, we just don’t know what the other people are experiencing around us. Perhaps it’s better to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have their own troubles and dreams and frustrations, and that they’re probably not all that different from our own. BELOW: A beautiful cut upon the passing of Apu's father. It cuts out the seconds before, so just imagine an old man lying in bed as fireworks ignite outside his window. Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  One of the most moving foreign films from the period Director: Satyajit Ray Writer: Satyajit Ray Cinematographer: Subrata Mitra by Jon Cvack In a rare moment, Netflix was recommending this as a 4.9 and it delivered far beyond my high expectations. I had loved Pather Panchaili (1955) and the way in which Satyajit Ray has been able to universalize cultures that Western Cultures have often been portrayed as “The Other”. The story continues where Pather Panchali left off, with Apu and his family living in Bengal. His father is a priest, blessing himself every morning near the Ganges River before climbing the steep stairs up to the church. But during a fireworks celebration, the father begins feeling ill, with Apu’s mother Sarbajaya Roy (Karuna Banerjee) fulling grasping what it would mean for her and her son should he die. As the father attempts to take the smallest sip of water, with the fireworks exploding outside the window, the film enters into an amazing cut, with a flock of birds bursting off from the ground, soaring above the Ganges. He had died and they’re now forced to move to the rural countryside, where Apu (Pinaki Sen Gupta) enters into training to become a priest. In the behind the scenes, Gupta mentions how the fireworks during the era were often very toxic, with many actually dying from the fumes, and thus the father’s illness was exacerbated by the celebration. The moment was especially poignant as Apu was anxious to get back to his friends and the fireworks rather than hanging with his ailing father, failing to grasp what was about to happen. Apu is far from happy with the priesthood training, having had to leave all his friends. But it’s much more a blessing in disguise, as after coming across a school, the teachers begin to teach Apu science and math, piquing a passion for the material, driving him to want to go to college in Calcutta order to continue his education and become a scientist. Of course, his mother isn’t happy with the decision, as after having lost her husband and having little to no money, understanding that Apu will probably fail to ever return as he enters into his professional career upon graduation. Apu has to pay for the college, taking up a job in a local printing press, inspired by Ray’s own college experience. Sarbajaya longs her for son, feeling terrible loneliness in the rural area, constantly craving the his return. When Apu visits home, she begs him to stay a few extra days, even if it means cutting into his classes. Soon, his workload grows overwhelming and his visits become sparser. He explains that visits home will cut into his school work, especially as he tries to maintain a balance between work and keeping his grades up. His mother then grows sick, not wanting to burden Apu, but as the neighbors take notice, one writes to Apu and explains the situation. Apu rushes home, returning too late. Seeing his uncle standing alone, he knows his mother has passed, and in one of the most heartbreaking scenes I’ve seen of late, he collapses into the sand, unsure of where to go. He knows he can’t stay. The priesthood is just not for him. The only thing he can do is return to his studies, knowing he’s now alone, except for his one friend back at school. Check back for Part 2... BELOW: Great TCM intro, but who is this guy? Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page  At a fundamental level - a story of rampant inequality Director: Cecil B. DeMille Writer: Aeneas MacKenzie, Jesse L. Lasky Jr., Jack Gariss, and Fredric M. Frank Cinematographer: Loyal Griggs by Jon Cvack Continued from Part 1 and Part 2... I kept thinking back to The Rugrats “Hanaka” episode and how it was my only enlightenment to this story, as Sunday school did a pitiful job of explaining it. No matter your thoughts on religion, being unable to appreciate this film because it’s Christian is as stupid as not being able to appreciate The Iliad or Odyssey. In a day and age when the Right relies on its Christian base to drive elections, running against issues like abortion and gay rights, it’s stories like this that demonstrate the true hypocrisy. The Ten Commandments is a story about what wealth and power can do to a society. You can’t help drawing a parallel between the complete disregard both Ramesis' have toward slaves - with Ramesis II criticizing Moses for wanting to improve the plight of their situation. Is raising the minimum wage, providing child care, health care, or any basic securities to the poor really that terrible and un-American - or is it that some of the middle and upper classes plainly don’t want to help them, seeing them as worthless, having chosen to be where they, whether by God or individually. The movie has us rooting for Moses to go back and free the people from bondage - and were Moses alive today, does anyone really think he’d say the poor don’t need any help? I keep thinking about the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Worship False Idols” and all of the mega church preachers who demand you send them your money, providing salvation and resolve from whatever problems you're experiencing, who are provided complete tax exemptions, as highlighted in the John Oliver segment. Why is this so easily ignored compared to the other Christian tenants? I’m not a very religious person, but the thing that absolutely drives me crazy is how often those who are often the most vocal in their religion, often driving their personal politics, are also those who refuse to put the meek first; who couldn’t less about the poor or making their lives better. Watching a film like this is important because it shows you how corrupt it has gotten, and that once upon a time, a story like this provided a moral tale; that perhaps more people should look to Moses and have the courage to fight for the downtrodden with any means necessary, rather than idolizing the fee market; that may be providing more is the moral thing to do rather than stripping more away. I just finished a class on the French Revolution, where I learned that the Nobility and Clergy essentially controlled the vast majority of the nation’s wealth and power, upwards off 99% (sound familiar?), and that many Middle Eastern countries in the 20th experience similar civil uprising due to similar circumstances, such as in Egypt or Syria, where the lower classes fought to reclaim the lands that were controlled by a few powerful individuals. This is a circumstance that has occurred again and again throughout history. There is a right side and there is a wrong side, and yet it boggles my mind that some could defend it otherwise, as though the disparity we’re experiencing is somehow different compared to situations past. It’s why the revenge Moses carries on against Ramses II’s is so badass. It’s not some pretty and purply solution. It is God’s wrath - an omniscient being who’s willing to make people go thirsty and kill first born children in the name of freeing the tens of thousands who are held in bondage. When you hear that we can’t have significant improvements because the rich can’t bear additional taxation; that it would depress the economy; whatever - keep this story in mind. Because the God in The Ten Commandments would probably say fuck all that. You either share some of your wealth and power, or bear the full wrath of his power. What if this is really just a metaphor for true events that took place thousands of years ago, which took on mythical proportions as the story was passed across millenia? What if the plague was simply brought about by the masses living in abject poverty with no one caring for their safety? Or that the Nile turned red because of how many slaves were slaughtered? If true, it would show that people have the power to take things back, so long as they have the inspiration and the leadership. This film serves as a great metaphor for any moment of inequality. Secular or religious, you need to see this - for the message, for the production value, for the story. BELOW: DeMill'es intro - "Are men property of the state or are they free souls...?" Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on our contact page |
Yellow BarrelThoughts on films, old and new Categories
All
© Jonathan Cvack and Yellow Barrel, 2015 - 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Jon Cvack and Yellow Barrel with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
|
RSS Feed