It has been a few weeks since the last film night. I was off exploring the great west. And it was beautiful. It made me appreciate the great outdoors again, the beauty that surrounds us, and the miracle that is the human body. It was strenuous, it was taxing, and it was tiring...for me. But I made it out alive. Bruised, sure. Battered, a little bit. Bleeding, of course. My muscles ached, my tired feet continued to press on step after step. I kept speaking to myself to continue. Counted the steps. Repeated left foot, right foot, left foot, right foot. The fatigue that set in with this hiking excursion, made me come to the realization that these feelings of fatigue, and the goal of making it just a little bit further, fit like puzzle pieces with our films for this evening.
Our first movie, a short film by Martin Scorsese, was shot in 1967, in color, and was an NYU student film. It is The Big Shave. Essentially the plot is a this: a young man wakes up and begins shaving. Everything starts out normally, but then you start to see the cuts and the blood. Unfazed, the young man continues to shave his face. The alternate title to the film is Viet '67, and the film could be interpreted, with a big clue from the alternate title, as a metaphor for the United State's involvement in the Vietnam conflict, and even though it was a bad idea, an indifferent US (the man), continues to pursue the conflict, inflicting, stroke after stroke, more harm to itself, than the enemy (stubble). There are some early characteristics that are quintessentially Scorsese even from this early short of his. A quick introduction to a man who would be a leading voice in the American New Wave, and a champion of cinematic arts, and film preservation. A man who's films are synonymous with a striking voice of violence, and struggle, guilt and pursuing the individual's American dream. The quick cuts, and the close-up of the action are an indelible mark, a watermark, a signature of Marty's. The film is simple and straight forward, and yet it has humor, and grittiness. I felt that the use of blood in this film, along with its iconic director tied nicely in with our feature presentation.
*
Of all the pictures that Martin Scorsese has created, of all the cinematic moments, of all the iconic scenes and lines, none are talked about with more adoration, more sincerity, and more lovingly than Raging Bull. Thus far, it's Scorsese's Schindler's List. And he's still got a few years left. There is, on the radar, another collaboration with Pesci and DeNiro along with Pacino in the works. Scorsese has made film after film of solid work. Even when he experiments with uncharacteristic subject matter, like a strong woman driven narrative, or a gaudy musical, or Victorian era period piece, his work is interesting. But more importantly, his work is consistent. I am one who can appreciate performances in a shitty film, and I can appreciate great direction and cinematography in a shitty film (i.e. Dark Shadows). I have viewed almost the the entire oeuvre of Scorsese and have appreciated his films, and have been blown away on more than one occasion. Raging Bull is one of those films. It has appeared time and time again on top ten films lists, and appears on AFI's list of 100 greatest American films in the number four spot. In 1990, the first year it was eligible, it was chosen to be included in the National Film Registry as a film that is aesthetically and culturally significant.
DeNiro read the book that the film is loosely based on when he was on the set of The Godfather Part II, and immediately consulted Marty that this is a film they should make together. Marty went on to make a few more films, a couple with DeNiro. DeNiro, I'm sure, pestered him every now and then about the potential of this film. Scorsese was not a sports guy, he didn't feel like it was a project that suited him. He has said, "A boxer? I don't like boxing...Even as a kid, I always thought that boxing was boring...It was something I couldn't, wouldn't grasp." So, he pushed it aside. When Scorsese, addicted to cocaine, almost died of an overdose, he was approached again by a supportive DeNiro. DeNiro brought up Raging Bull again. Scorsese dove into the project, not necessarily for his sake, but for DeNiro's. After a decent and straightforward draft of the script was written, they brought in Paul Schrader, who wrote Taxi Driver, to rewrite it. He included, through his research, the large brother arch that was absent in the book. Scorsese had problems getting funding, and wanted to cast lesser known actors in roles. Enter Joe Pesci, a guy who had done one other movie before, and had retired from acting and was running a restaurant in Jersey. When Scorsese and DeNiro saw the film and were impressed, they approached him for the role. He relented. Pesci was instrumental in suggesting his longtime comedy partner and friend Frank Vincent for a role, as well as unknown Cathy Moriarty for the female lead. They had their players, they had a script, and they finally got funding. Scorsese and DeNiro went to St. Maarten and did extensive re-writes on the script that suited their tastes, their sensibilities, and the penchant for improvisation. When they began filming, they consulted, movie greats like Michael Powell, who helped Martin make the decision to shoot the film in black and white, to distinguish it from other boxing films being produced, such as Rocky. Scorsese also brought in choreographers to help with the boxing scenes. Marty made a conscious decision to film inside the ring, and not outside, like other boxing films of the day. This lead to innovation in camera placement and movements. Both DeNiro and Scorsese did a lot of research by going to and participating in boxing matches. DeNiro, with the real LaMotta as his trainer, competed in three boxing matches winning two of the three. Scorsese attended several matches and noted the blood soaked sponge and the ropes dripping with blood as particularly eye catching. He went on the include these images in the film.
There is so much preparation that went into this film, and it shows. Not to mention the years of preparation from DeNiro as he thought about this project. From the opening scene you're hooked. The malaise of the slowly dancing boxer in black and white with light bulbs flashing occasionally. The sentimental music playing as if to warn the audience, "this is not movie with a happy ending" The film is book ended by Jake LaMotta soliloquizing. The rest of the narrative is linear as we go through aspects of his life and his desires to not just be a contender, but be a champion. We see him box in few scenes. Altogether, the boxing scenes, though beautifully choreographed, make up less than thirteen minutes of the film, this is classified as a sports movie.
The film itself is beautiful. It is poetry. Because of the way it is shot we have this subtle voyeuristic approach to the events depicted. The cinematography is breathtaking. Besides the stark images of the blood soaked sponge and dripping ropes as previously noted, the last fight with Robinson with the Jaws shot, and Robinson bringing his fists down to pummel LaMotta again is so beautiful it should be on the cover of a magazine. The acting is incredible, and at times, very off-putting. It makes you wince. DeNiro's stare at the dance is solid. He somehow manages to convey everything he is thinking, despite the blankness of his stare. It makes no sense to me. The interaction with Vikki at the fence, a metaphor for the barriers that LaMotta was going to have to break, but also the obstacles in his and Vikki relationship throughout the film, is astonishing. Even more astonishing that interaction was improvised. Joey punching his brother in the face is also a hard scene to watch as you realize that those are actual punches. Or the scene near the end of the movie when DeNiro is punch the jail cell walls and headbutting it. So much pain and aggression and loss is conveyed in near wordless scenes. There's this golden age of cinema, and French New Wave way that many of the scenes were shot, and you can't help but appreciate the camera movements. They're so subtle, but so effective. The dialogue is crude, the characters are crude, even the act of punching someone so much their feet give way is crude, but the mise-en-scene, the framing, the cinematography, the direction, is refined and lovely. There are scenes of humor throughout that buoy up the denser scenes, and I appreciate the inclusion.
After the bulk of the film was completed, Scorsese shut down production, so that DeNiro could put on 60 pounds to play the older, fatter LaMotta. Those scenes are lethargic, and husky. We see the decline of a once great boxer, reduced to managing a squalid nightclub, which gets him into trouble. A parallel decline also happened when studios failed to pick up Raging Bull. Scorsese felt that this would be the last film he would ever make, and was meticulous in the cutting of the film. If this was to be his last film, he want complete control of the final product. The post-production to a little longer than anticipated, and, ultimately the film was completed. It's run at the box office was sub par, and made a paltry amount. However, the rave critical downpour elevated it into a cult classic after it left theatres, and garnered many nominations and two academy awards one for editing, and one for DeNiro's intense, almost psychotic and definitely mesmeric performance. This film goes down in film history as a classic. It melds many styles and and much input by many individuals, and this most assuredly stands out as Scorsese's choicest film. A highly recommended film if you haven't seen it.
****
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Fireworks/ A Clockwork Orange
It seems to be a very hectic weekend for me. A lot of things that were beyond my control happened that caused me to act. Many people needed my help and I heeded their beck and call. I have chosen two very controversial films for this weekend's film night. Fireworks by Kenneth Anger, and A Clockwork Orange by Stanley Kubrick.
First up, Fireworks a significant film from 1947. This was directed by Kenneth Anger at the age of 20 during a weekend when his parents were out of town. It is silent save for a spoken prologue. According to sources, this film was inspired by the Zoot Suit Riots of 1944, in which flamboyantly dressed Mexicans were beaten by sailors. It plays as a reactionary dream to those events. Anger plays the dreamer, the main character in the film. He discovered his homosexuality early in life and explored in through film, what very few film makers at that time were doing. He studied film at USC, and made an indelible mark with this short. He waited a year before he made public showings of it, and it garnered much praise and support from acclaimed men of the film and stage: most notably, Jean Cocteau and Tennessee Williams. Due to this films images and subject matter, Anger was hit with obscenity charges two decades before Lenny Bruce, and it was later dropped as not obscene, but a work of art.
When I watched this for the first time, I wrote my friend and simply said, "I'm blown away!" To think that a 20 year old could make something so bold, so brave, so emotive, so impactful, so visionary, and reactionary, and with something to say boggles the mind. I even watched it again. It begins with a the prologue, and an image of a sailor holding an incapacitated dreamer. It cuts to the dreamer waking up naked to a series of photos of the sailor holding the dreamer. He gets dressed, puts the photos in the fireplace, and enters a bathroom labelled 'Gents' inside, in an almost dream-like world, the dreamer encounters a sailor at the bar, who shows off for the dreamer by flexing his muscles. The dreamer takes out a cigarette and asks for a light, at which point the sailor slaps him and beats him. It cuts to a sailor picking up a flaming bundle of sticks to help light the dreamer's cigarette. After smoking for a bit, the dreamer is confronted by a group on sailors with chains to jump the dreamer. The dreamer's chest is ripped open showing a compass inside his heart. Milk is poured on him, and suddenly he comes out of the bathroom. The sailor lights a phallic firework and it goes off like sparkling jism, as a Christmas tree is lit and is is thrown in the fireplace burning the photos and the tree. It jumps to the dreamer in bed with a sailor, and the film ends.
There is so much going on in this film. Sure there may be so framing issues, lighting issues, and maybe a few scenes should have been cut down a few seconds, but come on! Twenty years old. I've dabbled in short films and nothing even compares to this. I am very fond of many of the images contained in the film. I love the firework crotch. The witty gayisms interspersed throughout. How the sailor lights the fag (cigarette) with a fagot (bundle of sticks). The symbolism of the cigarette representing homosexuality is fantastic and the heart representing the moral compass for each individual and not for society to decide was also head of its time.. I enjoyed the placement of the camera as the sailors walked past showing only their crotches as they approached the dream to jump him. I apologize that this is disjointed, I am just speaking with bits that popped out at me. I found this film to be a revelation. It was way ahead of its time, and beautifully shot. To think, also, that this was filmed in just one weekend is baffling. A wonderful and lasting image is hand motive throughout the film. In the beginning is a broken hand, and is shown in a couple of more shots, when it is revealed that the dreamer is in bed with a sailor it shows the hand, complete and whole. The film was inspiring, saddening, even maddening. Maddening because I have not made such an impact to the world of cinema, and this film definitely make an explosion.
**** 1/2
A Clockwork Orange became the second X-rated film to be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, and has become a cult classic since its release in 1971. This was Kubrick's follow-up to 2001, and proved that Kubrick can keep up with his own aesthetic and grandiose film making style. A lot has been written about this film, and it goes without saying that it is one of the best films of the seventies, a decade filled with momentous hits. I remember I started to watch this film for the first time with my best friend ten years ago. My best friends father was my pastor at the time, and we put it on when his parents were away. As we were watching it, we were piqued, but at the same time very nervous. The shit hit the fan, when my best friend's father came home and we stopped the film, ejected the VHS and slid the movie under his couches, and pretended to be doing something else. At the time, we thought it was just taboo to watch the film. We had heard it was a good film, after all, it's been on IMDB's list of 250 best films forever, but we were ignorant of the true aesthetic realities, and brilliant film making contained in the film.
I finally finished the movie a year later, and felt it was worth the watch. Since then, I have seen it at least a half a dozen times, and I have been remarked how good this film really is. Upon this viewing, I have come to the conclusion that 2001 is definitely better than A Clockwork Orange, but, nevertheless, has an enormous amount to say about the government, politics, religion, free will, and violence. In juxtaposition the our short film of the evening, the themes work well together. Where in Fireworks it is a man exploring his possibilities and trying to free himself, and is put down by society, A Clockwork Orange, is about a man who is exploring excess, while snuffing out life, and being controlled by society. It's interesting to note that the Orange in the title could be a reference to a synonym for orangutan, man. So, its about a man, who is predictable in his actions (under certain circumstances), choice is extinguished, and he'll not do certain things like clockwork. Of course, this is just my take.
Speaking of takes, with all Kubrick films, no doubt this film had many sequences with multiple takes. Most notably, the exhaustive takes of the "Singin' in the Rain" rape sequence was too much for the original actress and she had to be replaced, also the shot with the bodybuilder bringing the writer down the steps was shot so many times the bodybuilder, nearly passed out. The film is beautifully shot. Kubrick knew how to frame a shot, knew when to cut, knew when to utilize new and inventive camera techniques and angles. When Alex jumps through the window, Stanley Kubrick decided to drop a camera out of the window and use that footage. His use of angles is effective throughout the film. And, of course, Kubrick's use of music! The decor an art deco, mixed with a retro feel, coupled with interesting and erotic art pieces throughout. The thing that strikes me throughout the film is how frenetic everything is. The pace of the film is calm, but the performances, the furnishings and scene design, even the Beethoven songs are frenetic and add to the heightened fear and frenzy of Alex DeLarge. He starts out the film as a free hedonist, doing what he wanted to do, but became a cog in the government. A wild 180 caused by the Ludovic treatment allowed for fanciful and frenzy deco and performances. This is a outstanding piece of cinema, and stands out from other films by Kubrick. Some of the themes continued to be explored in Kubrick's latter films, most notably Eyes Wide Shut. I enjoy this film, like I enjoy most all of Kubrick's films. This stands as a testament to his genius and his sense of style.
****
First up, Fireworks a significant film from 1947. This was directed by Kenneth Anger at the age of 20 during a weekend when his parents were out of town. It is silent save for a spoken prologue. According to sources, this film was inspired by the Zoot Suit Riots of 1944, in which flamboyantly dressed Mexicans were beaten by sailors. It plays as a reactionary dream to those events. Anger plays the dreamer, the main character in the film. He discovered his homosexuality early in life and explored in through film, what very few film makers at that time were doing. He studied film at USC, and made an indelible mark with this short. He waited a year before he made public showings of it, and it garnered much praise and support from acclaimed men of the film and stage: most notably, Jean Cocteau and Tennessee Williams. Due to this films images and subject matter, Anger was hit with obscenity charges two decades before Lenny Bruce, and it was later dropped as not obscene, but a work of art.
When I watched this for the first time, I wrote my friend and simply said, "I'm blown away!" To think that a 20 year old could make something so bold, so brave, so emotive, so impactful, so visionary, and reactionary, and with something to say boggles the mind. I even watched it again. It begins with a the prologue, and an image of a sailor holding an incapacitated dreamer. It cuts to the dreamer waking up naked to a series of photos of the sailor holding the dreamer. He gets dressed, puts the photos in the fireplace, and enters a bathroom labelled 'Gents' inside, in an almost dream-like world, the dreamer encounters a sailor at the bar, who shows off for the dreamer by flexing his muscles. The dreamer takes out a cigarette and asks for a light, at which point the sailor slaps him and beats him. It cuts to a sailor picking up a flaming bundle of sticks to help light the dreamer's cigarette. After smoking for a bit, the dreamer is confronted by a group on sailors with chains to jump the dreamer. The dreamer's chest is ripped open showing a compass inside his heart. Milk is poured on him, and suddenly he comes out of the bathroom. The sailor lights a phallic firework and it goes off like sparkling jism, as a Christmas tree is lit and is is thrown in the fireplace burning the photos and the tree. It jumps to the dreamer in bed with a sailor, and the film ends.
There is so much going on in this film. Sure there may be so framing issues, lighting issues, and maybe a few scenes should have been cut down a few seconds, but come on! Twenty years old. I've dabbled in short films and nothing even compares to this. I am very fond of many of the images contained in the film. I love the firework crotch. The witty gayisms interspersed throughout. How the sailor lights the fag (cigarette) with a fagot (bundle of sticks). The symbolism of the cigarette representing homosexuality is fantastic and the heart representing the moral compass for each individual and not for society to decide was also head of its time.. I enjoyed the placement of the camera as the sailors walked past showing only their crotches as they approached the dream to jump him. I apologize that this is disjointed, I am just speaking with bits that popped out at me. I found this film to be a revelation. It was way ahead of its time, and beautifully shot. To think, also, that this was filmed in just one weekend is baffling. A wonderful and lasting image is hand motive throughout the film. In the beginning is a broken hand, and is shown in a couple of more shots, when it is revealed that the dreamer is in bed with a sailor it shows the hand, complete and whole. The film was inspiring, saddening, even maddening. Maddening because I have not made such an impact to the world of cinema, and this film definitely make an explosion.
**** 1/2
A Clockwork Orange became the second X-rated film to be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, and has become a cult classic since its release in 1971. This was Kubrick's follow-up to 2001, and proved that Kubrick can keep up with his own aesthetic and grandiose film making style. A lot has been written about this film, and it goes without saying that it is one of the best films of the seventies, a decade filled with momentous hits. I remember I started to watch this film for the first time with my best friend ten years ago. My best friends father was my pastor at the time, and we put it on when his parents were away. As we were watching it, we were piqued, but at the same time very nervous. The shit hit the fan, when my best friend's father came home and we stopped the film, ejected the VHS and slid the movie under his couches, and pretended to be doing something else. At the time, we thought it was just taboo to watch the film. We had heard it was a good film, after all, it's been on IMDB's list of 250 best films forever, but we were ignorant of the true aesthetic realities, and brilliant film making contained in the film.
I finally finished the movie a year later, and felt it was worth the watch. Since then, I have seen it at least a half a dozen times, and I have been remarked how good this film really is. Upon this viewing, I have come to the conclusion that 2001 is definitely better than A Clockwork Orange, but, nevertheless, has an enormous amount to say about the government, politics, religion, free will, and violence. In juxtaposition the our short film of the evening, the themes work well together. Where in Fireworks it is a man exploring his possibilities and trying to free himself, and is put down by society, A Clockwork Orange, is about a man who is exploring excess, while snuffing out life, and being controlled by society. It's interesting to note that the Orange in the title could be a reference to a synonym for orangutan, man. So, its about a man, who is predictable in his actions (under certain circumstances), choice is extinguished, and he'll not do certain things like clockwork. Of course, this is just my take.
Speaking of takes, with all Kubrick films, no doubt this film had many sequences with multiple takes. Most notably, the exhaustive takes of the "Singin' in the Rain" rape sequence was too much for the original actress and she had to be replaced, also the shot with the bodybuilder bringing the writer down the steps was shot so many times the bodybuilder, nearly passed out. The film is beautifully shot. Kubrick knew how to frame a shot, knew when to cut, knew when to utilize new and inventive camera techniques and angles. When Alex jumps through the window, Stanley Kubrick decided to drop a camera out of the window and use that footage. His use of angles is effective throughout the film. And, of course, Kubrick's use of music! The decor an art deco, mixed with a retro feel, coupled with interesting and erotic art pieces throughout. The thing that strikes me throughout the film is how frenetic everything is. The pace of the film is calm, but the performances, the furnishings and scene design, even the Beethoven songs are frenetic and add to the heightened fear and frenzy of Alex DeLarge. He starts out the film as a free hedonist, doing what he wanted to do, but became a cog in the government. A wild 180 caused by the Ludovic treatment allowed for fanciful and frenzy deco and performances. This is a outstanding piece of cinema, and stands out from other films by Kubrick. Some of the themes continued to be explored in Kubrick's latter films, most notably Eyes Wide Shut. I enjoy this film, like I enjoy most all of Kubrick's films. This stands as a testament to his genius and his sense of style.
****
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Next Set
The next two films we will be watching is Fireworks by Kenneth Anger, and A Clockwork Orange by the late great Stanley Kubrick. So, join me won't you?
Monday, May 12, 2014
Gertie the Dinosaur/ Jurassic Park
Another weekend, another movie night. Tonight's pairings are brought together by a character, if you will. That character is the extinct dinosaur. Both pieces we have for our viewing pleasure are fun and adventurous romps into the adventure/science fiction genre. However, the lightheartedness does dissipate with Jurassic Park. Let us explore both pieces.
Gertie the Dinosaur was released over one hundred years ago in 1914. It was animated by the great American animator Winsor McCay. This was a momentous milestone, and an animated benchmark for future animators including Walt Disney himself. It was also included in the US film registry for preservation. Buster Keaton was inspired by this film, as well as countless other animators and film makers. To me, this film is more of an exercise in the capabilities in animation, than a tremendous work of art. It is not without its merits, though. McCay works with humor with every frame. He apparently brought the exoskeletal imagery to mainstream America; that is to say, he allowed America to see what a dinosaur might look like with its flesh. The animation is rudimentary, save for the last scene where the narrator gets on the back of Gertie and rides her away. It is the best sequence of the movie, and is astonishingly great animation. The five minute plus running time is a tease, but the entire film is, essentially, a teaser to what great animation would become. I fancied this little short, and as we will see, makes an cheeky appearance in our full length feature presentation.
** (two stars strictly because of its pioneering position within animation)
Jurassic Park, upon its release in 1993, was a highlight of 90's cinema. It stands as a right sentinel to the left sentinel of Schindler's List in the pathway of Spielberg's oeuvre. The urban myth was that Crichton, the author of the same titled book this film is based on, was touring a film studio with Spielberg, when he talked about his possible screenplay of a man cloning a dinosaur, at which point Spielberg optioned the rights to the literature to make it into a film. In reality, Spielberg and Crichton were already working together on developing what would later become "E.R." when Crichton told Spielberg about his dinostory*. The events about the studio tour may very well have happened, but the author and director already had an existing working relationship. Needless to say, Crichton turned it into a book which was published in 1990, and Spielberg was able to acquired the rights to the material. The plot simply is this: a group of scientists including: paleontologists, paleobotonists, chaoticians, lawyers, and children get invited to an island off the coast of Costa Rica with hazy explanations as to their respective invitations. It is soon revealed that the owner of the island, eccentric billionaire Richard Hammond, had developed the technology to clone various species of dinosaurs and was going to use them as the piece de resistance for a dinosaur theme park. When, a deus ex machina causes entire species of all female dinosaurs to breed, all hell breaks loose and the amusement park of all amusement parks comes crumbling down. After many near misses, and scrapes with Cretaceous critters, as well as many deaths, and corporate espionage, the survivors flee the island thankful for their lives and with grander respect to the creatures that they have loved, respected, and studied all their lives.
Jurassic Park is one of those films that was fanciful, remarkable, gut-wrenching, and adventurous that caused moviegoers to go back again and again. It was a favorite movie of my childhood, and I adored it. It went on to becoming the highest grossing film of that year, and, ultimately, became the highest grossing film of all-time (excluding inflation) beating out Spielberg's own E.T., but was overcome by James Cameron's Titanic four and a half years later. The film is one, in which, I notice more things and come to better realizations and conclusions. Leaving aside the excised portions of the novel that would have made great scenes in the film, Jurassic Park is still an amazing film. This film, coupled with Schindler's List, are the final chapter in Spielberg's great film making days. He has since gone on to make some duds and few films that shimmer and glint like his great films Schindler's List, E.T., and Jaws. Spielberg, himself, agrees that his two best films are Schindler's List and E.T. Although, I admit, the book is better than the film, but not by much. Upon thumbing through the book, I was transported back to 1999 when I read this book for the first time. Sitting in my bathroom turning page after page, devouring the novel as a raptor would a character in the book. This is why I love this movie, and why my eyes are so bad now.
This film stands as an amazing early rendering of the capabilities of CGI. What Spielberg was soon to remark to his animatronicist while watching a scene of CGI dinosaurs running, was that with the advancements in technology that would allow this look, he was out of a job. He spoke too soon. What relying solely on the merits of CGI would do, would cause a legion of action/adventure/fantasy fans to turn their noses on CGI scenes found in late 90's and early 00's films like Star Wars and the Matrix trilogies. Spielberg was smart enough to properly meld animatronics (autoerotica) with CGI animation. Even traditional animation and a nod to Gertie the Dinosaur makes its way into the milieu of the film. With state of the art CGI and state of the art animatronics, the audience completely believes it. For example, the breathing triceratops is so detailed and life-like, it's amazing to think it was done in 1993. Even spoiled audiences of today regard this film as ahead of its time, and still really good CGI. The live action and CGI blends so well together, and we are able to relax and enjoy the ride. We are able to take in the story and actually feel shocked and even scared.
I love the subtle metaphoric image near the beginning of the film that most moviegoers miss: Dr. Grant, unable to find the male part of his seat belt in the helicopter, makes due with two female ends. This metaphor serves as a theme of the entire film, "life finds a way". Sure, we all laugh at the Nedry squeal at the Costa Rican restaurant with Dodson, or the coy sound effects such as the banana peel slip and fall sfx sprinkled throughout the film. We love Dr. Grant's reluctance with children, and his change throughout the events of the film. We become endeared to annoying characters, and we laugh when Samuel L. Jackson says "hold on to your butts." Fun drinking game: take a shot when Jackson says that line, when someone is killed, when Jurassic or park are used, and when Hammond says "spared no expense" This is a fun movie. It's quotable. It's well shot. Spielberg knows where to put the camera, even if child actresses don't know where to put the flashlight. There's humor sprinkled throughout, and good plot development. What I learned this viewing is how we don't have to wait to get an answer. Almost every time a question is raised we are immediately shown the answer in the next shot or in the next scene. The director wants us to enjoy the film so he doesn't let the questions pile up with no release. He gives us the answers, uncluttered, and unadorned, so that we can get back to watching the events unfold. There's some hacky acting in the film, and sometimes the dialogue leaves something to be desired, but it's totally made up with a cohesive whole. It's a solid movie. The quintessential popcorn flick, and prime example of a summer blockbuster. This film has taken on a life of its own. Spielberg knew this was going to be a big hit, and he capitalized on the merchandising of this film and the subsequent re-release of the film for new audiences to grow to love this film. It has spawned a swarm of inside jokes for me and my friends. And I can't even give a hundreth part of the realizations or the jokes on the details that I have noticed over the years. The scope and the the detail and the logistics that went behind just about every shot of this film is overwhelming for me to even begin to comprehend. I just--I love this movie. Spielberg has stated that he was "just trying to make Jaws on land." I think he definitely made a cup full of water on the dashboard of a modified '93 Explorer splash.
****
*word play fail
Gertie the Dinosaur was released over one hundred years ago in 1914. It was animated by the great American animator Winsor McCay. This was a momentous milestone, and an animated benchmark for future animators including Walt Disney himself. It was also included in the US film registry for preservation. Buster Keaton was inspired by this film, as well as countless other animators and film makers. To me, this film is more of an exercise in the capabilities in animation, than a tremendous work of art. It is not without its merits, though. McCay works with humor with every frame. He apparently brought the exoskeletal imagery to mainstream America; that is to say, he allowed America to see what a dinosaur might look like with its flesh. The animation is rudimentary, save for the last scene where the narrator gets on the back of Gertie and rides her away. It is the best sequence of the movie, and is astonishingly great animation. The five minute plus running time is a tease, but the entire film is, essentially, a teaser to what great animation would become. I fancied this little short, and as we will see, makes an cheeky appearance in our full length feature presentation.
** (two stars strictly because of its pioneering position within animation)
Jurassic Park, upon its release in 1993, was a highlight of 90's cinema. It stands as a right sentinel to the left sentinel of Schindler's List in the pathway of Spielberg's oeuvre. The urban myth was that Crichton, the author of the same titled book this film is based on, was touring a film studio with Spielberg, when he talked about his possible screenplay of a man cloning a dinosaur, at which point Spielberg optioned the rights to the literature to make it into a film. In reality, Spielberg and Crichton were already working together on developing what would later become "E.R." when Crichton told Spielberg about his dinostory*. The events about the studio tour may very well have happened, but the author and director already had an existing working relationship. Needless to say, Crichton turned it into a book which was published in 1990, and Spielberg was able to acquired the rights to the material. The plot simply is this: a group of scientists including: paleontologists, paleobotonists, chaoticians, lawyers, and children get invited to an island off the coast of Costa Rica with hazy explanations as to their respective invitations. It is soon revealed that the owner of the island, eccentric billionaire Richard Hammond, had developed the technology to clone various species of dinosaurs and was going to use them as the piece de resistance for a dinosaur theme park. When, a deus ex machina causes entire species of all female dinosaurs to breed, all hell breaks loose and the amusement park of all amusement parks comes crumbling down. After many near misses, and scrapes with Cretaceous critters, as well as many deaths, and corporate espionage, the survivors flee the island thankful for their lives and with grander respect to the creatures that they have loved, respected, and studied all their lives.
Jurassic Park is one of those films that was fanciful, remarkable, gut-wrenching, and adventurous that caused moviegoers to go back again and again. It was a favorite movie of my childhood, and I adored it. It went on to becoming the highest grossing film of that year, and, ultimately, became the highest grossing film of all-time (excluding inflation) beating out Spielberg's own E.T., but was overcome by James Cameron's Titanic four and a half years later. The film is one, in which, I notice more things and come to better realizations and conclusions. Leaving aside the excised portions of the novel that would have made great scenes in the film, Jurassic Park is still an amazing film. This film, coupled with Schindler's List, are the final chapter in Spielberg's great film making days. He has since gone on to make some duds and few films that shimmer and glint like his great films Schindler's List, E.T., and Jaws. Spielberg, himself, agrees that his two best films are Schindler's List and E.T. Although, I admit, the book is better than the film, but not by much. Upon thumbing through the book, I was transported back to 1999 when I read this book for the first time. Sitting in my bathroom turning page after page, devouring the novel as a raptor would a character in the book. This is why I love this movie, and why my eyes are so bad now.
This film stands as an amazing early rendering of the capabilities of CGI. What Spielberg was soon to remark to his animatronicist while watching a scene of CGI dinosaurs running, was that with the advancements in technology that would allow this look, he was out of a job. He spoke too soon. What relying solely on the merits of CGI would do, would cause a legion of action/adventure/fantasy fans to turn their noses on CGI scenes found in late 90's and early 00's films like Star Wars and the Matrix trilogies. Spielberg was smart enough to properly meld animatronics (autoerotica) with CGI animation. Even traditional animation and a nod to Gertie the Dinosaur makes its way into the milieu of the film. With state of the art CGI and state of the art animatronics, the audience completely believes it. For example, the breathing triceratops is so detailed and life-like, it's amazing to think it was done in 1993. Even spoiled audiences of today regard this film as ahead of its time, and still really good CGI. The live action and CGI blends so well together, and we are able to relax and enjoy the ride. We are able to take in the story and actually feel shocked and even scared.
I love the subtle metaphoric image near the beginning of the film that most moviegoers miss: Dr. Grant, unable to find the male part of his seat belt in the helicopter, makes due with two female ends. This metaphor serves as a theme of the entire film, "life finds a way". Sure, we all laugh at the Nedry squeal at the Costa Rican restaurant with Dodson, or the coy sound effects such as the banana peel slip and fall sfx sprinkled throughout the film. We love Dr. Grant's reluctance with children, and his change throughout the events of the film. We become endeared to annoying characters, and we laugh when Samuel L. Jackson says "hold on to your butts." Fun drinking game: take a shot when Jackson says that line, when someone is killed, when Jurassic or park are used, and when Hammond says "spared no expense" This is a fun movie. It's quotable. It's well shot. Spielberg knows where to put the camera, even if child actresses don't know where to put the flashlight. There's humor sprinkled throughout, and good plot development. What I learned this viewing is how we don't have to wait to get an answer. Almost every time a question is raised we are immediately shown the answer in the next shot or in the next scene. The director wants us to enjoy the film so he doesn't let the questions pile up with no release. He gives us the answers, uncluttered, and unadorned, so that we can get back to watching the events unfold. There's some hacky acting in the film, and sometimes the dialogue leaves something to be desired, but it's totally made up with a cohesive whole. It's a solid movie. The quintessential popcorn flick, and prime example of a summer blockbuster. This film has taken on a life of its own. Spielberg knew this was going to be a big hit, and he capitalized on the merchandising of this film and the subsequent re-release of the film for new audiences to grow to love this film. It has spawned a swarm of inside jokes for me and my friends. And I can't even give a hundreth part of the realizations or the jokes on the details that I have noticed over the years. The scope and the the detail and the logistics that went behind just about every shot of this film is overwhelming for me to even begin to comprehend. I just--I love this movie. Spielberg has stated that he was "just trying to make Jaws on land." I think he definitely made a cup full of water on the dashboard of a modified '93 Explorer splash.
****
*word play fail
Monday, April 21, 2014
Next Set
We'll be watching Gertie the Dinosaur coupled with the very popular Jurassic Park. What a great treat!
Friday, March 28, 2014
The Immigrant/ The Godfather Part II
I am playing catch-up with the film series, as I haven't been in the right frame of mind as of late. These days I feel like a stranger in a familiar land. An outcast. An alien. I want to rise above this and become something great. Someone respected and powerful. Someone loved and beloved. Someone comical. How I am feeling, and my obvious love for great films have led me to these two great movies we will be viewing tonight. The Immigrant by Charles Chaplin (my idol) and The Godfather Part II by Francis Ford Coppola.
First up, The Immigrant. I admit, I am a huge Chaplin fan. His physical humor and his non-verbal wit leaves my sides aching. I have seen all of his full length films, save his final film. And I have seen almost all of his shorts. So, to my surprise, I had never seen The Immigrant. The Immigrant is a 20-minute film about an immigrant's voyage to America. The rocking boat and struggling to maintain equilibrium is an often used image toward the beginning of the film in the first reel. Later, the immigrant cons a conman and has a couple of run-ins with a drunkard. When happening upon a poor woman consoling another destitute femme, the immigrant decides to be a Samaritan and secretly gives her some of the few dollars he owns. A boat guard sees this and assumes the immigrant is pick-pocketing. Upon entering America, the tramp is nearly penniless and hungry. He decides to go into a restaurant for a bite to eat uncaring of how he will pay for the meal. He sees the same dame in the same restaurant that he was accused of pick-pocketing. They strike up an accord. He offers her of his sop, and orders more beans for her. When seeing the maltreatment of a patron who was 10 cents short of his bill, he becomes worried. He prepares for the worst and tries to quickly hone his boxing skills for the inevitable toe to toe. Upon finding that the waiter's trousers had a hole in the pocket allowing change to sluice through, the immigrant goes through several attempts to discreetly pick up the coin. When an artist sits with him and his date, the immigrant takes advantage of the artist's payment of meal and is able to pay for his meal. He leaves with the woman, and they immediately go to get a marriage license to be married.
This is a cute little short. With some good gags. And an interesting commentary on the poverty of the immigrants that are trying to assimilate themselves into American society. Although not expressly shown in the film, it appears that the immigrant adopts well to swindling and stealing to sustain a life in his new environment. The film was written, directed, and starred Charlie Chaplin. Already a famous star, he was given freedom to make this picture. This film was conceived while on set, and was going to be a completely different film with a different plot. Chaplin's first day of filming was a scene where he loses a quarter from his pocket unbeknownst to him, but picks it up from the ground thinking he found more money. Chaplin thought of his destitute situation, and devised the idea that he was an immigrant, penniless, and hungry. The scene where the immigrant kicks the immigration officer in the butt was later used as evidence of Chaplin's "anti-American" attitude which led to his deportation. The events leading to his deportation left a bad taste in his mouth for America. The film is a quick little plot with a little imagination and little social commentary. Needless to say, this is merely a dime in a pocket full of silver dollars in Chaplin's oeuvre.
* 1/2
The Godfather Part II. I won't go into much detail about the plot of the film, except that this is a sequel that won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actor at the Academy Awards. Coppola was granted much more freedom from the studios to make this film because of the enormous success of Part I. Many critics argue that the sequel is slightly superior to the first film, but I am not one of those critics. This film tells the parallel stories of Don Vito Corleone's rise to power, and his son Don Michael Corleone's continued seedy practices and descent into corruption, greed, power, and wealth.
What makes this film great, along with its predecessor, is the acting. Such exceptional acting. One of Pacino's best performances. His collected demeanor in contrast with his explosive anger captivate. From the first film as an innocent, willing, and conflicted member of a mob family, to this volatile, power hungry, corrupt mob boss. It's amazing to watch this transformation. It's a testament to the pedigree of acting phenoms that grace the celluloid in this picture. Lee Strasberg, the acting teacher of Al Pacino and a slew of other notable actors, was coaxed to "come out of retirement" to make this picture. It's one of the few films he ever did, but his performance is up in the pantheon of great performances. John Cazale also makes an indelible mark in the film. His weakness, his insecurities, his vulnerability, his anger. Cazale, himself, did very few films before he was taken too soon, and yet again, his performance just blindsides the audience. It blindsided me, for sure. And let's not forget Robert DeNiro, who won an Oscar for his calculated and brave performance. He studied Brando's performance, and incorporated the mannerisms of the boy who played young Vito. Stellar is all I can say. So many great performances, so little time.
One thing that I am not too fond of in this film is the film stock and the development processes of the film. It's too dark throughout the movie. Or it's too yellow. I watched Apocalypse Now yesterday and compared to this film (both were Blu-ray) Apocalypse Now is so crisp, so clean, so visually appealing. Part II is grainy and 70's. The graininess would be more appropriate in keeping with the tone of early Scorsese like Mean Streets or Taxi Driver, but not this film. The film is well shot. Shooting on film has its advantages and disadvantages. For one, I noticed that the turning of the film within the camera makes the frame shake ever so slightly. An advantage, so I'm told, is that film looks a lot better when shooting night scenes than digital photography. Of course, digital photography was an impossibility in shooting this film, so me bringing it up is an exempli gratia and inconsequential.
The Tramps coming to America, penniless and clueless, really corresponds to the great privilege and strata rising ascent of the penniless and clueless Vito. His meteoric rise to the ranks of one of the most prominent Cosa Nostra leaders,and his influence on his children. Although Vito wanted a different path for Michael, Michael took the good ideals with the bad mentality. His drive and desire for power and destroying the competition ultimately costs him his family. Famiglia being the most important to any Italian patriarch, causes Michael to rethink his path, his life, and priorities in the next installment of the Godfather trilogy. It goes without saying that a theme of this film is power and as the saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Nothing is more true than Michael's behavior, his hybris, his hunger for power. This film is more an allegory; a cautionary tale for the consequences of pride, greed, and power. With the cinematography, the direction, the writing, the innovative parallel story telling, and the music, this film made its way to the forefront of the American New Wave cinema, and has become an endearing piece of art that lead to the many accolades, awards, and its inclusion in the Library of Congress film registry in 1993. One of a kind, unique, masterful, intense, wonderful, gut-wrenching, educational, and entertaining. The Godfather Part II is next to Part I on a towering pedestal, but just an inch shorter. Bellissima!
****1/2
First up, The Immigrant. I admit, I am a huge Chaplin fan. His physical humor and his non-verbal wit leaves my sides aching. I have seen all of his full length films, save his final film. And I have seen almost all of his shorts. So, to my surprise, I had never seen The Immigrant. The Immigrant is a 20-minute film about an immigrant's voyage to America. The rocking boat and struggling to maintain equilibrium is an often used image toward the beginning of the film in the first reel. Later, the immigrant cons a conman and has a couple of run-ins with a drunkard. When happening upon a poor woman consoling another destitute femme, the immigrant decides to be a Samaritan and secretly gives her some of the few dollars he owns. A boat guard sees this and assumes the immigrant is pick-pocketing. Upon entering America, the tramp is nearly penniless and hungry. He decides to go into a restaurant for a bite to eat uncaring of how he will pay for the meal. He sees the same dame in the same restaurant that he was accused of pick-pocketing. They strike up an accord. He offers her of his sop, and orders more beans for her. When seeing the maltreatment of a patron who was 10 cents short of his bill, he becomes worried. He prepares for the worst and tries to quickly hone his boxing skills for the inevitable toe to toe. Upon finding that the waiter's trousers had a hole in the pocket allowing change to sluice through, the immigrant goes through several attempts to discreetly pick up the coin. When an artist sits with him and his date, the immigrant takes advantage of the artist's payment of meal and is able to pay for his meal. He leaves with the woman, and they immediately go to get a marriage license to be married.
This is a cute little short. With some good gags. And an interesting commentary on the poverty of the immigrants that are trying to assimilate themselves into American society. Although not expressly shown in the film, it appears that the immigrant adopts well to swindling and stealing to sustain a life in his new environment. The film was written, directed, and starred Charlie Chaplin. Already a famous star, he was given freedom to make this picture. This film was conceived while on set, and was going to be a completely different film with a different plot. Chaplin's first day of filming was a scene where he loses a quarter from his pocket unbeknownst to him, but picks it up from the ground thinking he found more money. Chaplin thought of his destitute situation, and devised the idea that he was an immigrant, penniless, and hungry. The scene where the immigrant kicks the immigration officer in the butt was later used as evidence of Chaplin's "anti-American" attitude which led to his deportation. The events leading to his deportation left a bad taste in his mouth for America. The film is a quick little plot with a little imagination and little social commentary. Needless to say, this is merely a dime in a pocket full of silver dollars in Chaplin's oeuvre.
* 1/2
The Godfather Part II. I won't go into much detail about the plot of the film, except that this is a sequel that won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actor at the Academy Awards. Coppola was granted much more freedom from the studios to make this film because of the enormous success of Part I. Many critics argue that the sequel is slightly superior to the first film, but I am not one of those critics. This film tells the parallel stories of Don Vito Corleone's rise to power, and his son Don Michael Corleone's continued seedy practices and descent into corruption, greed, power, and wealth.
What makes this film great, along with its predecessor, is the acting. Such exceptional acting. One of Pacino's best performances. His collected demeanor in contrast with his explosive anger captivate. From the first film as an innocent, willing, and conflicted member of a mob family, to this volatile, power hungry, corrupt mob boss. It's amazing to watch this transformation. It's a testament to the pedigree of acting phenoms that grace the celluloid in this picture. Lee Strasberg, the acting teacher of Al Pacino and a slew of other notable actors, was coaxed to "come out of retirement" to make this picture. It's one of the few films he ever did, but his performance is up in the pantheon of great performances. John Cazale also makes an indelible mark in the film. His weakness, his insecurities, his vulnerability, his anger. Cazale, himself, did very few films before he was taken too soon, and yet again, his performance just blindsides the audience. It blindsided me, for sure. And let's not forget Robert DeNiro, who won an Oscar for his calculated and brave performance. He studied Brando's performance, and incorporated the mannerisms of the boy who played young Vito. Stellar is all I can say. So many great performances, so little time.
One thing that I am not too fond of in this film is the film stock and the development processes of the film. It's too dark throughout the movie. Or it's too yellow. I watched Apocalypse Now yesterday and compared to this film (both were Blu-ray) Apocalypse Now is so crisp, so clean, so visually appealing. Part II is grainy and 70's. The graininess would be more appropriate in keeping with the tone of early Scorsese like Mean Streets or Taxi Driver, but not this film. The film is well shot. Shooting on film has its advantages and disadvantages. For one, I noticed that the turning of the film within the camera makes the frame shake ever so slightly. An advantage, so I'm told, is that film looks a lot better when shooting night scenes than digital photography. Of course, digital photography was an impossibility in shooting this film, so me bringing it up is an exempli gratia and inconsequential.
****1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)