Because I never seem to get round to writing about these during the year...
7. L'Atalante
This was one of the films I hadn't even heard of before starting this list, and it was as high as no. 7! Shows how little I know about cinema, eh. It's another very old film, from 1934, so that raises the usual question: is it on the list purely because of how important it is in the history of cinema and how influential it has been to later artists, despite being somewhat dated in today's eyes? Or is it actually good on its own terms?
I'd hesitantly go with the latter. It's definitely very good and I would easily rank it higher than something like Rules of the Game, but I still find the position in the top 10 a little surprising. Put this at number 50 and I wouldn't quibble for a second, but I think top 10 films should be truly special and, for me, this isn't quite up there.
It's the story of a woman who marries a river boat captain. We don't see anything of the courtship, and it's not really clear why they're together since they don't seem especially in love. In fact, he's kind of a dick and at one point abandons her in Paris. There's a facade of reconciliation, but you know they will either end up divorced or miserable. So the central romance is not exactly very romantic, but there is a lot to love about this film. The supporting characters are great fun, and there are lots of little vignettes of French river-boat life that keep you absorbed throughout. Probably only one for the film buffs out there, but I liked it.
27. Ugetsu Monogatari
This movie is hard to explain. First of all it's a bit all over the place, can get a little abstract and doesn't always make much sense. The title, which translates loosely to Tales of Moonlight and Rain doesn't help much either. But secondly, and no less importantly, I don't want to spoil it for you because it's awesome. Go into it blind, like I did, and I think it'll be a lot more fun.
This is a real masterpiece of Japanese cinema and I'm glad to have had it recommended for me. It is kind of weird, and the plot takes you to places that you don't expect from the outset, but it never stops being interesting, it has a great cast of characters and it is immaculately put together. Hmm, now that I'm writing this I kind of want to watch it again...
37. The Bicycle Thief
This is really Bicycle Thieves, but the list-makers' inability to get titles right strikes again. It's the first of two Vittorio de Sica films I'm ticking off, and there are many similarities between the two. This one is the more action-packed, but that's not saying a lot. It's a gentle story about a working-class man who's delighted to get a job putting up posters, but devastated when his bicycle gets stolen and without which he won't be able to continue working. He hunts around 1940s Rome with his son trying to track it down. Does he literally find the thief? You'll have to watch it to find out.
So just do that - watch it. It's a classic that every film-lover should see. Brilliantly performed, unflashy direction and a lovely and honest story that actually provokes the odd thought. So stop watching that Big Bang Theory rerun and whack this on the telly.
57. The Lady Eve
58. The Palm Beach Story
This is a romantic and hilarious 1940s Preston Sturges screwball comedy, about a smart and devious woman trying to bag herself a slightly dopey millionaire. Of course, she finds love at the end. The dialogue sparkles like it rarely does these days, the performances are spot on and the direction is energetic and never loses pace. A brilliant comedy that's just perfect for a Sunday afternoon.
And yes, I just wrote one review to cover two films - I'm big on efficiency. They really are bizarrely similar and appear consecutively on this list. I think I preferred the #58 entry overall, but they're both pretty great.
62. Umberto D
The second de Sica film I watched this year - actually the second de Sica film I've watched in my whole life - this film is utterly lovely. It's a simple and sad story, about a proud elderly man trying to get by on his meagre pension in 1950s Rome. It's all very realistic and devastatingly honest about its subject and the collection of characters he meets. Carlo Battisti, a non-professional in his only film role, is amazingly believable as Umberto. His little dog Flike is the star of the film, though. Adorable and smart, there's a heartbreaking scene where, too proud to do it himself, the old man gets Flike to beg on the street for pocket change, but immediately regrets what he has done. If I wasn't emotionally dead inside it would bring a tear to the eye.
Watch this if you're in the mood for something quiet and understated - it's perfect.
112. 8½
This is the film that film-makers love more than audiences, but that's ok because there's more than enough to enjoy if you've never gone through the hell of directing your own feature. It's the story of a director working on a film, struggling with creative block and managing the various women in his life. He seems to be a bit of a hack, making some sort of rubbish sci-fi B-movie but still unable to come up with any good ideas. His counterpoint is Fellini himself, who never runs out of steam and pours all of his genius into this story. It's full of delicious little flourishes, bizarre flights of fancy and the highly watchable Marcello Mastroianni. Why did it take me so long to watch this?
112. Napoleon
I don't know why the list films I've decided to see at the cinema have been the longer ones. Les Enfants du Paradis was over three hours long, and amazingly this was more than twice as long if you include intermissions! I think it probably is too long, but not by much. You could definitely lose the sub-plot of the maid having a crush on the Napster. And while some of the political intrigues of the Terror give important context to the B-dog's rise, a lot of it could be streamlined. But I'm quibbling - there's a good four or more hours of riveting classic silent cinema here.
Surprisingly, it doesn't even cover much of Boney N's life, ending with the start of the Italian Campaigns, two decades before Waterloo. That's a little disappointing, but there's more than enough to enjoy, from the childhood snowball fight he commands with military precision, to the exciting and chaotic Siege of Toulons. Perhaps he is painted a little too perfectly, since you know that in the end he'll lose to Wellington and Nelson, but we'll forgive a French director from focusing on the French.
A magnificent and riveting watch. I'm very glad to have caught this at the cinema, too, since the ultra-wide 3:1 aspect ratio finale would look ridiculous on a TV screen. Highly recommended if you don't mind getting deep-vein thrombosis.
112. The Girl and Her Trust
An easy one to tick off the list, this is a 15 minute silent short directed by the granddaddy of early cinema: D.W. Griffiths. I'm not really sure why it's on here, really, but I suspect it's some boring reason like being ahead of its time and inventing some cinematic tropes that later became ubiquitous. For example, there's a fairly lengthy chase scene involving a steam train following a hand-car, and the camera tracks the action from the side. It looks terrible, since it was clearly done with a camera mounted on the back of a truck driving on a bumpy road, but for 1912 this was highly impressive. Maybe if it wasn't for this film, Keaton's The General wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean that it's any good in today's money.
212. The Philadelphia Story
It was a little hard to believe that I'd never seen this before but it's one of those classics that had always passed me by. I'd seen High Society, the remake, and the countless other films that this has inspired, but never the original. Watching it, though, it did all feel very familiar and I knew from the first few minutes that I would be in safe hands. It's just one of those perfect films that does what it sets out to do so flawlessly that you can't really pick any faults with it. If you're in the mood for a romantic comedy with some bite, you can't go wrong with this one.
220. Last Year at Marienbad
This is a very weird and abstract film, about a man on holiday trying to convince a woman he meets that they actually had an affair the year before. She can't remember him, but maybe her memories are as fractured as the film's editing? Who can say. I don't always like this sort of thing, and prefer my surrealist cinema to have at least a smidgen of narrative structure. That's why Mulholland Drive and Eraserhead are much better than Inland Empire. But I actually rather enjoyed this film. For one, it's quite short and that's definitely a plus point for films that don't make any sense. It's beautifully photographed, so you can at least enjoy the visuals. And it has some nice moments. Not one that I'm going to recommend to many people, but I don't regret sitting through it.
Saturday 31 December 2016
Monday 11 January 2016
5. The Man With A Movie Camera
I've been at this blog for five years, so it's pretty shameful that I still haven't finished the top 10. Let's try and rectify that this year...
The Man With A Movie Camera (which, as is this list's wont, is probably not its title) is described as an "experimental silent documentary with no story and no actors". Clearly, therefore, it'll fall into the "arthouse bullshit" category - those films that are 10% intriguing and 90% boring nonsense. Who the hell voted this all the way up to no. 5? Sheesh... Except that in this case that's not right at all - this is a masterpiece and everybody should see it.
As described, it doesn't really have a storyline, but you could say that it's the story of a day in the life of a Soviet city in 1929. People wake up, people ride in cars, people go to work, babies get born, beers get drunk, people go for mud baths, trains ride by. We also see people going to the cinema and watching a film. The film is called Man With A Movie Camera, which is a bit odd. We also regularly see a man with a movie camera, filming Man With A Movie Camera, and a woman in the editing room editing said film. Sometimes the film fractures and we see some stills, but that's just because she's taking a break.
Such self-reflexive fourth-wall breaking could be a bit annoying, but it's so seamlessly done that it functions more as a running gag than some sort of knowing comment on the nature of filmmaking. You smile at the director's cleverness rather than try to decipher his meaning. It's basically like the final fight scene in Blazing Saddles, which I doubt anybody has ever said before.
The film is super important for students of film history. As Wikipedia tells me, Vertov, the director, invents or develops a staggering array of film techniques: double exposure, fast motion, slow motion, freeze frames, jump cuts, split screens, Dutch angles, extreme close-ups, tracking shots, footage played backwards, stop motion animations. What a show off. But what's even more impressive is that even 87 years later, when all of these techniques have been done to death and watching a film with an average shot length of 2.3 seconds isn't such a shock to the system (fuck you, Michael Bay), it still feels fresh and new and exciting. I'm not saying it would make a lot at the box office, but if this was released today as a new 2016 film it would not look dated.
The editing is the true triumph here. The direction is very inventive in places, but really anyone can wander about a city and shoot random stuff, and then have another person shoot the person shooting the random stuff. The genius is Elizaveta Svilova, Vertov's wife, who had to compile all the footage and stitch it together into 68 minutes without once losing momentum and letting it get boring.
I should also note that I watched the version with a 2002 Michael Nyman score, which really enhances it. Silent films were never truly silent and - just like with any "talkie" - the music is a hugely important factor in how you perceive and enjoy the film.
I genuinely recommend this to anyone with a passing interest in cinema. You don't have to watch it all, although it's only an hour and I doubt you have anything better to do. Just watch ten minutes and get a feel for it - you might get swept along and watch it to the end. It's currently available on Youtube, although I have no idea how legal it is. Presumably the film is out of copyright, but the music won't be.
The Man With A Movie Camera (which, as is this list's wont, is probably not its title) is described as an "experimental silent documentary with no story and no actors". Clearly, therefore, it'll fall into the "arthouse bullshit" category - those films that are 10% intriguing and 90% boring nonsense. Who the hell voted this all the way up to no. 5? Sheesh... Except that in this case that's not right at all - this is a masterpiece and everybody should see it.
As described, it doesn't really have a storyline, but you could say that it's the story of a day in the life of a Soviet city in 1929. People wake up, people ride in cars, people go to work, babies get born, beers get drunk, people go for mud baths, trains ride by. We also see people going to the cinema and watching a film. The film is called Man With A Movie Camera, which is a bit odd. We also regularly see a man with a movie camera, filming Man With A Movie Camera, and a woman in the editing room editing said film. Sometimes the film fractures and we see some stills, but that's just because she's taking a break.
Such self-reflexive fourth-wall breaking could be a bit annoying, but it's so seamlessly done that it functions more as a running gag than some sort of knowing comment on the nature of filmmaking. You smile at the director's cleverness rather than try to decipher his meaning. It's basically like the final fight scene in Blazing Saddles, which I doubt anybody has ever said before.
The film is super important for students of film history. As Wikipedia tells me, Vertov, the director, invents or develops a staggering array of film techniques: double exposure, fast motion, slow motion, freeze frames, jump cuts, split screens, Dutch angles, extreme close-ups, tracking shots, footage played backwards, stop motion animations. What a show off. But what's even more impressive is that even 87 years later, when all of these techniques have been done to death and watching a film with an average shot length of 2.3 seconds isn't such a shock to the system (fuck you, Michael Bay), it still feels fresh and new and exciting. I'm not saying it would make a lot at the box office, but if this was released today as a new 2016 film it would not look dated.
The editing is the true triumph here. The direction is very inventive in places, but really anyone can wander about a city and shoot random stuff, and then have another person shoot the person shooting the random stuff. The genius is Elizaveta Svilova, Vertov's wife, who had to compile all the footage and stitch it together into 68 minutes without once losing momentum and letting it get boring.
I should also note that I watched the version with a 2002 Michael Nyman score, which really enhances it. Silent films were never truly silent and - just like with any "talkie" - the music is a hugely important factor in how you perceive and enjoy the film.
I genuinely recommend this to anyone with a passing interest in cinema. You don't have to watch it all, although it's only an hour and I doubt you have anything better to do. Just watch ten minutes and get a feel for it - you might get swept along and watch it to the end. It's currently available on Youtube, although I have no idea how legal it is. Presumably the film is out of copyright, but the music won't be.
Thursday 31 December 2015
Annual Catch Up 2015
Just a quick update on how I'm getting on with the list, along with some mini-reviews.
37. City Lights
I'm not as fond of Chaplin as I am of Buster Keaton - I guess the latter's outlandish stunts translate much better a century later than the more measured Chaplin jokes - but this is still a delightful film. A prototypical romantic comedy, it has some lovely moments and plenty of very inventive scenes. The boxing scene, in particular, is rather amazing. The ending is a bit corny but I can't really argue too much about its high position.
49. The Gold Rush
And here's another Chaplin film. This one is a bit more of a straight comedy and the romance feels a bit tacked on, but again there are some very entertaining scenes. You've seen it all before, of course, but that shouldn't detract from the guy who did it first, and possibly even the best.
52. Hold Me While I'm Naked
Unlike two films below, this weird little film gets plus points for being very short, so you don't have time to get bored by it. It's pretty cool, actually, a kind of pastiche of film clichés with plenty of sex and overacting. Lord knows why it's as high as #52 on this list, as it's entirely disposable as far as I can tell, but I'm glad I caught it.
54. A Woman Under the Influence
Gena Rowlands is magnificent in this film, as the eccentric and misunderstood wife of the well-meaning but narrow-minded Peter Falk. It was originally intended as a stage play, and you can really tell as most of the action is confined to a few conversation-heavy set pieces. But it's handled so adeptly by the director John Cassavetes that the film has a very natural quality and it's really quite brilliant. Highly recommended.
112. Zorns Lemma
This is a "structural experimental" film from 1970 and it's a little bit strange... How do you feel about watching forty minutes of signs silently flashing past the screen in alphabetical order? Yeah, I thought so. Except, after a while you actually start to get into it. Every five or so passes through the alphabet one of the letters gets replaced by a second of footage. So you lose Z, for example, and get some breaking waves in that position for the rest of the film. It's interesting to spot the changes and see the film fragments build up to start to have some meaning. Or maybe it just hypnotises you. The ending is super boring and I doubt I'll want to watch it ever again, but I found it more watchable than a lot of the art-installation bullshit that's out there.
Oh, and Wikipedia doesn't think there should be an apostrophe in the title for some reason.
112. Le Tunnel sous le Manche
I wasn't a fan of A Trip To The Moon and this is even worse. Again, there is much to be admired about the set design, special effects and sheer ambition of the director to put this all together in 1907, but it is really dated. I suppose it doesn't help that the version I watched was extremely grainy and literally silent so it was very hard to make out what was going on. Maybe if it was restored and had some intertitles added it would be a bit more interesting, but I can't imagine I'd ever hurry to recommend it.
112. The Art of Vision
229. Dog Star Man
This is the arthouse experimental museum piece by Stan Brakhage. I'm going to tick both of these off the list, even though I technically didn't watch The Art of Vision. It's the same as Dog Star Man, but with all the segments stuck together and a couple of hours of extra footage, and there's no way I could face sitting through that. Not that Dog Star Man was bad, exactly - there are some interesting visual montages and parts of it are rather beautiful - but it's a bit tiresome. I recommend you watch a segment or two just to see what it's like, but I can't say it's worth much more than that unless you're forced to write an essay about it.
37. City Lights
I'm not as fond of Chaplin as I am of Buster Keaton - I guess the latter's outlandish stunts translate much better a century later than the more measured Chaplin jokes - but this is still a delightful film. A prototypical romantic comedy, it has some lovely moments and plenty of very inventive scenes. The boxing scene, in particular, is rather amazing. The ending is a bit corny but I can't really argue too much about its high position.
49. The Gold Rush
And here's another Chaplin film. This one is a bit more of a straight comedy and the romance feels a bit tacked on, but again there are some very entertaining scenes. You've seen it all before, of course, but that shouldn't detract from the guy who did it first, and possibly even the best.
52. Hold Me While I'm Naked
Unlike two films below, this weird little film gets plus points for being very short, so you don't have time to get bored by it. It's pretty cool, actually, a kind of pastiche of film clichés with plenty of sex and overacting. Lord knows why it's as high as #52 on this list, as it's entirely disposable as far as I can tell, but I'm glad I caught it.
54. A Woman Under the Influence
Gena Rowlands is magnificent in this film, as the eccentric and misunderstood wife of the well-meaning but narrow-minded Peter Falk. It was originally intended as a stage play, and you can really tell as most of the action is confined to a few conversation-heavy set pieces. But it's handled so adeptly by the director John Cassavetes that the film has a very natural quality and it's really quite brilliant. Highly recommended.
112. Zorns Lemma
This is a "structural experimental" film from 1970 and it's a little bit strange... How do you feel about watching forty minutes of signs silently flashing past the screen in alphabetical order? Yeah, I thought so. Except, after a while you actually start to get into it. Every five or so passes through the alphabet one of the letters gets replaced by a second of footage. So you lose Z, for example, and get some breaking waves in that position for the rest of the film. It's interesting to spot the changes and see the film fragments build up to start to have some meaning. Or maybe it just hypnotises you. The ending is super boring and I doubt I'll want to watch it ever again, but I found it more watchable than a lot of the art-installation bullshit that's out there.
Oh, and Wikipedia doesn't think there should be an apostrophe in the title for some reason.
112. Le Tunnel sous le Manche
I wasn't a fan of A Trip To The Moon and this is even worse. Again, there is much to be admired about the set design, special effects and sheer ambition of the director to put this all together in 1907, but it is really dated. I suppose it doesn't help that the version I watched was extremely grainy and literally silent so it was very hard to make out what was going on. Maybe if it was restored and had some intertitles added it would be a bit more interesting, but I can't imagine I'd ever hurry to recommend it.
112. The Art of Vision
229. Dog Star Man
This is the arthouse experimental museum piece by Stan Brakhage. I'm going to tick both of these off the list, even though I technically didn't watch The Art of Vision. It's the same as Dog Star Man, but with all the segments stuck together and a couple of hours of extra footage, and there's no way I could face sitting through that. Not that Dog Star Man was bad, exactly - there are some interesting visual montages and parts of it are rather beautiful - but it's a bit tiresome. I recommend you watch a segment or two just to see what it's like, but I can't say it's worth much more than that unless you're forced to write an essay about it.
Wednesday 17 December 2014
The 15 Days of Christmas Catch Up
In order to try and catch up a bit, I'm rushing through 15 reviews in the next 15 days over on Google+. On the (highly doubtful) off-chance that anyone is following me here and not there, I'll link the posts here while I go along.
Top Films/TV
15 Days of Christmas
Sunday 22 January 2012
12. Pather Panchali
When stupid people moan about boring old black and white films they clearly haven't seen very many. Films like The Seven Samurai, Citizen Kane and The Night of the Hunter are not only very "worthy" (all appearing in the top 50 of this list) but they're also incredibly easy to watch and far more entertaining than any modern fare. Pather Panchali isn't in the same category. It's not boring exactly, but I can certainly see why people might think it was. After all, very little happens for the whole two hour running time.
But for me that's not a bad thing. The plot's as simple as it gets — a boy, Apu, gets born into an educated but poor Bengali family in the early 20th century. He grows up, goes to school, bugs his sister, yearns for the treats that the sweet seller sells, makes himself a paper hat for the festival — a fairly ordinary childhood. A couple of more dramatic things do happen, but in general we're just watching a slice of rural village life. Apu is the main character, but I only really know that because this is the first part of the Apu Trilogy. The focus is more often on his long-suffering mother and her sometimes fraught attempts to raise her family without a steady income. Apu's sister, too, is vibrant and complex and far more interesting than him, but presumably his character fleshes out more in the other two parts. There's also the creaky old aunt, both adorable and pitiable, who adds the barest hint of humour to the whole thing.
The film is sometimes pretty amateurish to look at (it was Satyajit Ray's debut and there were very few experienced film makers on the crew), and at times you can even see the camera wobble on its stand, but the more engrossed you become in the scene it sets the less this seems to matter. The direction is virtually flawless, understated and without flair, but every shot conveys precisely the right mood. There's nothing that seems unlikely or coincidental, over-scripted to enhance the drama — everything is believable and real. So when things actually start happening, you're invested in it and all the more devastated by what unfurls.
I loved this beautiful film and shall sing its praises to anyone who will listen. It moved me and thrilled me a lot more than I thought it would, but I'm not sure if it's the sort of film I would honestly want as high as no. 12. It is very slow moving and very narrow in its appeal. If you're in the mood for that sort of thing, though, you can't really do much better.
Watch the whole thing on Youtube
But for me that's not a bad thing. The plot's as simple as it gets — a boy, Apu, gets born into an educated but poor Bengali family in the early 20th century. He grows up, goes to school, bugs his sister, yearns for the treats that the sweet seller sells, makes himself a paper hat for the festival — a fairly ordinary childhood. A couple of more dramatic things do happen, but in general we're just watching a slice of rural village life. Apu is the main character, but I only really know that because this is the first part of the Apu Trilogy. The focus is more often on his long-suffering mother and her sometimes fraught attempts to raise her family without a steady income. Apu's sister, too, is vibrant and complex and far more interesting than him, but presumably his character fleshes out more in the other two parts. There's also the creaky old aunt, both adorable and pitiable, who adds the barest hint of humour to the whole thing.
The film is sometimes pretty amateurish to look at (it was Satyajit Ray's debut and there were very few experienced film makers on the crew), and at times you can even see the camera wobble on its stand, but the more engrossed you become in the scene it sets the less this seems to matter. The direction is virtually flawless, understated and without flair, but every shot conveys precisely the right mood. There's nothing that seems unlikely or coincidental, over-scripted to enhance the drama — everything is believable and real. So when things actually start happening, you're invested in it and all the more devastated by what unfurls.
I loved this beautiful film and shall sing its praises to anyone who will listen. It moved me and thrilled me a lot more than I thought it would, but I'm not sure if it's the sort of film I would honestly want as high as no. 12. It is very slow moving and very narrow in its appeal. If you're in the mood for that sort of thing, though, you can't really do much better.
Watch the whole thing on Youtube
Wednesday 14 December 2011
94. Shadow of a Doubt
This completes the Alfred Hitchcock portion of the exam. It's a top 100 film but still only his fourth highest ranked so that does show how well regarded the old boy is. Several critics actually consider this as his finest film. Are they just being contrary to show their film knowledge superiority, much like those who say Citizen Kane isn't as good as A Touch of Evil, or is this really better than Psycho and Vertigo and The Wrong Man? Well, since the director himself agrees with them maybe we should take this seriously.
Shadow of a Doubt starts off in New Jersey where Joseph Cotten is being hounded by some shady characters. He flees to visit his sister and her adorable family in California, including his namesake niece Charlie. The girl adores her Uncle but starts to suspect a darker side to him. It's just the little things, really, like his outbursts of misogyny and the fact that he has a ring engraved with the initials of a murder-victim. Nothing too concrete, but enough to cause suspicion (I could have written "a shadow of a doubt" there, but that would be very corny). Is he a murderer or just a bit creepy?
Hitchcock isn't called the master of suspense for nothing. Thinking back on this film, there really isn't all that much to it. Nothing particularly exciting happens — this isn't action packed like North by Northwest, for example — and the plot is refreshingly lacking in complex twists and turns. Out of this apparent simplicity, though, Hitchcock manages to generate a terrifying air of disquiet. Every look that Cotten makes, every revelation about the string of murders that he may or may not have committed, every newspaper article detailing the manhunt of another suspect who might exonerate him all serve to ramp up the tension. It's perfectly handled, but it wouldn't work without such a great performance from Cotten. He's wonderfully ambiguous — either a frightening and evil monster, or your favourite eccentric Uncle. Take this fantastic scene:
These are sentiments that you could easily agree with — a distaste for rich widows spending their unearned money while honest hard-working people struggle to make ends meet — but Cotten delivers it in such a way that he might be making a social point or he might genuinely want to kill them and steal their money. "They're alive. They're human beings!" cries his niece, to which he replies "are they?", but which statement is he questioning?
The supporting cast are all very good too, and it's great to see a young(ish) Hume Cronyn give some light relief from the uneasiness of the film by playing a neighbour who is obsessed with mystery novels and jokingly discusses ways to murder his friend without detection. It's funny really, that the guy who talks about murdering people is the comic relief, whereas the one who says all the right things is suspected of being a killer.
Is this the best Hitchcock film? I still prefer Vertigo myself, but I won't dismiss those who disagree as fools. It's certainly one that should be seen a lot more than it is, though. But then I could say that about most of the items on this list.
Shadow of a Doubt starts off in New Jersey where Joseph Cotten is being hounded by some shady characters. He flees to visit his sister and her adorable family in California, including his namesake niece Charlie. The girl adores her Uncle but starts to suspect a darker side to him. It's just the little things, really, like his outbursts of misogyny and the fact that he has a ring engraved with the initials of a murder-victim. Nothing too concrete, but enough to cause suspicion (I could have written "a shadow of a doubt" there, but that would be very corny). Is he a murderer or just a bit creepy?
Hitchcock isn't called the master of suspense for nothing. Thinking back on this film, there really isn't all that much to it. Nothing particularly exciting happens — this isn't action packed like North by Northwest, for example — and the plot is refreshingly lacking in complex twists and turns. Out of this apparent simplicity, though, Hitchcock manages to generate a terrifying air of disquiet. Every look that Cotten makes, every revelation about the string of murders that he may or may not have committed, every newspaper article detailing the manhunt of another suspect who might exonerate him all serve to ramp up the tension. It's perfectly handled, but it wouldn't work without such a great performance from Cotten. He's wonderfully ambiguous — either a frightening and evil monster, or your favourite eccentric Uncle. Take this fantastic scene:
These are sentiments that you could easily agree with — a distaste for rich widows spending their unearned money while honest hard-working people struggle to make ends meet — but Cotten delivers it in such a way that he might be making a social point or he might genuinely want to kill them and steal their money. "They're alive. They're human beings!" cries his niece, to which he replies "are they?", but which statement is he questioning?
The supporting cast are all very good too, and it's great to see a young(ish) Hume Cronyn give some light relief from the uneasiness of the film by playing a neighbour who is obsessed with mystery novels and jokingly discusses ways to murder his friend without detection. It's funny really, that the guy who talks about murdering people is the comic relief, whereas the one who says all the right things is suspected of being a killer.
Is this the best Hitchcock film? I still prefer Vertigo myself, but I won't dismiss those who disagree as fools. It's certainly one that should be seen a lot more than it is, though. But then I could say that about most of the items on this list.
Wednesday 31 August 2011
112. L'Avventura
I saw this film over a month ago now. It's a tricky one, one that requires sober reflection before fully assessing. Any self-respecting critic should meditate a while on its themes before putting fingers to keyboard. Personally, I've forgotten all about it until now and have little clue what it's about.
L'Avventura starts off as an intriguing mystery. Two friends, Anna and Claudia, along with Anna's dull boyfriend Sandro, go on a boating trip around Sicily. Anna is rather high maintenance — beautiful, rich, bored and basically a pain in the arse. She's also a bit fed up of Sandro so when she wanders off on a volcanic island where the boat stops, they all assume she's just being a drama queen. When she doesn't return, though, they begin to worry and eventually call in the authorities to hunt down the missing girl.
Where did she go? Did she hitch a ride on a passing trawler and escape to the country? Did she get kidnapped? Was she murdered or did she commit suicide? Oddly, the film doesn't actually care too much about this riddle and slowly (very slowly...) it's forgotten. We start to focus on other things, such as the burgeoning relationship between Claudia and Sandro and the warped world they live in. Is the director, Michelangelo Antonioni, making some arch comment on the irrelevance of the declining Italian aristocracy or was he just as bored and restless as his main characters and decided to move on to other subjects? Stuffed if I know.
What I do know, though, is that the film is incredible to look at and I'm not just talking about the stunning Monica Vitti who plays Claudia. The camera is constantly gazing at the wonders of the natural world around, as if the human beings are just a side note. Waves crash against the rocks, the wind howls, the sun rises over the sea and we even see a water spout. It's quite notable too, as it doesn't appear to be stock footage. The film crew were either incredibly lucky or incredibly patient to get that shot.
There are plenty of surreal touches, too, that just add to the strangeness of the film. The hermit who lives on the island, for example. Where did he come from and why isn't he even slightly bothered that a bunch of people have broken into his home? And the call-girl with the glorious name of Gloria Perkins who has an army of men following her wherever she goes. The film abounds with this stuff, scenes that are seemingly just played for fun rather than any narrative or thematic importance. Is there any secret meaning to it all or is it kept purposely vague to encourage us to decide its significance for ourselves? Whatever the case may be, it's certainly left an impression on me.
Incidentally, while watching L'Avventura I was very much reminded of Peter Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock, so I watched that film again. They're actually not very similar at all. They both have missing people and a strange hypnotic sort of quality, but that's really where the comparison ends. Picnic at Hanging Rock should totally be on this list, though.
L'Avventura starts off as an intriguing mystery. Two friends, Anna and Claudia, along with Anna's dull boyfriend Sandro, go on a boating trip around Sicily. Anna is rather high maintenance — beautiful, rich, bored and basically a pain in the arse. She's also a bit fed up of Sandro so when she wanders off on a volcanic island where the boat stops, they all assume she's just being a drama queen. When she doesn't return, though, they begin to worry and eventually call in the authorities to hunt down the missing girl.
Where did she go? Did she hitch a ride on a passing trawler and escape to the country? Did she get kidnapped? Was she murdered or did she commit suicide? Oddly, the film doesn't actually care too much about this riddle and slowly (very slowly...) it's forgotten. We start to focus on other things, such as the burgeoning relationship between Claudia and Sandro and the warped world they live in. Is the director, Michelangelo Antonioni, making some arch comment on the irrelevance of the declining Italian aristocracy or was he just as bored and restless as his main characters and decided to move on to other subjects? Stuffed if I know.
What I do know, though, is that the film is incredible to look at and I'm not just talking about the stunning Monica Vitti who plays Claudia. The camera is constantly gazing at the wonders of the natural world around, as if the human beings are just a side note. Waves crash against the rocks, the wind howls, the sun rises over the sea and we even see a water spout. It's quite notable too, as it doesn't appear to be stock footage. The film crew were either incredibly lucky or incredibly patient to get that shot.
There are plenty of surreal touches, too, that just add to the strangeness of the film. The hermit who lives on the island, for example. Where did he come from and why isn't he even slightly bothered that a bunch of people have broken into his home? And the call-girl with the glorious name of Gloria Perkins who has an army of men following her wherever she goes. The film abounds with this stuff, scenes that are seemingly just played for fun rather than any narrative or thematic importance. Is there any secret meaning to it all or is it kept purposely vague to encourage us to decide its significance for ourselves? Whatever the case may be, it's certainly left an impression on me.
Incidentally, while watching L'Avventura I was very much reminded of Peter Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock, so I watched that film again. They're actually not very similar at all. They both have missing people and a strange hypnotic sort of quality, but that's really where the comparison ends. Picnic at Hanging Rock should totally be on this list, though.
Sunday 31 July 2011
62. Berlin Alexanderplatz
Not counting arthouse nonsense this is the longest film ever made, at least according to Wikipedia, but calling it a film is really a bit of a cheat. It's over 15 hours long, is very episodic and was never intended to be shown on anything other than a television. In fact, one of the special features on the DVD box set tells the story of the restoration and how there were problems because it wasn't shot on the right sort of film stock for high definition viewing. It was only going to be watched on crappy 80s CRTs, so why go to the extra expense? To be fair, it was shown theatrically in America and it's undoubtedly cinematic in its scope and execution, but a little piece of me does wonder if this is a case of the cinema appropriating Berlin Alexanderplatz as its own simply because it's so good. If it had been terrible or merely average would we really see it in the list of long films linked above?
In case anyone's balking at the thought of sitting down to watch a 15 hour movie, though, don't worry. It's neatly divided into 14 episodes, most of which are a manageable hour in length. Overall it tells the story of Franz Biberkopf, a jovial tubby chap trying to make ends meet in 1928 Berlin. He likes a drink, is a little eccentric at times and is a hit with the ladies. Oh, and he's also fresh out of prison for brutally beating his girlfriend to death — you could say he's fairly complex. He's played by Günter Lamprecht (who was also in Das Boot so he must have a thing for great 80s German TV series) and it's an astonishing performance in what is an incredibly difficult role. He's rarely off screen and has to convey such a disparate range of emotions, from good-natured joking around to intense and disturbing acts of violence. He philosophises about life and love and his place in the world; he sings and hums the tunes of the period; he drinks himself into oblivion; he talks to himself and, in one brilliantly bizarre scene, he talks to his pint of beer. It's a whole career of roles all crammed into a single performance.
Surrounding Biberkopf are dozens of supporting characters, some of whom emerge from the Berlin undergrowth for an episode or two and then slink back; others stick around longer. He has numerous women in his life and it's really fascinating to dissect what exactly they see in him — he is, after all, a charming and lovable bloke despite the somewhat darker side. His male friends include Meck, a dour but loyal chap who tries to keep Franz grounded in reality, and Reinhold with whom he develops a strange and complex relationship. Gottfried John (also a Bond villain) is equally brilliant as Reinhold and his central pairing with Lamprecht forms the backbone of the piece.
Rainer Werner Fassbinder, the director, is the genius behind it, though, and I can't begin to imagine how hard it must have been to put together. Twin Peaks springs to mind as being similarly complicated and ambitious, but David Lynch actually only directed half a dozen of the 30 episodes. Fassbinder was involved with every moment of Berlin Alexanderplatz and consequently it rarely rings a false note. For sure it can be quite tough going at times, especially for non-German speakers. It's very wordy and there are long passages of philosophical musings where the subtitles struggle to keep up. You do need to concentrate, but if you stick with it you're amply rewarded. For the most part it's played pretty straight, but it does veer off into more surreal territory on occasion, particularly in the final episode which is an extremely brave and clever way to finish it all off. The length actually isn't much of an issue, although you certainly won't want to watch it all in one go. It's still very tight and there's no flab and no redundant scenes that were added just for padding. I've not read Döblin's novel, but it does illustrate how hard it is to translate literature to the screen. If Fassbinder can get 15 hours of material out of a 430-page book, think how much must have been sacrificed when the film version of Anna Karenina condensed 850 pages into 95 minutes!
In some respects you could say that this is the greatest film ever made, but such a claim is pretty dubious because you're not comparing like for like. It gives itself so much time to explore its themes and immerse the audience in its world that it's bound to have the advantage over more conventional pieces. Citizen Kane, at number one, is not exactly a short film at 119 minutes but is still about an eighth the length of Berlin Alexanderplatz and, while I know which one enthralled and enlightened me more, something has to be said for efficiency of story-telling. It's a bit like comparing the novels À la recherche du temps perdu with Catch-22, the former conveniently about eight times longer than the latter. I'm sure Proust's work is the greater feat of literary achievement and more deeply explores the complexity of man, but Heller's is much funnier.
Personally I'd drop this from the list entirely, but if I had to include it I'd put it a lot higher than no. 62. Anyway, I'm now off to watch Shoah, which should be a walk in the park — it doesn't even reach the ten-hour mark!
In case anyone's balking at the thought of sitting down to watch a 15 hour movie, though, don't worry. It's neatly divided into 14 episodes, most of which are a manageable hour in length. Overall it tells the story of Franz Biberkopf, a jovial tubby chap trying to make ends meet in 1928 Berlin. He likes a drink, is a little eccentric at times and is a hit with the ladies. Oh, and he's also fresh out of prison for brutally beating his girlfriend to death — you could say he's fairly complex. He's played by Günter Lamprecht (who was also in Das Boot so he must have a thing for great 80s German TV series) and it's an astonishing performance in what is an incredibly difficult role. He's rarely off screen and has to convey such a disparate range of emotions, from good-natured joking around to intense and disturbing acts of violence. He philosophises about life and love and his place in the world; he sings and hums the tunes of the period; he drinks himself into oblivion; he talks to himself and, in one brilliantly bizarre scene, he talks to his pint of beer. It's a whole career of roles all crammed into a single performance.
Surrounding Biberkopf are dozens of supporting characters, some of whom emerge from the Berlin undergrowth for an episode or two and then slink back; others stick around longer. He has numerous women in his life and it's really fascinating to dissect what exactly they see in him — he is, after all, a charming and lovable bloke despite the somewhat darker side. His male friends include Meck, a dour but loyal chap who tries to keep Franz grounded in reality, and Reinhold with whom he develops a strange and complex relationship. Gottfried John (also a Bond villain) is equally brilliant as Reinhold and his central pairing with Lamprecht forms the backbone of the piece.
Rainer Werner Fassbinder, the director, is the genius behind it, though, and I can't begin to imagine how hard it must have been to put together. Twin Peaks springs to mind as being similarly complicated and ambitious, but David Lynch actually only directed half a dozen of the 30 episodes. Fassbinder was involved with every moment of Berlin Alexanderplatz and consequently it rarely rings a false note. For sure it can be quite tough going at times, especially for non-German speakers. It's very wordy and there are long passages of philosophical musings where the subtitles struggle to keep up. You do need to concentrate, but if you stick with it you're amply rewarded. For the most part it's played pretty straight, but it does veer off into more surreal territory on occasion, particularly in the final episode which is an extremely brave and clever way to finish it all off. The length actually isn't much of an issue, although you certainly won't want to watch it all in one go. It's still very tight and there's no flab and no redundant scenes that were added just for padding. I've not read Döblin's novel, but it does illustrate how hard it is to translate literature to the screen. If Fassbinder can get 15 hours of material out of a 430-page book, think how much must have been sacrificed when the film version of Anna Karenina condensed 850 pages into 95 minutes!
In some respects you could say that this is the greatest film ever made, but such a claim is pretty dubious because you're not comparing like for like. It gives itself so much time to explore its themes and immerse the audience in its world that it's bound to have the advantage over more conventional pieces. Citizen Kane, at number one, is not exactly a short film at 119 minutes but is still about an eighth the length of Berlin Alexanderplatz and, while I know which one enthralled and enlightened me more, something has to be said for efficiency of story-telling. It's a bit like comparing the novels À la recherche du temps perdu with Catch-22, the former conveniently about eight times longer than the latter. I'm sure Proust's work is the greater feat of literary achievement and more deeply explores the complexity of man, but Heller's is much funnier.
Personally I'd drop this from the list entirely, but if I had to include it I'd put it a lot higher than no. 62. Anyway, I'm now off to watch Shoah, which should be a walk in the park — it doesn't even reach the ten-hour mark!
Monday 27 June 2011
235. The Wrong Man
This is a fascinatingly odd film, one of the two listed Hitchcock films I hadn't seen before and very atypical of his more well-known works. It's the true story (Hitch tells us so himself in a prologue to the film) of New York musician Manny Balestrero who gets mistaken for an armed robber when he goes to the insurance office to borrow some money for his wife's dental work (apparently they think he'd be stupid enough to get a loan from a place he's previously robbed). What follows is part police procedural, part courtroom drama and part psychological melodrama as he struggles to clear his name and deal with the toll the whole ordeal takes on him and his family.
Henry Fonda as Balestrero is superb. The supporting cast are all good too, with Vera Miles as his flaky wife and Anthony Quayle as the attorney who defends him, but it's Fonda's film. His character is one we don't see much of in the cinema — an honest, unpretentious, hard working man. He's good to his wife and kids, doesn't drink and treats people with respect. Throughout his strange and terrifying ordeal — things happen that wouldn't look out of place in a Kafka novel — he maintains a quiet, stoic, dignity and we can't help but feel like we're there with him, privileged to be in his company.
The film is immaculately put together and has an almost documentary quality to it with many of the scenes playing out in real time to emphasise the agony that the wronged man is going through. The scenes of his arrest and questioning in particular are painfully slow and deliberate but utterly enthralling nonetheless. Yet it's still unquestionably a Hitchcock film, with many of his hallmark themes and styles and this leads to some interesting, though possibly unintended, tensions. We've all seen North by Northwest, Psycho and Rear Window and these have trained us with an almost Pavlovian instinct for the twists and surprises that we might expect. Consequently we wonder if Fonda is actually guilty, or if the police are setting him up, or if his wife's secret lover is trying to get him out of the picture. Or, if none of those, it must surely be something to do with the mother — it's usually the mother isn't it? And while we're second-guessing the master, he goes and springs the biggest surprise of them all because we suddenly remember that the whole crazy story is actually true.
If I'm ever sitting in a bar having a few drinks and a pretty girl comes up to me and claims that Vertigo is Hitchcock's greatest film I would, if I'm feeling in a contrary mood and up for some banter, argue that she's mistaken and that actually The Wrong Man is. It can match any of his other films for thrills and intrigue, it has one of the best performances by a Hitchcock leading man and, most importantly, it's completely real. There are no implausible plot turns, no over-scripted one-liners, no impossibly beautiful blondes who happen to cross the hero's path — just an extraordinary true story meticulously told. Of course, the next morning I'd admit over breakfast that I was talking a load of rubbish — it's in the top three at best. But that's still pretty good.
Henry Fonda as Balestrero is superb. The supporting cast are all good too, with Vera Miles as his flaky wife and Anthony Quayle as the attorney who defends him, but it's Fonda's film. His character is one we don't see much of in the cinema — an honest, unpretentious, hard working man. He's good to his wife and kids, doesn't drink and treats people with respect. Throughout his strange and terrifying ordeal — things happen that wouldn't look out of place in a Kafka novel — he maintains a quiet, stoic, dignity and we can't help but feel like we're there with him, privileged to be in his company.
The film is immaculately put together and has an almost documentary quality to it with many of the scenes playing out in real time to emphasise the agony that the wronged man is going through. The scenes of his arrest and questioning in particular are painfully slow and deliberate but utterly enthralling nonetheless. Yet it's still unquestionably a Hitchcock film, with many of his hallmark themes and styles and this leads to some interesting, though possibly unintended, tensions. We've all seen North by Northwest, Psycho and Rear Window and these have trained us with an almost Pavlovian instinct for the twists and surprises that we might expect. Consequently we wonder if Fonda is actually guilty, or if the police are setting him up, or if his wife's secret lover is trying to get him out of the picture. Or, if none of those, it must surely be something to do with the mother — it's usually the mother isn't it? And while we're second-guessing the master, he goes and springs the biggest surprise of them all because we suddenly remember that the whole crazy story is actually true.
If I'm ever sitting in a bar having a few drinks and a pretty girl comes up to me and claims that Vertigo is Hitchcock's greatest film I would, if I'm feeling in a contrary mood and up for some banter, argue that she's mistaken and that actually The Wrong Man is. It can match any of his other films for thrills and intrigue, it has one of the best performances by a Hitchcock leading man and, most importantly, it's completely real. There are no implausible plot turns, no over-scripted one-liners, no impossibly beautiful blondes who happen to cross the hero's path — just an extraordinary true story meticulously told. Of course, the next morning I'd admit over breakfast that I was talking a load of rubbish — it's in the top three at best. But that's still pretty good.
Tuesday 22 March 2011
Two Marx Bros. Films
Shoving these two films together in one blog post is not just me being lazy. The Marx Bros.' films are really just a collection of sketches hanging by some loose threads of plot and so can just as easily be viewed as a single body of work rather than its individual pieces. Putting Duck Soup ahead of the others just means it has a few of the more funny scenes in it. You might equally put Queen's Greatest Hits I ahead of Greatest Hits II, not for reasons of narrative or theme but simply because it has better songs.
The two films on the list are quite good examples of their work, though. Duck Soup (no. 46) represents the Paramount years and is just incredibly silly. Groucho plays Rufus T. Firefly who for some not very clear reason is made the leader of the small nation of Freedonia. Chico and Harpo are spies from neighbouring Sylvania which is trying to take over but they don't do much spying and Groucho doesn't do much leading — they all just muck about for an hour and a half. There are some fantastic moments along the way, though. Groucho of course has some great lines, Chico and Harpo terrorise a poor street vendor and there's the famous mirror scene which is brilliantly put together. The final act as Sylvania invades is chaotic and crazy but very funny. Some critics write learnedly about how this is a satire on the absurdity of war, but they need to get their heads out of their arses and just enjoy it.
However, Duck Soup is not the best Marx Bros. film, because it's missing what I think is the highlight of most of their other works — this:
It's Chico playing the piano in A Night at the Opera and I don't think I could ever get bored of watching those fingers. Duck Soup doesn't have Harpo playing the harp either, which is also a terrible shame, but it's Chico's piano that I remember most fondly from all their other films and I wonder why it wasn't included.
After Duck Soup the brothers left Paramount and moved to MGM and A Night at the Opera (no. 112) was the first film at their new home. It marked a considerable change of pace from the previous films — much less anarchic and directionless. Where before the brothers attacked everybody equally and often for no good reason at all, now they had a purpose and only attacked the villains in order to help the central couple. Zeppo had left the group too (not a huge loss) and the film introduced non-comedic musical numbers to broaden the audience appeal. Surprisingly, this tinkering of the formula works. It might have gone wrong and left us with a watered-down version of the previous films, precision engineered by studio executives to make the most money, but that's not what happens. The film has a lot more heart and although it's still crazy in places at least it makes some sense.
The plot is still wafer thin, though. Groucho's trying to marry rich Margaret Dumont (as he does in several of their films, though it's hard to tell what she sees in him) but she has her interest in the opera. Chico and Harpo are helping Allan Jones with his career as a singer but they're left behind when the company heads off to New York and have to stow away on the ship. Naturally Groucho gets involved and the brothers work together to help Jones get his girl and his big break. It's pretty lame but works well enough and that's all you need. The holes in the plot are filled in with all the terrific set-pieces we'd expect: Groucho cramming about thirty people into his tiny cabin, the contract negotiation, the finale's acrobatics and of course Chico on the piano and Harpo on the harp. It's simple but sublime entertainment by some of the most talented performers of them all. It's not going to make you think — just smile. Thinking's overrated anyway.
An honourable mention should also go to A Day at the Races which really ought to sit up there with these two. It's very similar to A Night at the Opera, better in some respects and weaker in others. The stand out scene comes in the middle as Harpo leads the locals in a raucous and hugely entertaining swing number, with singing and Hellzapoppin-style lindy hoppers and a fat man doing the splits. Perfect. It also has this clip:
I've watched most of their other films too and while they all have plenty to offer and are well worth watching, they didn't quite reach the heights of A Night at the Opera or A Day at the Races. A bit like Queen's albums, really.
The two films on the list are quite good examples of their work, though. Duck Soup (no. 46) represents the Paramount years and is just incredibly silly. Groucho plays Rufus T. Firefly who for some not very clear reason is made the leader of the small nation of Freedonia. Chico and Harpo are spies from neighbouring Sylvania which is trying to take over but they don't do much spying and Groucho doesn't do much leading — they all just muck about for an hour and a half. There are some fantastic moments along the way, though. Groucho of course has some great lines, Chico and Harpo terrorise a poor street vendor and there's the famous mirror scene which is brilliantly put together. The final act as Sylvania invades is chaotic and crazy but very funny. Some critics write learnedly about how this is a satire on the absurdity of war, but they need to get their heads out of their arses and just enjoy it.
However, Duck Soup is not the best Marx Bros. film, because it's missing what I think is the highlight of most of their other works — this:
It's Chico playing the piano in A Night at the Opera and I don't think I could ever get bored of watching those fingers. Duck Soup doesn't have Harpo playing the harp either, which is also a terrible shame, but it's Chico's piano that I remember most fondly from all their other films and I wonder why it wasn't included.
After Duck Soup the brothers left Paramount and moved to MGM and A Night at the Opera (no. 112) was the first film at their new home. It marked a considerable change of pace from the previous films — much less anarchic and directionless. Where before the brothers attacked everybody equally and often for no good reason at all, now they had a purpose and only attacked the villains in order to help the central couple. Zeppo had left the group too (not a huge loss) and the film introduced non-comedic musical numbers to broaden the audience appeal. Surprisingly, this tinkering of the formula works. It might have gone wrong and left us with a watered-down version of the previous films, precision engineered by studio executives to make the most money, but that's not what happens. The film has a lot more heart and although it's still crazy in places at least it makes some sense.
The plot is still wafer thin, though. Groucho's trying to marry rich Margaret Dumont (as he does in several of their films, though it's hard to tell what she sees in him) but she has her interest in the opera. Chico and Harpo are helping Allan Jones with his career as a singer but they're left behind when the company heads off to New York and have to stow away on the ship. Naturally Groucho gets involved and the brothers work together to help Jones get his girl and his big break. It's pretty lame but works well enough and that's all you need. The holes in the plot are filled in with all the terrific set-pieces we'd expect: Groucho cramming about thirty people into his tiny cabin, the contract negotiation, the finale's acrobatics and of course Chico on the piano and Harpo on the harp. It's simple but sublime entertainment by some of the most talented performers of them all. It's not going to make you think — just smile. Thinking's overrated anyway.
An honourable mention should also go to A Day at the Races which really ought to sit up there with these two. It's very similar to A Night at the Opera, better in some respects and weaker in others. The stand out scene comes in the middle as Harpo leads the locals in a raucous and hugely entertaining swing number, with singing and Hellzapoppin-style lindy hoppers and a fat man doing the splits. Perfect. It also has this clip:
I've watched most of their other films too and while they all have plenty to offer and are well worth watching, they didn't quite reach the heights of A Night at the Opera or A Day at the Races. A bit like Queen's albums, really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)