As we watched Rear Window, it was striking how much movies have changed in the last 50 or so years. In modern times Rear Window would probably be billed as an Art Film. There's no special effects to speak of, the only action is at the climax of the movie, much of the movie is dialog between two characters. Where to start. First, no matter what it may look like, the movie wasn't shot on location at all. It was an enourmous sound stage at Paramount.
The film has been paid homage a number of times, from Disturbia (2007) which earned a lawsuit from the copyright holders, to an episdoe of The Simpsons when Bart breaks his leg and is laid up. Don't forget there is also the remake with the late Christopher Reeve made for ABC which aired in 1998.
From the outset of the film you're drawn into the voyeurism of Stewart as he watches out his hot and muggy window to his Greenwich Village neighbors. You're quickly drawn in with titilation as you watch a topless woman put on some clothes (seen only from behind of course). You are fascinated with the stories and goings on of the people being watched. The newlyweds, the husband taking care of his wife, the spinster and the artist. It's almost like watching a silent movie for much of the spying. The sound is distant if there at all. The cinematography is extremely effective as the focus of the shots are quite often only the center of the screen and framed such that it's hard to make out the details. You need to really work on seeing what you shouldn't be looking at.
I'm sure everyone was or is shocked to hear the leading actress in the movie is a blond. I've mentioned Grace Kelly in the past when writing about High Noon so I won't guss but wow...she was a looker. Hitchcock certainly had taste in leading ladies. From Ingrid Bergman through Grace Kelly (Dial M for Murder, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief) and Doris Day (The Man Who Knew Too Much) to Kim Novak (Vertigo) and Eva Marie Saint (North By Northwest) or Janet Leigh (Psycho) to Tippy Hedron (The Birds, Marnie). Hitchcock knew how to pick 'em. His leading ladies were all gorgeous and that was what he needed. With his directorial attention to detail and the poses most of his leading ladies were required to make to showcase the Edith Head wardrobe. Sorry but when Kelly poses in an evening gown as she visits Stewart...
So we see the neighbors go about their business. We see the dancer entertain and fight off men. We see the spinster struggle with lonleiness and the newlywed husband called back to the bedroom...again..and again. We watch in fascination as the salesman tends to his demanding and invalid wife. The reversal of roles is interesting. The invalid Stewart, tended by Kelly, as they watch the invalid wife, tended by Thorwald (Raymond Burr). Add the nurse played by Thelma Ritter and the Detective played by Wendell Corey and the cast is complete.
I'm not going to run down the plot since it's almost a part of a Jungian collective unconscious. But the movie is marvelous. The pace is slower than what we're used to now but its strength is that pace. It makes you part of the situation. You feel almost guilty. You were the one watching private things that couldn't be explained in public. During the climax of the film your emotions aren't what you would expect. Don't you almost deserve what's happening?
I can't see the film not being included on the top 100 list in years to come. It's an example of how a film can be complex without action and with large portions being almost silent in nature. Having the audience ride along with the hero is an effective means to entertain.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
Saving Private Ryan (1998) #71
How do you start on a film that describes some of the most relevant events of the last century? This is what I've been struggling with and it's the reason this post is so long in the making. In fact if there's a record for the longest time a post has been a draft and no one has clicked that little publish button...I think I might win.
You've probably read something about the opening minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" and how it's violent and extremely intense. Well that's partially correct. There is quite a bit if very intense action at the beginning of the movie and it starts about six minutes in. Make no mistake...at six minutes and twenty seconds you will be affected by the sudden intensity and randomness of armed conflict. In the next ten minutes or so the brutality of war takes center stage. Remember this is Omaha Beach. This is one of the first waves of D-Day and this is one of the very first waves of troops landed. Omaha Beach was the most fortified of the landing beaches and the casualties were significant.
During The landing scenes the film runs the risk of being too violent and having that violence work against telling the story. There was a negative reaction to the level of violence shown but it was portraying violent acts. This isn't antiseptic war. It isn't about showing those nasty "other guys" and the whiter than white American troops. I hope I never see that level of violence in real life. In fact, I wish it were possible for no one to ever see it.
I've often wondered and talked to others in my family on the reality of being in one of those boats. Would I have the courage to get on to one of them with the full knowledge my chances would be 50:50? Not sure. I can't see most of my contemporaries doing it. This, at least for me, drives home the argument the generation that were young adults in World War II were the finest generation produced in modern times.
It would be hard to argue they weren't the best generation produced. The US troops on Utah and Omaha, the Canadians on Juno and the British on Sword and and Gold. Since I'm Canadian I do have to mention that almost 10% of Canada's population (1.1 million of the total population of 12 million at wars end) served during WW II and I find that to be a staggering statistic. As pointed out by my wife, the US had more than 10% (around 16 million of 132 ish million) Conscription wasn't started in Canada until 1944 and a division was sent to Europe in 1940. Given the largely rural nature of Canada at that time I find it surprising
Anyway, on to the movie. Based very loosely on the situation and sacrifice of Agnes Allison who lost four sons during the Civil War (A monument to her was seen by Robert Rodat in 1994) and the Niland Brothers who it was believed to have lost three during action in the Second World War, the movie follows the events after a reading of a letter by then Army Chief of Staff George Marshall. Attributed to Abraham Lincoln, the leter was written to Lydia Bixby whom it was believed lost three sons in battle during the Civil War. The authorship of the letter is in question, and it turns out, also the disposition of the sons. Two of the sons deserted and one was captured and later honorably discharged on his return to the union. Anyway the letter is remarkable and isn't diminished by the circumstances nor the possible change in authorship.
At the end of the first day of battle you see, through the haunted eyes of Hanks, a body lying on the bloodied beach with "S. Ryan" on his back. Since the name of the film is "Saving Private Ryan" it's reasonable to assume that's not the eponymous Ryan. James Francis Ryan was serving in the 101st Airborne and his 3 bothers have died recently in battle. The Army Chief of Staff learns of this and orders the surviving Ryan be found and shipped home. The rest of the movie follows the squad tasked with finding Ryan.
Ribisi's very memorable scene after the squad takes out a machine gun nest again communicates this isn't antiseptic war. Vin Diesel's big scene (Casparza) and the performances from Danson and Giamatti don't point to clinical. The movie uses its immense cast to shape and play off the story. The ability of Hanks to stand up to the incredible cast is a testament to his talent. Not bad for a guy that got his big break wearing drag on "Bosum Buddies" almost 20 years before. I think it was Penny Marshall that called Hanks a national treasure after "Big" and while it's the wrong nation I can't argue with the sentiment.
The movie is paced well and has some of the most powerful combat footage ever shown. A hand to hand in the village they finally find Ryan in is simply chilling. No not chilling. Take chilling and astounding and powerful and amazing and combine them. Whatever word that is. Chillastounerfulzing.
This film will be watched for a hundred years and I haven't done it even close to justice.
Snagged the Oscar for Best Cinematography, Director, Sound Effects Editing, Film Editing and Sound. Also picked up the nominations for (winners in brackets) Best Picture (Shakespeare in Love), Best Actor - Tom Hanks (Roberto Benigni), Best Original Screenplay (Shakespeare in Love). Time to once again face palm at the Academy. Do you think there is ANY chance Shakespeare in Love will show up on a "Best Movies" list? I mean if there was a list the best movies dealing with a playright who's name rhymes with...Beer...and lived in England in the 16th and 17th centuries....sure!
You've probably read something about the opening minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" and how it's violent and extremely intense. Well that's partially correct. There is quite a bit if very intense action at the beginning of the movie and it starts about six minutes in. Make no mistake...at six minutes and twenty seconds you will be affected by the sudden intensity and randomness of armed conflict. In the next ten minutes or so the brutality of war takes center stage. Remember this is Omaha Beach. This is one of the first waves of D-Day and this is one of the very first waves of troops landed. Omaha Beach was the most fortified of the landing beaches and the casualties were significant.
During The landing scenes the film runs the risk of being too violent and having that violence work against telling the story. There was a negative reaction to the level of violence shown but it was portraying violent acts. This isn't antiseptic war. It isn't about showing those nasty "other guys" and the whiter than white American troops. I hope I never see that level of violence in real life. In fact, I wish it were possible for no one to ever see it.
I've often wondered and talked to others in my family on the reality of being in one of those boats. Would I have the courage to get on to one of them with the full knowledge my chances would be 50:50? Not sure. I can't see most of my contemporaries doing it. This, at least for me, drives home the argument the generation that were young adults in World War II were the finest generation produced in modern times.
It would be hard to argue they weren't the best generation produced. The US troops on Utah and Omaha, the Canadians on Juno and the British on Sword and and Gold. Since I'm Canadian I do have to mention that almost 10% of Canada's population (1.1 million of the total population of 12 million at wars end) served during WW II and I find that to be a staggering statistic. As pointed out by my wife, the US had more than 10% (around 16 million of 132 ish million) Conscription wasn't started in Canada until 1944 and a division was sent to Europe in 1940. Given the largely rural nature of Canada at that time I find it surprising
Anyway, on to the movie. Based very loosely on the situation and sacrifice of Agnes Allison who lost four sons during the Civil War (A monument to her was seen by Robert Rodat in 1994) and the Niland Brothers who it was believed to have lost three during action in the Second World War, the movie follows the events after a reading of a letter by then Army Chief of Staff George Marshall. Attributed to Abraham Lincoln, the leter was written to Lydia Bixby whom it was believed lost three sons in battle during the Civil War. The authorship of the letter is in question, and it turns out, also the disposition of the sons. Two of the sons deserted and one was captured and later honorably discharged on his return to the union. Anyway the letter is remarkable and isn't diminished by the circumstances nor the possible change in authorship.
At the end of the first day of battle you see, through the haunted eyes of Hanks, a body lying on the bloodied beach with "S. Ryan" on his back. Since the name of the film is "Saving Private Ryan" it's reasonable to assume that's not the eponymous Ryan. James Francis Ryan was serving in the 101st Airborne and his 3 bothers have died recently in battle. The Army Chief of Staff learns of this and orders the surviving Ryan be found and shipped home. The rest of the movie follows the squad tasked with finding Ryan.
Ribisi's very memorable scene after the squad takes out a machine gun nest again communicates this isn't antiseptic war. Vin Diesel's big scene (Casparza) and the performances from Danson and Giamatti don't point to clinical. The movie uses its immense cast to shape and play off the story. The ability of Hanks to stand up to the incredible cast is a testament to his talent. Not bad for a guy that got his big break wearing drag on "Bosum Buddies" almost 20 years before. I think it was Penny Marshall that called Hanks a national treasure after "Big" and while it's the wrong nation I can't argue with the sentiment.
The movie is paced well and has some of the most powerful combat footage ever shown. A hand to hand in the village they finally find Ryan in is simply chilling. No not chilling. Take chilling and astounding and powerful and amazing and combine them. Whatever word that is. Chillastounerfulzing.
This film will be watched for a hundred years and I haven't done it even close to justice.
Snagged the Oscar for Best Cinematography, Director, Sound Effects Editing, Film Editing and Sound. Also picked up the nominations for (winners in brackets) Best Picture (Shakespeare in Love), Best Actor - Tom Hanks (Roberto Benigni), Best Original Screenplay (Shakespeare in Love). Time to once again face palm at the Academy. Do you think there is ANY chance Shakespeare in Love will show up on a "Best Movies" list? I mean if there was a list the best movies dealing with a playright who's name rhymes with...Beer...and lived in England in the 16th and 17th centuries....sure!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The Sixth Sense (1999) #89
Say the name of the movie five times quickly. I dare you! You'll sound like you should be wearing a helmet and drool cup (much like the Academy should have been when they chose the winners that year).
Big winner for the 72nd Academy Awards? American Beauty! What? A movie about Kevin Spacey panting over a nubile neighbor is nominated for eight awards and wins five. How is it possible that the screenplay for American Beauty wins over "The Sixth Sense"? OK OK..I should back off a bit I guess, but really. I love Kevin Spacey. I've seen most of what he's done and he's a great actor. And, I do mean great but c'mon. Of course, I should be prepared I suppose, "The Kids Are All Right" may well walk away with best picture in a few days.
M. Night Shyamalan is a remarkable talent. He recovered from the box office disaster of "Wide Awake" to write and direct Sixth Sense which was nominated for six awards (Picture, Original Screenplay, Director, Supporting Actor & Actress and Film Editing). It won zero. Way to go, members of the academy. I can't comment on the film editing since I don't have the expertise, but I would have thought that of the best movies for the year (American Beauty, Cider House Rules, The Green Mile, The Insider and The Sixth Sense) that the only film to be on the AFI's top 100 might have gotten the nod for something. The only other film I would rank nearly as high is "The Green Mile" which I watch every few years.
Blech. Moving on, however, we discuss the film itself. Lots of spoilers here so if you haven't seen it, don't read any further. Sixth Sense can be viewed as a love story, a story of making amends and a story about the continuity of love. I think it's easy to say the movie is just a supernatural thriller with a plot twist. It's about the redemption of Malcolm (Bruce Willis), his love for his wife Anna (Olivia Williams), and the need for him to say that she wasn't second. It's about the continuity of love, such as in a mother's wish to ensure her daughter (Toni Collette) knows the answer to questions that have deep significance.
Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment) has the gift to see the dead. As the movie's tag line states, "Not every gift is a blessing." Early in the movie we're given hints that Cole has had this "gift" for his entire life. When his mother looks at photos of Cole there are artifacts in the photos going back to him as a toddler. No wonder the kid is struggling. The psychologist works with him, and finally Cole tells him his secret. "I see dead people", delivered in a slightly breathless fashion. This phrase has since become a part of our culture. Deliver a quote from American Beauty - (sorry I digress). Together, Malcolm and Cole work with each other and Malcolm suggests the dead people might "go away" if Cole listens to them. Helps them. When he makes this transition things do get better. He confides in his mother and is able to deliver a message.
Osment really played his role remarkably. We can all hope the trouble in 2005 (smacked up a car and had to go attend "drinking classes" as some call them) is over with and he can make that transition to adult actor. I certainly hope he can and does.
The films ends with hope. Malcolm is able to tell his wife his message. Cole delivers the message for his Grandmother and we're left with the sense he'll be fine helping the dead find closure.
Big winner for the 72nd Academy Awards? American Beauty! What? A movie about Kevin Spacey panting over a nubile neighbor is nominated for eight awards and wins five. How is it possible that the screenplay for American Beauty wins over "The Sixth Sense"? OK OK..I should back off a bit I guess, but really. I love Kevin Spacey. I've seen most of what he's done and he's a great actor. And, I do mean great but c'mon. Of course, I should be prepared I suppose, "The Kids Are All Right" may well walk away with best picture in a few days.
M. Night Shyamalan is a remarkable talent. He recovered from the box office disaster of "Wide Awake" to write and direct Sixth Sense which was nominated for six awards (Picture, Original Screenplay, Director, Supporting Actor & Actress and Film Editing). It won zero. Way to go, members of the academy. I can't comment on the film editing since I don't have the expertise, but I would have thought that of the best movies for the year (American Beauty, Cider House Rules, The Green Mile, The Insider and The Sixth Sense) that the only film to be on the AFI's top 100 might have gotten the nod for something. The only other film I would rank nearly as high is "The Green Mile" which I watch every few years.
Blech. Moving on, however, we discuss the film itself. Lots of spoilers here so if you haven't seen it, don't read any further. Sixth Sense can be viewed as a love story, a story of making amends and a story about the continuity of love. I think it's easy to say the movie is just a supernatural thriller with a plot twist. It's about the redemption of Malcolm (Bruce Willis), his love for his wife Anna (Olivia Williams), and the need for him to say that she wasn't second. It's about the continuity of love, such as in a mother's wish to ensure her daughter (Toni Collette) knows the answer to questions that have deep significance.
Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment) has the gift to see the dead. As the movie's tag line states, "Not every gift is a blessing." Early in the movie we're given hints that Cole has had this "gift" for his entire life. When his mother looks at photos of Cole there are artifacts in the photos going back to him as a toddler. No wonder the kid is struggling. The psychologist works with him, and finally Cole tells him his secret. "I see dead people", delivered in a slightly breathless fashion. This phrase has since become a part of our culture. Deliver a quote from American Beauty - (sorry I digress). Together, Malcolm and Cole work with each other and Malcolm suggests the dead people might "go away" if Cole listens to them. Helps them. When he makes this transition things do get better. He confides in his mother and is able to deliver a message.
Osment really played his role remarkably. We can all hope the trouble in 2005 (smacked up a car and had to go attend "drinking classes" as some call them) is over with and he can make that transition to adult actor. I certainly hope he can and does.
The films ends with hope. Malcolm is able to tell his wife his message. Cole delivers the message for his Grandmother and we're left with the sense he'll be fine helping the dead find closure.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Rocky (1976) #57
Say "YO Adrian" and everyone knows what you're talking about. Few movies have made the same impact on pop culture as the "Rocky" franchise. It turned Sylvester Stallone from a B and soft core porn movie star to a major box office draw. The film was made for around a million dollars and grossed more than 250 million. Amazingly that puts it to only number 7 on the list of best return on investment for films at least according to "The Numbers" but it's a little rough to compete with "Paranormal" with a minuscule budget of under 20K and a gross of almost 200 million. Rocky was a phenomenon and has stood the test of time, so far, very well. Most interesting to me is some of the back story and lesser known items about the movie. It was supposed to be a darker, or at least it was written that way originally, movie. Balboa threw the fight in the original screenplay because he didn't want to be part of the fight game any longer.
The movie was inspired by a fight between Muhammad Ali and Chuck Wepner. Wepner was given the opportunity to fight Ali for the championship. Wepner wasn't expected to show well at all and he was a plodding fighter much as Rocky Balboa was. Wepner almost went the distance but was TKO'd late in the 15th round. I've watched the video of that final round and Wepner is lucky Ali didn't hit him again like Tyson probably would have. Wepner was just plain done. Anyway...Stallone saw that fight and started to write "Rocky". The name was from Rocky Marciano but the story was about Ali vs. Wepner.
The movie's casting is interesting. At one point Susan Sarandon was considered to play Adrian but she was too good looking. Burt Reynolds, Robert Redford, Ryan O'Neal and James Caan were all suggested by the studio but Stallone successfully appealed to the producers to play the title role. I don't think any of those other actors on the list could have done the job as well. The part just fit Stallone I think. Answer this honestly: Could you imagine anyone else playing any of the major parts? What if Mickey wasn't the penguin (Burgess Meredith) or Paulie wasn't Burt Young? Does that mean the casting was that good or is it just we have grown used to it?
Rocky was the sleeper hit of 1976. It was nominated for ten Oscars and walked away with Best Picture, Best Director and Best Editing. You can say what you like about Stallone but he hit this one WAY out of the park both with his performance and his writing.
There are parts of the move that are better than others, of course. There's a scene where Rocky and a teenage girl are walking home which really has no relevance to the rest of the movie, but I suspect the director was looking for another reason to use his new cool steadicam. This wasn't the first movie to use a steadicam rig but it was close. But I dare anyone to not feel a tingle when you hear "Gonna Fly Now" by Tom Conti rise in volume as Rocky runs up the steps to the Philadelphia Museum of Art. And remember this is more than 30 years after its making. The movie as a whole just works. Rocky is the quintessential underdog . He's a nice guy who finally gets a break and forgives all the slights around him from Mickey's plea to manage him to Paulie's treatment of him and Adrian. He's what everyone thinks they could be deep down.
The movie was inspired by a fight between Muhammad Ali and Chuck Wepner. Wepner was given the opportunity to fight Ali for the championship. Wepner wasn't expected to show well at all and he was a plodding fighter much as Rocky Balboa was. Wepner almost went the distance but was TKO'd late in the 15th round. I've watched the video of that final round and Wepner is lucky Ali didn't hit him again like Tyson probably would have. Wepner was just plain done. Anyway...Stallone saw that fight and started to write "Rocky". The name was from Rocky Marciano but the story was about Ali vs. Wepner.
The movie's casting is interesting. At one point Susan Sarandon was considered to play Adrian but she was too good looking. Burt Reynolds, Robert Redford, Ryan O'Neal and James Caan were all suggested by the studio but Stallone successfully appealed to the producers to play the title role. I don't think any of those other actors on the list could have done the job as well. The part just fit Stallone I think. Answer this honestly: Could you imagine anyone else playing any of the major parts? What if Mickey wasn't the penguin (Burgess Meredith) or Paulie wasn't Burt Young? Does that mean the casting was that good or is it just we have grown used to it?
Rocky was the sleeper hit of 1976. It was nominated for ten Oscars and walked away with Best Picture, Best Director and Best Editing. You can say what you like about Stallone but he hit this one WAY out of the park both with his performance and his writing.
There are parts of the move that are better than others, of course. There's a scene where Rocky and a teenage girl are walking home which really has no relevance to the rest of the movie, but I suspect the director was looking for another reason to use his new cool steadicam. This wasn't the first movie to use a steadicam rig but it was close. But I dare anyone to not feel a tingle when you hear "Gonna Fly Now" by Tom Conti rise in volume as Rocky runs up the steps to the Philadelphia Museum of Art. And remember this is more than 30 years after its making. The movie as a whole just works. Rocky is the quintessential underdog . He's a nice guy who finally gets a break and forgives all the slights around him from Mickey's plea to manage him to Paulie's treatment of him and Adrian. He's what everyone thinks they could be deep down.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
High Noon (1952) #27
"High Noon" is not just a western. It's a story of ordinary, good people, refusing to stand up for what is right, who ultimately cause ruin for the good person who's doing the right thing. More specifically, it can be directly linked to the nasty business of Hollywood blacklisting in the 1940's and 50's. The blacklisting was a failure of Hollywood, or of the intellectuals involved, or perhaps society as a whole. The studios were complicit as was much of Hollywood; they allowed it to happen. When someone is doing the right thing and the "good people" don't join the fight, then almost anything can happen. This is exactly what took place in "High Noon", where a Marshall faces four gunmen alone or in Hollywood, where hundreds and hundreds of professionals had their lives diminished or ruined.
The screenplay was written by Carl Foreman who was blacklisted by HUAC before the movie was released. He fled to England and later worked on another movie on this list ("The Bridge on the River Kwai"). He was a member of the communist party in the late 30's so I guess he deserved it, right? He refused to name names and was therefore considered an 'uncooperative witness' so..."Buh Bye Now".
Back to the movie at hand. Gary Cooper is a prime example of what the hero in a western should be. He is standing alone against all odds and refusing to leave or run or back down, even when those around him are doing so. Refusing to give up and willing to die for ideals and nothing more. This probably relates all the way back to the birth of Christianity. Christ had the choice to leave or run or back down, but he didn't. If you have faith, you believe he was given the opportunity to back down in the Garden of Gethsemane but didn't. He stayed the course for higher ideals. Perhaps this is why the story resonates so strongly in western culture.
One of the first examples of revisionist Westerns, the movie made some departures from the romanticism of earlier westerns. Cooper was 50 when this movie was made and there were criticisms that he was too old to play the part. He was almost 30 years older than Grace Kelly who played his Quaker wife. He looked older than he was at times because they used little to no makeup, which helped to show the wrinkles and worry on his face. For most of the characters in the movie there is sweat and dirt, dust and grit. There isn't a lot of the violence of later revisionist movies but this is a very early example.
The film follows the real chronology of the events. There are some different cuts but it was released with a matching run time to the 85 minutes of the story between the wedding and the final departure from the town. "24" did that more than 50 years later as a real time narrative. These 85 minutes are spent while the Marshall tries to prepare for the return of Frank Miller from prison to be joined by three members of the old gang. Most hope there won't be trouble when Miller returns, but everyone knows there will be. No one is willing to stand up to the trouble.
Throughout "High Noon", clocks are used as an effective means to build the suspense. The movie follows the gradual disillusionment of Cooper as he watches everyone around him refuse to stand up. The judge who sentenced the returning murderer is first, his deputy Pell (Lloyd Bridges) is second and that sets up the realization this isn't going to go well for "Coop". His woman, friends, co-workers and fellow town members all can't or won't or hide to avoid the trouble. Side note (sorry, yes it's another one) Bridges was Grey Listed by HUAC and Cooper et. al. worked to get him on the film.
The movie is wonderful. I might have mentioned in another post that Grace Kelly is a knockout. Her film debut was a fine start and while the character is a little one dimensional she could stand there mute for most of the movie really. Cooper is the archetype for the strong silent type...well almost silent...and many of the character actors are superb. A really young Col. Potter of MASH fame (Harry Morgan) and an almost baby faced Jack Elam make appearances. One of Cooper's best friends is Thomas Mitchell who played the bumbling Uncle Billy in Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life". An interesting bit of trivia is this was the movie debut of both Kelly and Lee Van Cleef. Kelly wins this one since she has lines of dialog. Van Cleef doesn't have a one.
John Wayne hated the movie and thought it was extremely "Un-American" but ironically accepted the Oscar for Cooper's win of best actor for him since Gary wasn't able to attend. Wayne was credited with saying he would never regret helping to blacklist the screenwriter Foreman. Wayne and the director of yesterday's blog movie ("Bringing Up Baby") made "Rio Bravo" in response to "High Noon". They did see the talent of Dimitri Tiomkin, however, who did the scores for both movies. "Rio Bravo" then spawned "El Dorado" which was also a Hawkes/Duke collaboration.
Without any of the background and the political backdrop of the time, the movie should still be here. With that additional flavour, it most certainly should be here.
The screenplay was written by Carl Foreman who was blacklisted by HUAC before the movie was released. He fled to England and later worked on another movie on this list ("The Bridge on the River Kwai"). He was a member of the communist party in the late 30's so I guess he deserved it, right? He refused to name names and was therefore considered an 'uncooperative witness' so..."Buh Bye Now".
Back to the movie at hand. Gary Cooper is a prime example of what the hero in a western should be. He is standing alone against all odds and refusing to leave or run or back down, even when those around him are doing so. Refusing to give up and willing to die for ideals and nothing more. This probably relates all the way back to the birth of Christianity. Christ had the choice to leave or run or back down, but he didn't. If you have faith, you believe he was given the opportunity to back down in the Garden of Gethsemane but didn't. He stayed the course for higher ideals. Perhaps this is why the story resonates so strongly in western culture.
One of the first examples of revisionist Westerns, the movie made some departures from the romanticism of earlier westerns. Cooper was 50 when this movie was made and there were criticisms that he was too old to play the part. He was almost 30 years older than Grace Kelly who played his Quaker wife. He looked older than he was at times because they used little to no makeup, which helped to show the wrinkles and worry on his face. For most of the characters in the movie there is sweat and dirt, dust and grit. There isn't a lot of the violence of later revisionist movies but this is a very early example.
The film follows the real chronology of the events. There are some different cuts but it was released with a matching run time to the 85 minutes of the story between the wedding and the final departure from the town. "24" did that more than 50 years later as a real time narrative. These 85 minutes are spent while the Marshall tries to prepare for the return of Frank Miller from prison to be joined by three members of the old gang. Most hope there won't be trouble when Miller returns, but everyone knows there will be. No one is willing to stand up to the trouble.
Throughout "High Noon", clocks are used as an effective means to build the suspense. The movie follows the gradual disillusionment of Cooper as he watches everyone around him refuse to stand up. The judge who sentenced the returning murderer is first, his deputy Pell (Lloyd Bridges) is second and that sets up the realization this isn't going to go well for "Coop". His woman, friends, co-workers and fellow town members all can't or won't or hide to avoid the trouble. Side note (sorry, yes it's another one) Bridges was Grey Listed by HUAC and Cooper et. al. worked to get him on the film.
The movie is wonderful. I might have mentioned in another post that Grace Kelly is a knockout. Her film debut was a fine start and while the character is a little one dimensional she could stand there mute for most of the movie really. Cooper is the archetype for the strong silent type...well almost silent...and many of the character actors are superb. A really young Col. Potter of MASH fame (Harry Morgan) and an almost baby faced Jack Elam make appearances. One of Cooper's best friends is Thomas Mitchell who played the bumbling Uncle Billy in Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life". An interesting bit of trivia is this was the movie debut of both Kelly and Lee Van Cleef. Kelly wins this one since she has lines of dialog. Van Cleef doesn't have a one.
John Wayne hated the movie and thought it was extremely "Un-American" but ironically accepted the Oscar for Cooper's win of best actor for him since Gary wasn't able to attend. Wayne was credited with saying he would never regret helping to blacklist the screenwriter Foreman. Wayne and the director of yesterday's blog movie ("Bringing Up Baby") made "Rio Bravo" in response to "High Noon". They did see the talent of Dimitri Tiomkin, however, who did the scores for both movies. "Rio Bravo" then spawned "El Dorado" which was also a Hawkes/Duke collaboration.
Without any of the background and the political backdrop of the time, the movie should still be here. With that additional flavour, it most certainly should be here.
True Grit - Justice is Done
When I first heard the brothers Coen (Ethan and Joel) were doing a remake of True Grit I was excited. I knew it would be at least a little revisionist and I like revisionist westerns. I always thought the story was good and I was pretty sure they would do it well. They did!
The cast is great. While one could argue no one could ever do the part after John Wayne did it, Jeff Bridges rasped his way through a great performance. The story is engaging and the characters complex and multi-dimensional. Reuben J. "Rooster" Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) is tough while flawed, pragmatic, but with a higher sense of justice. As with many Coen brothers films there really isn't a hero. There are characters that may at one point be heroic and the next despicable. Rooster does that epic charge - reins in teeth and guns a blazin' against four outlaws however. Fantastic.
The gem in this movie, for me, was Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) with a remarkable performance of the character. The two scenes with Col. Stonehill (Dakin Matthews) are pure gold. The look of resignation, strike that, fear on Stonehill's face when he asks:
"Are we trading again?"
Brilliant!
Mattie is younger in this version and that works. She is headstrong to a fault and much like the modern US society is quite litigious (sorry but a little dig I couldn't resist). The Texas Ranger admits she's earned her spurs because she does show true grit. Willing to go one on one with any adult at 14 she is a formidable character. I suspect we'll see much more of Steinfeld in the future. This role earned her a nomination for supporting actress. I don't think anyone will beat out Melissa Leo for her role in "The Fighter" but we'll see.
Matt Damon plays LaBoeuf the Texas Ranger and has that same almost too clean sort of look as Glenn Campbell. As was said in the trailer for the original he plays "A Texas Ranger wearing britches a size too big". Barry Pepper plays "Lucky" Ned Pepper (I wonder if they almost didn't cast him because of the name collision). On a side note Barry Pepper was born in the small town of Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada in which I lived for a few years. He has a rather interesting bio actually. Josh Brolin plays the villain Tom Chaney who was played by a much older Jeff Corey in the original. They all play the characters with their own interpretation. All of them are believable and all of them deserve credit.
If you've recently watched the 1969 version, or you have a great memory, you'll see, and hear, many similarities. More than a smidge of the dialog is the same. Some of the scenes are eerily familiar. Ethan and Joel went back to the source novel rather than to the Marguerite Roberts screenplay for inspiration. One can only assume the striking similarities in dialog and scenes are because both worked from the same source and the quality of that novel.
The cast is great. The direction great. The cinematography great (It earned Roger Deakins an Academy Award nomination to go with the one he got for his work on "O Brother, Where Art Thou?") The story great. The movie great. This could easily win Best Picture and I wouldn't argue much if it did. Justice done to both the novel and the 1969 classic. Well done!
I do have one question however. Did the directors decide that Wayne should be missing his left eye and Bridges his right? Or was that just actor's preference?
The cast is great. While one could argue no one could ever do the part after John Wayne did it, Jeff Bridges rasped his way through a great performance. The story is engaging and the characters complex and multi-dimensional. Reuben J. "Rooster" Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) is tough while flawed, pragmatic, but with a higher sense of justice. As with many Coen brothers films there really isn't a hero. There are characters that may at one point be heroic and the next despicable. Rooster does that epic charge - reins in teeth and guns a blazin' against four outlaws however. Fantastic.
The gem in this movie, for me, was Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) with a remarkable performance of the character. The two scenes with Col. Stonehill (Dakin Matthews) are pure gold. The look of resignation, strike that, fear on Stonehill's face when he asks:
"Are we trading again?"
Brilliant!
Mattie is younger in this version and that works. She is headstrong to a fault and much like the modern US society is quite litigious (sorry but a little dig I couldn't resist). The Texas Ranger admits she's earned her spurs because she does show true grit. Willing to go one on one with any adult at 14 she is a formidable character. I suspect we'll see much more of Steinfeld in the future. This role earned her a nomination for supporting actress. I don't think anyone will beat out Melissa Leo for her role in "The Fighter" but we'll see.
Matt Damon plays LaBoeuf the Texas Ranger and has that same almost too clean sort of look as Glenn Campbell. As was said in the trailer for the original he plays "A Texas Ranger wearing britches a size too big". Barry Pepper plays "Lucky" Ned Pepper (I wonder if they almost didn't cast him because of the name collision). On a side note Barry Pepper was born in the small town of Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada in which I lived for a few years. He has a rather interesting bio actually. Josh Brolin plays the villain Tom Chaney who was played by a much older Jeff Corey in the original. They all play the characters with their own interpretation. All of them are believable and all of them deserve credit.
If you've recently watched the 1969 version, or you have a great memory, you'll see, and hear, many similarities. More than a smidge of the dialog is the same. Some of the scenes are eerily familiar. Ethan and Joel went back to the source novel rather than to the Marguerite Roberts screenplay for inspiration. One can only assume the striking similarities in dialog and scenes are because both worked from the same source and the quality of that novel.
The cast is great. The direction great. The cinematography great (It earned Roger Deakins an Academy Award nomination to go with the one he got for his work on "O Brother, Where Art Thou?") The story great. The movie great. This could easily win Best Picture and I wouldn't argue much if it did. Justice done to both the novel and the 1969 classic. Well done!
I do have one question however. Did the directors decide that Wayne should be missing his left eye and Bridges his right? Or was that just actor's preference?
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Bringing Up Baby (1938) #88
So how is "Bringing Up Baby" related to Sicily and more specifically, Messina? Well the roots of screwball comedy lie in Shakespeare, and the most known example would be "Much Ado About Nothing" which takes place in the port of Messina.
See...simple. If I was really SMRT, I would have known that without doing any research but, sadly, that's not the case. Screwball comedies are one of the most enduring forms of comedy for film and the AFI list has at least one example ("Some Like it Hot"), if not two, ("Tootsie"). Seems a lot of folks consider screwball comedies as being associated with the 30's and 40's but not much since. I disagree. The form is still vibrant and many romantic comedies pay homage to the screwball roots.
This is first screwball comedy I've written about for this blog and it's great. Cary Grant is probably my favorite comedic actor of that period. His delivery is iconic and he was a marvelous performer. His athleticism is highlighted in this movie by his many falls, trips, and other run-ins with stationary objects. For me, he was just always cool even when he was picking himself up from some slapstick. Look for the shot where he motions like he's going to strangle Hepburn. Very similar in timing and effect to the scene in "The General" when Annabelle Lee starts cleaning up the engine compartment. I missed that similarity to Keaton, but it was mentioned on Peter Bogdonovich's commentary.
Katharine was then, is now, and forever will be a treasure. At the time of this film's release she was "box office poison" and didn't leave that behind until a couple of years later with the release of the film version of "The Philadelphia Story" (which also made the list and also stars Grant). After that she never looked back. She is the star of three movies on the AFI list. While Cary didn't manage a win for best actor in his career, Katharine picked up no less than four with twelve nominations.
The film follows the extremely square zoologist Dr. David Huxly's (Grant) misadventures at the hands of Susan Vance (Hepburn) as she pursues his affections. Throw in a little humor from the leopard that shows up in Vance's apartment, a fossil buried by a dog, a dash of mistaken identity, a little cross dressing, trying to keep an identity secret and finally, what some argue is the first use of the term gay to describe homosexuality in popular culture and you have an entertaining couple of hours. Cary Grant wandering out of the bathroom in the negligee and his hop as he says "Because I just went gay all of a sudden!" is priceless. Whether the meaning was happy or homosexual is still up for debate. At this point we'll probably never know for sure.
Howard Hawkes said he made a mistake on the film because everyone was nuts. He wished there were more normal folks in the film but all of the characters were crazy. With later movies such as "His Girl Friday" as part of his more than 40 directorial credits, I think it's safe to say he learned his lesson. I also didn't know that Howard and Howard collaborated on the original "Scarface" in 1932 or that later he would direct Cary Grant and Marilyn Monroe in "Monkey Business". He was a great director.
The supporting cast is marvelous with Charles Ruggles, Barry Fitzgerald and May Robinson. Whether it was Hepburn or the movie itself that hurt its box office performance isn't clear. Over the years the film has risen in the eyes of the public and the critics and climbed seven spots on the AFI list. A film made in 1938 that has my 17 year old son laughing out loud at places must have done something right.
See...simple. If I was really SMRT, I would have known that without doing any research but, sadly, that's not the case. Screwball comedies are one of the most enduring forms of comedy for film and the AFI list has at least one example ("Some Like it Hot"), if not two, ("Tootsie"). Seems a lot of folks consider screwball comedies as being associated with the 30's and 40's but not much since. I disagree. The form is still vibrant and many romantic comedies pay homage to the screwball roots.
This is first screwball comedy I've written about for this blog and it's great. Cary Grant is probably my favorite comedic actor of that period. His delivery is iconic and he was a marvelous performer. His athleticism is highlighted in this movie by his many falls, trips, and other run-ins with stationary objects. For me, he was just always cool even when he was picking himself up from some slapstick. Look for the shot where he motions like he's going to strangle Hepburn. Very similar in timing and effect to the scene in "The General" when Annabelle Lee starts cleaning up the engine compartment. I missed that similarity to Keaton, but it was mentioned on Peter Bogdonovich's commentary.
Katharine was then, is now, and forever will be a treasure. At the time of this film's release she was "box office poison" and didn't leave that behind until a couple of years later with the release of the film version of "The Philadelphia Story" (which also made the list and also stars Grant). After that she never looked back. She is the star of three movies on the AFI list. While Cary didn't manage a win for best actor in his career, Katharine picked up no less than four with twelve nominations.
The film follows the extremely square zoologist Dr. David Huxly's (Grant) misadventures at the hands of Susan Vance (Hepburn) as she pursues his affections. Throw in a little humor from the leopard that shows up in Vance's apartment, a fossil buried by a dog, a dash of mistaken identity, a little cross dressing, trying to keep an identity secret and finally, what some argue is the first use of the term gay to describe homosexuality in popular culture and you have an entertaining couple of hours. Cary Grant wandering out of the bathroom in the negligee and his hop as he says "Because I just went gay all of a sudden!" is priceless. Whether the meaning was happy or homosexual is still up for debate. At this point we'll probably never know for sure.
Howard Hawkes said he made a mistake on the film because everyone was nuts. He wished there were more normal folks in the film but all of the characters were crazy. With later movies such as "His Girl Friday" as part of his more than 40 directorial credits, I think it's safe to say he learned his lesson. I also didn't know that Howard and Howard collaborated on the original "Scarface" in 1932 or that later he would direct Cary Grant and Marilyn Monroe in "Monkey Business". He was a great director.
The supporting cast is marvelous with Charles Ruggles, Barry Fitzgerald and May Robinson. Whether it was Hepburn or the movie itself that hurt its box office performance isn't clear. Over the years the film has risen in the eyes of the public and the critics and climbed seven spots on the AFI list. A film made in 1938 that has my 17 year old son laughing out loud at places must have done something right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)