Movies 101 - Tokyo Story

Tokyo Story – 136min - NR

Yasujirô Ozu’s vision in the movie takes a snapshot of Tokyo changing from one generation to another.  It takes place around one family comprising of grandparents and adult children and grand children. The Elderly Couple, Shukichi and Tomi Hirayama (Chishu Ryu and Chieko Higashiyama), travel to Tokyo to visit their adult children but they are caught up in their own lives to pay them much attention. The only one who shows them any kindness is their daughter in-law, Noriko (Setsuko Hara), who was widowed during the war.

While they are there the siblings chip in and pay for a trip to a resort so they can free up the room they are staying in for a meeting.  But the night life at the resort is too loud and disruptive so they come home early. Noriko again steps in to assist the family and invites them to stay with her.  During the long trip home Tomi falls ill and passes away. The family is now faced with going out to the country for the funeral. There the children exhibit different reactions to the death of their mother.  One is very quiet and passive and the other is practical and starts to stake claim to some of the belongings.

Noriko is the only one who shows compassion for father in-law, during this exchange Shukichi says that she is such a good person she should remarry as it would not dishonor the memory of their son.  She insists that she is a very selfish person but her actions have shown different.  She is given a watch that belonged to Tomi as a memento. The end of the movie shows her leaving on the train and on to a new future.

My Take Away:

This movie tells the story of how children grown up and become wrapped up in their own lives and at times leave the other members of their family out of their lives.  There is a scene where Shukichi stays out all night drinking. He and his drinking buddies lament the way their children have turned out.  They are all disappointed with their children’s lives and how they are all forgotten when they start focusing on making their own way in life. 

You can see the focus is different from the country life to the city life.  Elements in the story those shows how different life is lived in each setting, all of the children have moved away. 

This is an excellent example of show don’t tell.  We see how the children act we don’t need long explanations of what they are thinking. Their behavior speaks volumes.  Even Noriko is beautifully portrayed as someone who cares and who is deeply lonely at the loss of her husband, but hold true to his memory.  

This is a story that has a message that does not deliver it in a heavy handed fashion; it’s a sermon that is told in a parable, not thundering from a pulpit.

Movies 101 – Persona

Persona – 83 min – NR

Alma (Bibi Andersson) is a young nurse who is charged with caring for a stage actress Elisabet Vogler (Liv Ullmann) who has stopped talking.  The doctors can’t explain why she has stopped talking so the head administrator suggest that Alma and Elisabet go to her coastal cottage to convalesce and see of that will help Elisabet to relax and get her voice back. While they are there Alma does all of the talking and Elisabet listens to her and starts to analyze her as if her nurse was a character study.  The two start to get a closer relationship and at times it almost seems like Alma is the one who needs the emotional help.  Alma starts to resent Elisabet and the two almost exchange places.  They leave the cottage separately without affection.

Now that synopsis really does not do this film justice.  It’s so much more a visual journey than a normal story people are used to today.  The prelude to the film has a lot of snap images that set the emotional tone of the film. Right off the bat this film put you in an uneasy state.  There is a small boy to sits up in what looks like a hospital bed and is looking at the blurry image of what looks like the main characters. After watching the movie that set up made me think that it starts out with the merging of these two people.  They the set and costume is all very barren, as if to give no distraction for the emotional journey of Alma.  Elisabet gives a wonderful performance with nothing more than her eyes and facial expressions.  There was some really great film work with using a break in the film to symbolize the break in their relationship.

This is the first Ingmar Bergman movie I have seen. I am intrigued by his imagery and his ability to tell a story. His minimalist approach of giving the subject a chance to sit front and center of the story is a refreshing change to my usual film experiences. One notable scene in this film is how Alma describes how Elisabet is a cold and remorseless woman who got pregnant only because she was told that she has everything except the experience of motherhood.  The first part of this scene was only  focused on Elisabet face as Alma goes through the events of this story, the very next scene is the same story only seeing Alma’s face and the two faces merge one half is Alma the other is Elisabet.  They are framed in complete symmetry.

My Take Away:

The influences of this film can be seen in other films like Mulholland Drive, Love and Death use the scene set up of having bother characters in the shot but one looking off screen right or left and the other character looking directly toward the camera with their eyes on the other character.  Visually the overlap almost gives the two characters a single body. The best way to describe it is when I saw this I thought it was one half of the brain talking to the other half.  Alma is the analytical side and Elisabet is the creative side.

I feel like today the story telling part of the movies that are coming out today are more focused on profit than substance.  Yes it’s a business and yes they are in it to make money.  BUT Ingmar Bergman was quoted as saying this about his work on this film.

“At some time or other, I said that Persona saved my life—that is no exaggeration. If I had not found the strength to make that film, I would probably have been all washed up. One significant point: for the first time I did not care in the least whether the result would be a commercial success…”

There has to be something freeing about an artist performing their art without the baggage of making money. And that is what this movie feels like to me, an opening of his soul and expression of his sprit.

What other movie do you know of that was a labor of love without regard of finical gain? 

Movies 101 - Pink Flamingos

Pink Flamingos – 93min – NC17

Babs Johnson (Devine) is the filthiest person alive. She lives in a trailer on the run with her mom Edie (Edith massy) and her son Crackers (Danny Mills) and her lover Cotton (Mary Vivian Pearce). A local couple Raymond and Connie Marble (David Lochary and Mink Stole) want to take her title away because they are the filthiest people alive. The move goes from one rude crass scene to another and stops and takes a breath by showing something only mildly offence and then goes back to more of the rude and crass stuff. It was billed as an exercise in bad taste for good reason. Some of the list of offences it showcases are rape, kidnapping, white slavery, indecent exposure, incest, cannibalism, corophagia, drug usage, murder, arson and theft. I am sure there are others but I am having a hard time remembering them. I think it’s because my subconscious is deleting that night completely from my memory out of self preservation.

This movie was kind of put together in a “let’s see if we can film some of the most socking and vile things we can” way. Apparently John Waters (the director ,writer, producer, cameraman... everything) borrowed ten thousand dollars from his parents and got all of his friends together on the odd weekend to put together this film. It was a huge underground midnight movie success. This movie is completely and totally horrible, and I mean not from a content stand point. This is truly an amateur film that was trying to get attention by not having any talent but the ability to shock the viewers. No matter how awful this movie is you have to acknowledge that John Waters has brought us some wonderful films in his career. I think this movie shows us the starting point of his talent. He had grit to handle all aspects of making his film and did get better over time. He has made some really memorable films that have excellent messages. He is also known for his flashes of poor taste and his love of the exaggeration of the social dynamic of the fringe elements of society.

I really don’t see any historical or meaningful significance for watching this film and I think that this was added to the list of 102 films only to show the low point in cinema. Do you remember the high school joke of telling a joke that makes no sense but at the end you and all your friends laugh as it is the most hilarious joke ever told to make the new person to the group feel stupid; this is what this movie feels like and I am the new guy to the group.

My Take Away:

Film making is a journey, once you start making movies you refine your style and try new things with each film. It’s easy to make light of how bad this movie is but you have to understand it’s the predecessor to some better films from him. From Pink Flamingoes to Hairspray they are all a part of one film maker’s journey. You may not like his style of film making but his art as improved over the years. His subjects always have this hint of subculture and sarcasm. As I think about it, I am glad I saw this film. I am also glad I don’t ever have to see it again.

Movies 101 - Repulsion

Repulsion - 105min – UR

What do you get if you slip into the head of a young woman’s broken mind? Repulsion brings you along the reality crumbling ride that is on a fast track to madness. The movie focuses on Carol (Catherine Deneuve) she lives with her sister, Helen (Yvonne Furneaux), in London. She is a withdrawn young woman who works in a beauty salon. She is quiet and awkward and works with many people but seems completely alone. She has caught the eye of Colin (John Fraser) who repeatedly asks her out but she refuses. When Carol’s sister decides to take a vacation with her lover, Michael (Ian Hendry), she leaves her fragile sister alone with her thoughts. With no grounding influence from her sister Carol falls rapidly into madness. With the Apartment crumbling around her and the walls literally reaching out to molest her and memories of an abuser from the past she has no way to keep a hold of reality. When Helen and Michael return they finder her in a catatonic state under a bed and two dead bodies in the apartment that has wallowed in rotting flesh and disarray.

 This Psychological thriller is Roman Polanski’s first English film. This black and white film started off feeling like “Breathless” in its free floating form as we follow Carol through her life. It turned subtly and crept into a movie that was hard for me to watch. It was immensely creepy and made me want to intervene with the character and get her some help. I guess this is a mark of a great film when you are completely engrossed and have such a connection to the characters. She had this reoccurring dream/ fantasy of being molested by someone. I thought that she was remembering things form her child hood, she takes along tie to look at a old picture of her when she was a child and the picture has her isolated and with grim look on her face. She might be looking at the male in the picture so it could have been him that harmed her when she was younger.

The special effects were subtle and were really good at making me doubt that I saw what I saw. The use of bells and the isolation of the apartment really made the background of her reality expand and contrast depending on the need of the scene. When I first saw the apartment it looked like a very small studio. While she was alone it seemed to grow and it was larger than I first thought. I think this adds to the isolation feeling. The complete separation from humanity in her mind was now manifested in her apartment.

My take way:

I had a few problems with some of the characters, Colin is a compete mystery to me. When you have been rejected and the woman of your desires really does not seem into you, Dude move on, time to start fresh with someone else. I wonder if he had some senses that she needed help but could not identify that and interpreted it as desire. She was extremely attractive but also completely emotionally withdrawn.

 I got this film from Netflix on DVD.

Movies 101 - A Star Is Born (1954)

A Star is Born (1954) – 181min – TVPG

Norman Maine (James Mason) is a movie star whose fame is on the decline because of his alcoholism. The studio keeps him away from the press but during a live performance at the Shrine auditorium he arrives intoxicated, he is about to make a fool of himself on stage when one of the singers Esther Blodgett (Judy Garland) includes him in the act to make it look like it was all planed. Her quick thinking saves face for the Studio and Maine. Maine is so take by her quick thinking and talent he encourages her to come to Hollywood to be in motion pictures. Time passes and they go their separate ways, Blodgett tries her hand at acting and gets bit parts and Mane is called away to make a picture overseas. Once he comes back he sponsors her and pulls some strings to get her a starring role and she becomes a star. While her career takes off his completely implodes. Maine’s alcoholism takes over his life Blodgett is willing to give everything up to take care of Maine but he realizes that he is a detriment to her and chooses to take his own life.

This movie is so completely hard to watch, I feel incredibly bad for all of the characters. It’s a story of success, failure, love, pane, hope and hopelessness. This story has been remade twice the original was in 1937 and the other remake was in 1976. I have only seen this one but it looks like it was the only one that has a lot of big stage productions added to the story, Born in a trunk reminds me of Gota Dance from Singin' in the Rain. James Mason will always be the bad guy form North by Northwest for me but this role shows his more dramatic side, his performance was masterfuly done. 

This version of the film had some parts added from the uncut version of the film. The sound was usable and they laid it down with stills that were taken from the production of those sense. Original the film was 196min long and was then cut down to 182min. The Studio was concerned about the length and how many times it could be run in the theater so it was further cut down to 154min. The director George Cukor was not happy about the changes to the film but for the lengthy addition of Born in a Trunk he was already wrapped from the film.

My take away:

I didn't know this was a remake, I guess we will always have remakes in this industry. I should take some time and track the ebb and flow if ideas in Hollywood. When a new idea comes along and how many times they remake it. I am just wondering when they are going to do remakes of Harry Potter or Star Wars. I wonder if they are marked by new technology in film making, Superman the original was made when the technology was vastly inferior to when it first came out. King Kong is another example of this. Hummmm I need to dig further on this.

Movies 101 –Duck Soup

Duck Soup – 68min – N/A

The country of Fredonia is in financial ruin Mrs. Teasdale (Margaret Dumont) is the wealthiest woman in the country and is supporting the government. She refuses to give any more money unless Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx) is appointed as the new leader. Rufus and his secretary, Bob Roland (Zeppo Marx) proceed to run the country into the ground in the mad cap hijinks made famous by the Marx brothers. The neighboring country of Sylvania is eyeing Fredonia for takeover. The Ambassador from Sylvania, Trentino (Louis Calhern), is working to try any way he can to take over the country. He hires two spies Pinky (Harpo Marx), and Chicolini (Chico Marx) to dig up some dirt on Rufus. He even employs the vixen Vera Marcal (Raquel Torres) as a fem fetal to try and manipulate Rufus. Things escalate to a full on war between the two countries. In true vaudevillian style it’s a mixture of sight gags and song numbers. This is not my favorite Marx Brother film but it is one of the better ones in my opinion.

Some of the most memorable scenes were in this movie; the mirror gag is one of my favorites because I first saw this on I Love Lucy between Harpo Marx and Lucy. In the film Harpo is dressed up like Groucho and he is hiding on the other side of what used to be a mirror. They move in unison and even when Groucho thinks that he has Harpo caught, Harpo pulls a switcheroo and mirrors Groucho movie for move. The other scene that stands out is the mini war with the Street vendor. It starts out as a small matter of Chico and Harpo bumping into one of the Lemonade venders (Edgar Kennedy) customers. Then it escalates to knee holding and hat switching and then the burning of a hat it is extremely funny. One of the best fast paced exchanges between three people it’s so well performed that you have to watch it twice to see all the choreography. The second interaction between this trio is extremely funny as well. The Lemonade vender comes back at Harpo and takes some of the Peanuts that Chico is selling and ends up getting his new hat burned. The lemonade vender tips over the Peanut cart and then walks back to his cart to serve the line of customers that have gathered. Harpo begins to help mix the lemonade with his feet.

During this production the relationship between Paramount Studios and the Marx Brothers soured. This is one of the five films that were a part of the Marx brothers and Paramount contract, they separated after this production. This movie originally bombed at the box office and that made the separation a lot easier from paramount’s stand point. As I understand Zeppo also stepped away and started a talent agency with his brother because he was tired of getting bit parts. I would like to do more research on who the relationship fell through.

My Take Away: The Marx Brothers have a very fast and sometimes hard to follow brand of humor. People today don’t often appreciate that the contribution these people made for the genera of comedy. Without the Marx brothers we don’t get to Blazing Saddles or Airplane. I'm going to get you Sucka has that same feel only with a more modern pacing and direction of humor. I guess any spoof film has its roots in these films that came before. Leo McCarey directed this and he is better known for directing An Affare to Remeber. You can view this film on NetFlix watch it now.

Movies 101 – The Scarlet Empress

The Scarlet Empress – 104min – Approved

German princess Sophia Frederica (Marlene Dietrich) is chosen by the Empress Elizabeth (Louise Dresser) to Mary her half-wit son Grand Duke Pete (Same Jaffe) in order to produce an heir to the throne. She is brought to Russia by Count Alexei (John Lodge) a suave member of the court who has designs on the young princess. She arrives and the Empress renames her to Catherine makes her life a living hell, and her husband is a dim wit and wants nothing to do with her. She looks to Alexei for comfort but finds out he is the Empress’ lover. She then finds comfort in the arms of the officers in the Russian Army. When the Empress dies after 17 years, Pete takes the throne and decides to remove his wife, the Russian Army backed Sophia in the power struggle and she became Catharine the Great. This story was put together with great liberty from a journal and many of the facts were adjusted to make a better story.

First and foremost I just want to say what a wonderful actress Marlene Dietrich was. In this roll she had the naiveté of a country girl who is not very experienced in the ways of the politics of court or of sexuality. She then towards the end shows us a woman who has been beaten up and proves to be stronger than the things that she is up against. She uses her knowledge of court and successfully runs a country. She is also a very attractive woman and looks completely innocent at the start of the film and then transitions into a woman of sensuality and power. She is truly stunning to watch. Josef von Sternberg has a wonderful grasp of the fell of the two settings, at the start of the film we feel warmth in each shot and an great feel of comfort from the images, as we enter Russia the images get a darker feel and they start making the viewer more uncomfortable. Sam Jaffe is Very troll like in this film, I recognized him but only just. He does a wonderful job of making Pete an unsavory character.

As the Last feature length film distributed before the Hays Code became the standard, I saw some things in this movie that I would not have thought I would see in a black and white film. When I went through film school I learned about the hays code and how that affected Hollywood. I grew up in a post code world so in my mind all black and white films were tempered with the code. It was refreshing to see a film that was timeless in its themes. Even though this movie was condemned by the Catholic Legion of Decency for its “morality” it does have a lot of great cinematography and set design as well as an outstanding cast.

My take away:

Marlene Dietrich was a hottie and an excellent performer. I loved the work that Josef von Sternberg did with the scenes of this film. His dark and broody castle and overly exaggerated castle sets gave the Russian Empire an evil subtext. Setting and set design are vital to a production, when you see the family house at the beginning of the film and look at the Russian imperial palace you can see the huge difference in look, feel, tone and perception.

Movies 101 – A Streetcar Named Desire

A Streetcar Named Desire – 122min – NR

Blanche Dubois (Vivien Leigh) Arrives in New Orleans looking for her sister Stella (Kim Hunter) after she loses the family plantation in Mississippi. Blanche has to stay with Stella and her husband Stanly (Marlon Brando). Stanly and Blanche do not get along, she has had a rough life and puts up a front of decency and properness that Stanly sees through. Blanche comes to New Orleans to start life anew and get away from her past. She starts up a relationship with Stanley’s friend Mitch (Karl Malden) in hopes that if she puts on airs of being a proper southern woman she can hide the fact from Mitch and herself that she has had a very painful past. Stanly sees right through her act and digs up her past and throws it in her face. Stanly ruins the new beginning she had with Mitch and as a final act of barbarism attacks Blanche and has her committed to an asylum.

This movie makes me sorry for Blanche, I watched it twice to make sure I was not missing anything; she is a wounded person trying desperately to make a change in her life and reaching out to anyone to help her. The first time I felt sorry for Stella as she was getting abuse from Stanly and from Blanche. Then on the second viewing I realized that Stella is in this position because she chose it. She was attracted to the unbridled passion of Stanly but with that comes a cost of unbridled abuse. I have never understood the minds set of women who put themselves in that situation. I am glad that at the end of the movie she does make a chose to leave Stanly but it’s at the cost of her sister’s sanity. I have known a Stanly in my life and seeing his attacks made me cringe. This movie brought up feelings in me that I guess I have not dealt with and as such a flood of emotion hit me while I watched this story unfold. I can look back and see that everything that I am today is because of the events that brought me here and I can look back and say that the Stanly in my life severed as an excellent role model of what not to do.

This was a play and it was brought to the screen by Elia Kazan. If that name sounds familiar he was given an academy award in 1999 to a split audience half applauded and some refused to acknowledge the award. That caused me to dig into why he would have such a reaction and my research found that he was a friendly witness during the HUAC. He named names and provided a list of people who were members of the communist party to the House committee looking for communist in the Hollywood industry. From my brief reading of the situation he was placed in a rough spot, if he refused to help he would have been the subject of scrutiny and if he did cooperate he would betray some of the people he was friends with. I like to look at the award being given to a man who had a huge influence on the theater and on the way movies were made in the 50’s and 60’s. Regardless of the political complications he was a story teller that held up a mirror to the ugliest parts of our selves, and showed us the beauty and horror of what we are.

My take away:

This translated over to film very well, the uses of the shrinking stage to build tension was brilliant. I have been moved by the overwhelming sadness of the characters. This movie is a fallen woman film, where a woman is punished because of her lack of moral fiber. I like Stella’s strength she has at the end, and it comes at a great cost. The subtly of the characters performance are outstanding, Kazan was wonderful at bring the best out of his performers.

Movies 101 – Sunset Boulevard

Sunset Boulevard – 110 Min – NR

Hollywood is the setting and the subject of this films hard look at the people who are striving for fame and those who lose it. Joe (William Holden) is a writer who is struggling and stubbles on what appears to be an abandoned house. The residents are an Ex silent film star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson) and her Butler Max (Erich Von Stroheim). Norma wants to stage a return to the screen, and has a rough draft of a script; Joe the writer sees an opportunity to take advantage of the situation to his benefit. What he does not count on is Norma’s over powering control on everything she comes in contact with. She is a deeply wounded individual that craves the fame that has slipped away and she filled the gap with a fantasy world that traps Joe as a love interest. Joe sells his soul and becomes a kept man for a chance to stay in Hollywood for his shot at fame. When he realizes that his life and dignity are in a conflict he decides to make a change and it comes at great cost.

I was so disturbed by the characters in this film and was uncomfortable with the spiral they were on. I can see this as a cautionary tale about how you boil a frog. Joe started out small with one compromise here and there, and it’s soon he was in way over his head. Norma was in character and so visually expressive like the characters she played in those silent films. Her pain came from a loss of fame from a bombed performance and her difficult nature to work with. She never recovered from that loss. I think her relationship with Max did not help her situation and his dedication in keeping her safe deepened her fantasy. Joe and her relationship started over the body of a dead ape, Norma lost a play thing and found another. She found something that was going to fill the missing parts of her soul.

The narration of Joe as he was floating in the pool at the beginning was well played, I loved the shot of coming up from bottom of the pool. I am amazed at the subtext of the actors who were in it and their relationship with each other and the characters. Erich Von Stroheim Directed Gloria Swanson when she was a Silent film star. Max in the movie directed Norma in her past. Billy Wilder did an excellent job of holding up a mirror to some personality types in Hollywood. He told a very pointed story that made history, as uncomfortable as I was with this story, I enjoyed this film.

My take away:

Most of my take aways were on well this story was told. A movie with a sad ending can be an excellent subject. I truly loved Joe’s journey. I am reminded of another movie where the end of the movie was given away and it still made for a great story. Fallen started out telling us a story about how the main character almost died. All the stories about Hollywood seem to show us the bad things. Are there no good stories about Hollywood and fame? The only character I felt for was Betty Schaefer (Nancy Olson)she was the only pure spirit in the god forsaken city.

I watched this movie on DVD from Netflix.

Movies 101 - The Third Man

The Third Man – 104min – NR

Post war Vienna is the setting of this story of intrigue and mystery. American pulp author Holly Martins (Joseph Cotton) comes to town on the invitation of his friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles) to find out his friend has been killed in an automobile collision. He looks into his friend’s death and finds out that the police have been looking into the case half heartedly because Holly’s friend has been linked to the black market. Maj. Calloway (Trevor Howard) is the point person in the investigation and tries to warn Holly off the case and warn him of the dangers of Vienna’s underworld. Holly meets some of Hary’s friends and one of them is stage actress Anna Schmidt (Valli) together they uncover the truth behind their friend’s death.

I now have a new definition of the noir style of film, when I think noir I now think of this film. This is an excellent example of the genre. The pacing and tension are elements that make this film outstanding. The dialog is also engaging even today, it does not lose itself in the lingo of the age it was made. I think this movie stands up well in its engagement of the viewer. I need to do more research on the film in its creation but it seems like it’s not tied down to any formula. I have a bit of a spoiler here so avert your eyes if you need to for this next sentence. I loved how the guy does not get the girl in the end. That ending made the movie seem real to me, they did not tie it up in a clean little bow and make everyone happy. It was a dark, gritty, rough and enjoyable story.

I liked many of the shot compositions in this film, when the tension as supposed to build the camera was set at an angle ever so slightly; the rooms in the shot were not exactly square. The uses of the same simple music played at different speeds made it almost feel like the soundtrack was in mocking contrast to the elements on screen. It was peppy as if to soften the images that were going on. I also enjoyed how we were exposed to different languages that kept the star and the audience in the dark about our surroundings.

My take way:

I have to watch the movies twice to really look at them. Roger Ebert screened Silence of the Lambs at the University of Colorado Boulder several years ago and showed it twice. I was reminded of how and why he did it that way. The first night we fell into the story, and the second night we could dissect the movie without getting lost. After watching a few of these films I have to start doing them in the above format just to get a good look at the movies. For this film I learned that really good stories do not have to have a happy ending to be really good. I wish Hollywood would remember this as well.

I watched this movie on DVD from Netflix.

Movies 101 – Trouble in Paradise

Trouble in Paradise – 83 min – UR

This film is a romantic comedy between two Lily (Miriam Hopkins) and Gaston (Herbert Marshall). They find love in Venice after discovering that each is a master of the thiefly arts. The happy bandits go to Paris to apply their arts when they find a plump pigeon running a perfume factory. The two criminals go to work for Madame Mariette Colet (Kay Francis) with plans of stealing a fortune from her safe. The con is almost compete but someone from their past recognizes Gaston. The plan needs to be pushed up and the Gaston is now having feelings for her. Lily feels the relationship changing and beats Gaston to the prize. He realizes that he can’t make a life with Mariette and he heads off into the sunset with his partner in crime.

This move was a great combination between humor and romance with a bit of heist movie mixed in. This is a film that was shot before the enforcement of the Hays Code. There are elements that are suggestive in nature and in its time was considers not suitable for public viewing. My, have times changed. Today this film would be ok for public television. It has some sexual innuendo but never really crosses that line. I think that for the time it was following the intention of the production code but not the spirit.

The film had an interesting pace to the edits and to the story telling. I never felt like I was seeing any wasted scenes or thrown together shots. Everything was meticulous in setting and content. Sometimes a film that has such a clean feel, it sometimes feels overly scripted or disingenuous. This one did not suffer from that at all.

My take way:

I was so involved with the story I did not look at the movie with as critical an eye I usually do. What will stick with me is the performance of Edward Everett Horton. I first saw him in Pocket full of Miracles when he stole the show as the butler. This self-education of film history is going to take me through a lot of films some I will like, some I will not feel anything for, some I might even hate. But I appreciate all films for making us feel something. My plan was to look at these movie to learn something, with this one, I learned I like it.

I watched this movie on DVD from Netflix.

Movies 101 - Battleship Potemkin

Battleship Potemkin – 75 min - UR

This movie tells the story of one battleship in the Russian navy in 1905 that was the birth of a rebellion. The crew revolt against the Tsarist Officers in the crew. They have only one loss in the coup and lay to rest his body on the dock in Odessa. The locals see the body and the sign that said “he was killed over a spoonful of borscht”. His death moves the locals and they support the mutinous crew. Their support cost them in retaliation from the local Tsar’s soldiers. The soldiers start shooting into the crowed and kill many civilians. The battle ship retaliates and takes out a government building. The admiral’s squadron sailed in to confront the Potemkin. There are tenuous scenes where they prepare for a fight but unsure of how they will be received by the oncoming ships. The ships sail up and the confrontation ends in a celebration of the brave crew that threw off the yolk of the tyrannous regime.

This was an unapologetic propaganda film, made to drum up support for the rebellion of the crew. You can see it in the way that people were very animated and many different shots of elements that everyone can identify with. The evil soldiers were very robotic and we never see their faces we only see them move like relentless and emotionless automatons and we see them shoot over and over again. This movie was made in 1925 and the violence of the stairway scene was quite horrific. Even for today there are some shots that cross a line or two. They are not as ... juicy as we make movies today but the emotional tie to the characters is undeniable.

I studied the editing experiments of Eisenstein in the Montage, a way of cutting a film together that combines two shots to tie in a connection between them. A famous example I heard (I am unsure if it was him) you take a picture of a man without any emotion and set it next to a picture of a little girl playing; a viewer will infer that the man was happy and thinking about his grand-daughter. If you take that same set up and show a grave stone, the viewer will infer that the man was sad and thinking about death. Nothing changes form the first seven the synthesis of the shots infers meaning.

My take away:

This is a great movie to watch for an example of how to direct a viewer to feel a specific way, through the power of editing. How you cut a film together is vital to the way people receive it. Again we see that film can be used to influence people’s thoughts ideas and feelings by tapping into emotional responses.

I watched this movie on Hulu

Movies 101 – The Wild Bunch

The Wild Bunch - 145min – R

A group of aging outlaws are looking for one final score to end their carrier on. They set up this elaborate heist on the railroad, that turns out to be a trap. An ex member of their gang has been released from prison and is now working for the railroad bounty hunters. They escape but without the loot. The bounty hunters peruse them because they have 30 days to get them or no one gets paid, and the ex gang member has to go back to prison. The gang lays low in Mexico and find themselves working for a warlord and self proclaimed general of the revolutionaries. They pull a highest for him to acquire several cases of weapons and work out an elaborate way to ensure that they will get paid for the score. One of their members gets caught skimming and is captured by the General. They are now faced with leaving with the gold or going back to rescue their captured member. They decide to help their fallen companion and go out in a blaze of glory.

I watched westerns with my grandfather; he was my introduction to the genre. I Thought about him when I watched this film, this film is way more racy than the films we watched on TV but I know that he would have enjoyed the elements of this film. Being a fan of the western I play a game called Red Dead Redemption. There are so many elements of this move in this game. That is something to look into if you have not played it and you enjoy westerns. 

What I liked most about this film is the beginning and the end. The beginning because of the massive gun fight, they had so much coverage from a film making standpoint. And the same reasons at the end. It was a massive gun fight that starts off not how you expect a gunfight to go. They shoot the general and there is a moment there where none else shoots, it almost looks like they are going to get away with it. I also like the blending of shots and angles and speeds.  

My Take away:

This movie used multi-angle editing and is a great example of the technique. The gun fights that had long shots and close ups and slow motion intermixed with live action. That really add a different life to the event we are watching.  I also appreciated the writing; there are two separate story lines here one of the gang and one of the bounty hunters. I enjoyed how they merged at the end but it was wonderful story telling in braiding two separate stories this way.  

I watched this Film on DVD from Netflix. 

Movies 101 - The 400 Blows

The 400 Blows – 99 min – No rating

This film was about a young boy growing up in Paris. We see the events that lead him down the path of criminal delinquency. His parents were completely oblivious to his needs because of their selfishness. He lives with them in a small apartment. His parents both work and make no time for their son. The teacher only sees him as a trouble maker and it turns out to be a self fulfilling prophecy.

It was completely heartbreaking to watch. I was so saddened by the plight of the main character. He was the product of his environment. The last shot where he is running on the beach a truly honest feeling of freedom contrast with the prison of circumstances of his life in Paris. It was a beautifully done picture.

The style of the film is described as French New Wave. From what I read it is very raw storytelling. The films are low budget and are shot with just the barest of support. When I think of Independent film I think of movies like this where it was one small group of people who have a wonderful story to tell and are not bogged down the by the studio system. The subjects of these films are usually of real people in real situations without the fake storybook imagery of traditional cinema.

My take away:

The French New Wave style is focused on true story telling and had some passionate people involved in its birth. They had shoe string budgets and were dedicated to the story. They made some bold edit choices based on style and sometimes finical restrictions.

I watched this on Hulu and they have some really great movies in their Criterion collection section.

Movies 101 list of 102 movies you need to see

I have been looking around at other reviewer’s suggestions on what I should include in my repertoire as far as need to see or read to improve my Reviewer Fu. One of my favorites has this list of 102 films as a primer to have an informed discussion on movies. By the by I would love to have an informed discussion on movies with him.

There are also some people who suggest a number of books to read and study, but while I am doing that I am going to try my hand at the following list. I am going to watch all of them, and rearrange the list so I watch the ones I have seen at the end. I am not going to review them fully but I am going to jot down a quick paragraph or two on some of the things that I noticed about the films.

Well here goes nothing; we are off to educate the fat samurai reviewer.

"2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) Stanley Kubrick
"The 400 Blows" (1959) Francois Truffaut
"8 1/2" (1963) Federico Fellini
"Aguirre, the Wrath of God" (1972) Werner Herzog
"Alien" (1979) Ridley Scott
"All About Eve" (1950) Joseph L. Mankiewicz
"Annie Hall" (1977) Woody Allen
"Apocalypse Now" (1979) Francis Ford Coppola*
"Bambi" (1942) Disney
"The Battleship Potemkin" (1925) Sergei Eisenstein
"The Best Years of Our Lives" (1946) William Wyler
"The Big Red One" (1980) Samuel Fuller
"The Bicycle Thief" (1949) Vittorio De Sica
"The Big Sleep" (1946) Howard Hawks
"Blade Runner" (1982) Ridley Scott
"Blowup" (1966) Michelangelo Antonioni
"Blue Velvet" (1986) David Lynch
"Bonnie and Clyde" (1967) Arthur Penn
"Breathless" (1959 Jean-Luc Godard
"Bringing Up Baby" (1938) Howard Hawks
"Carrie" (1975) Brian DePalma
"Casablanca" (1942) Michael Curtiz
"Un Chien Andalou" (1928) Luis Bunuel & Salvador Dali
"Children of Paradise" / "Les Enfants du Paradis" (1945) Marcel Carne
"Chinatown" (1974) Roman Polanski
"Citizen Kane" (1941) Orson Welles
"A Clockwork Orange" (1971) Stanley Kubrick
"The Crying Game" (1992) Neil Jordan
"The Day the Earth Stood Still" (1951) Robert Wise
"Days of Heaven" (1978) Terence Malick
"Dirty Harry" (1971) Don Siegel
"The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" (1972) Luis Bunuel
"Do the Right Thing" (1989 Spike Lee
"La Dolce Vita" (1960) Federico Fellini
"Double Indemnity" (1944) Billy Wilder
"Dr. Strangelove" (1964) Stanley Kubrick
"Duck Soup" (1933) Leo McCarey
"E.T. -- The Extra-Terrestrial" (1982) Steven Spielberg
"Easy Rider" (1969) Dennis Hopper
"The Empire Strikes Back" (1980) Irvin Kershner
"The Exorcist" (1973) William Friedkin
"Fargo" (1995) Joel & Ethan Coen
"Fight Club" (1999) David Fincher
"Frankenstein" (1931) James Whale
"The General" (1927) Buster Keaton & Clyde Bruckman
"The Godfather," "The Godfather, Part II" (1972, 1974) Francis Ford Coppola
"Gone With the Wind" (1939) Victor Fleming
"GoodFellas" (1990) Martin Scorsese
"The Graduate" (1967) Mike Nichols
"Halloween" (1978) John Carpenter
"A Hard Day's Night" (1964) Richard Lester
"Intolerance" (1916) D.W. Griffith
"It's a Gift" (1934) Norman Z. McLeod
"It's a Wonderful Life" (1946) Frank Capra
"Jaws" (1975) Steven Spielberg
"The Lady Eve" (1941) Preston Sturges
"Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) David Lean
"M" (1931) Fritz Lang
"Mad Max 2" / "The Road Warrior" (1981) George Miller
"The Maltese Falcon" (1941) John Huston
"The Manchurian Candidate" (1962) John Frankenheimer
"Metropolis" (1926) Fritz Lang
"Modern Times" (1936) Charles Chaplin
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1975) Terry Jones & Terry Gilliam
"Nashville" (1975) Robert Altman
"The Night of the Hunter" (1955) Charles Laughton
"Night of the Living Dead" (1968) George Romero
"North by Northwest" (1959) Alfred Hitchcock
"Nosferatu" (1922) F.W. Murnau
"On the Waterfront" (1954) Elia Kazan
"Once Upon a Time in the West" (1968) Sergio Leone
"Out of the Past" (1947) Jacques Tournier
"Persona" (1966) Ingmar Bergman
"Pink Flamingos" (1972) John Waters
"Psycho" (1960) Alfred Hitchcock
"Pulp Fiction" (1994) Quentin Tarantino
"Rashomon" (1950) Akira Kurosawa
"Rear Window" (1954) Alfred Hitchcock
"Rebel Without a Cause" (1955) Nicholas Ray
"Red River" (1948) Howard Hawks
"Repulsion" (1965) Roman Polanski
"The Rules of the Game" (1939) Jean Renoir
"Scarface" (1932) Howard Hawks
"The Scarlet Empress" (1934) Josef von Sternberg
"Schindler's List" (1993) Steven Spielberg
"The Searchers" (1956) John Ford
"The Seven Samurai" (1954) Akira Kurosawa
"Singin' in the Rain" (1952) Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly
"Some Like It Hot" (1959) Billy Wilder
"A Star Is Born" (1954) George Cukor
"A Streetcar Named Desire" (1951) Elia Kazan
"Sunset Boulevard" (1950) Billy Wilder
"Taxi Driver" (1976) Martin Scorsese
"The Third Man" (1949) Carol Reed
"Tokyo Story" (1953) Yasujiro Ozu
"Touch of Evil" (1958) Orson Welles
"The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" (1948) John Huston
"Trouble in Paradise" (1932) Ernst Lubitsch
"Vertigo" (1958) Alfred Hitchcock
"West Side Story" (1961) Jerome Robbins/Robert Wise
"The Wild Bunch" (1969) Sam Peckinpah
"The Wizard of Oz" (1939) Victor Fleming