Holiday

"Holiday" is one of those films that should be talked about more. Why isn't it talked about more? It's a serious comedy made in the 1930s golden age, it was directed by George Cukor, one of the most prominent filmmakers of that era. The stars at its center are Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn, they made four movies together, this one was squeezed in between their more revered comedies "Bringing up Baby" and "The Philadelphia Story". Great as those comedies are, I can't seem to shake the feeling "Holiday" gives me everytime I watch it.

"Holiday" starts off like most comedies of that era do, with an engagement. Johnny Case (Grant) is a young idealistic man who is love with a rich socialite Julia (Doris Nolan). Johnny fell head over heals for Julia right away, so quickly in fact he had no idea she was rich. Julia introduces him to the rest of her family which includes her sister Linda (Hepburn) and her brother Ned (Lew Ayers). Right away Johnny is being groomed to meet Julia's father (Henry Kolker), a hard nosed businessman who thinks making a lot of money is what makes a person successful. This is contrary to what Johnny believes, he's still young, he wants to find out more about the world. He has this silly idea about taking a holiday once he has enough money saved up to figure out what he wants to do, and what he wants to be.

The only person who seems to understand where he's coming from is Linda who is the self-proclaimed black sheep of the family. Linda is the only one who seems to be able to stand up against their father and give him a piece of her mind. She spends most of her time in the family playroom which is a place of escape for her. To her Johnny represents a breath of fresh air in the family, and although she loves her sister very much, she can't help but fall in love with him. It's obvious at the very beginning Johnny is in love with the wrong woman, and by the end of the film, he'll end up with the right one, but "Holiday" isn't as frivolous as all that, this is in fact a comedy with a certain philosophy on how one should live their life.

Johnny Case isn't just the romantic lead of the film, he's also the hero, in a way he's pretty much a representation of what young people usually come to feel, what is their purpose in the world? Is life all about making a lot of money? These are at least questions that plague me. I remember I saw "Holiday" for the first time when I was very young and still fairly new to classic films. I didn't think too much of it at the time, yet as I grow older I see it as a very wise film and unconventional.

It's a rather melancholy film with scarred characters, the most of which is Ned the brother. Ned is portrayed as a drunk, who was a promising musician, but was forced to focus on business by his father. Ned had to live up to certain expectations, he was the only son and therefore had to carry on his family name. He basically became someone he hated, so he is usually seen drowning in alcohol. The character as played by Ayers gives the film a certain reality largely unseen in films of that time.

Linda is also scarred, she doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of her family, she dotes on Ned and loves her sister, but she's mostly a loner, and isolates herself. It's hard to say what kind of a person she was before Johnny came into her life, with him she seems to have found a soulmate, someone she could feel free to discuss things.

There is indeed much discussion in "Holiday", different ideals are debated, there are emotional battles between characters, the tone shifts from high comedy to sombre drama, it never goes for an easy answer. Much of the dialogue probably has to do with the fact it was adapted from a play. It was written with great literal style by Donald Odgen Stewart who also wrote "The Philadelphia Story" and Sydney Buchman. The dialogue is one of the great things about this film, the people are always speaking about something, they are intelligent sophisticated human beings with a certain point of view. It's a film full of wit, but it never sacrifices human emotion for it.

Johnny is the man you root for, yet there is empathy towards the father who can mostly be seen as a miser, yet he is a stubborn old man set in his ways, and even Julia who has a sweet exterior but may be shallow underneath. The characters do remain very human and are given a bit of grace at some point or another, and of course it must be capped off with a happy ending like they do in those days, although my heart goes out to poor Ned who doesn't seem to even muster up enough courage to stand up to his father making the ending somewhat bittersweet.

Here it was back in 1938, with the world still in the throws of "The Great Depression" and a Hollywood film comes along with ideas. It doesn't happen too often these days, and when it does it's time to cheer. But "Holiday" speaks for our society today just as it did back then. It doesn't matter if you saw the film when it was released or you saw in on the eve of 2012, it's nice to see a film that has something to say on where you should put your priorities.

The Bandwagon

What I love most about "The Bandwagon" is just how light it is, not just on its feet, but also in tone. This is no frivolous musical, but it is a musical comedy that doesn't take itself too seriously, nor does it want to be. It is one of the great MGM musicals from the same era of MGM musicals which produced, "Singin in the Rain", and "An American in Paris". It's about the highs and lows of putting on a show, the tragedy of when one doesn't work out, and the joyousness when one does. But mostly "The Bandwagon" is about entertainment, giving the people what they want, and it doesn't skimp on riches, it's bright, witty, and dreamlike, it's there for us to enjoy time and time again.

"The Bandwagon" is about Tony Hunter (Fred Astaire), a washed up movie star who heads to New York to star in a Broadway Musical written by two friends of his, Lester and Lily Martin (Oscar Levant and Nanette Fabray). They've got a part tailor made for Tony, it's light and funny, just what he's known for. But before you could say Broadway smash, the Martins entrust their show to an ego driven director named Jeffery Cordoba. Jeffery currently has three shows running on Broadway simultaneously, while he himself is performing "Oedipus Rex". Very quickly Jeffery changes the Martin's show show it parallels the story of "Faust". It no longer is light and funny, but dark and tragic. However everyone seems to go against their better judgment because Jeffery just happens to be a genius.

There is also an acting coup, when Jeffery also hooks up famed ballerina Gabrielle Gerard (Cyd Charisse) to star opposite Tony. At first Tony is terrified of this, since he is a hoofer, while Gabrielle is much more refined. It becomes obvious early on that the show is not working, Jeff's demands become more and more outrageous, soon it is preview night, and no one is prepared, but of course this is a crowd pleasing musical, all they need is to go back to the drawing board and all will turn out well.

When you look at all the plot points, you could say that "The Bandwagon" is sort of the companion piece to "Singin in the Rain". That film took aim at the movie business, while this one is about Broadway. The dreadful show within a show in "The Bandwagon" mirrors the similar situation in "Singin in the Rain" which had a movie that needed fixing. This probably isn't just coincidence, since both films were produced by Arthur Freed, the mastermind behind the best MGM musicals. Freed basically had the same idea for both films, he wanted to use existing musical numbers that MGM had the rights over and make a musical surrounding them. Both films had the same screenwriters who Betty Comden and Adolph Green, they had the difficult job of taking all these songs and somehow making a story around it. Luckily they were witty writers and had a great flare for comedy. The characters played by Levant and Fabray were loosly based on them, however they weren't married in real life.

The other creative force behind "The Bandwagon" was Vincent Minnelli, probably the best known director of musicals. However Minnelli never just stuck to one genre, he could do comedy, and drama, but there was something special when he made musicals. He made magical worlds within his musicals, and "The Bandwagon" lets him play around a bit even making fun of his own pretensions in a musical. The film is warmly lit for most of the time, and Minnelli makes every number memorable.

Let's talk about these musical numbers, there's too many to count, some don't seem to last long enough, you beg for more. The big one for sure is "Dancing in the Dark" featuring Astaire and Charisse. It's a purely romantic sequence with the two characters seeing if they could actually dance together. It begins quite casual almost as if the two dancers are making it up as they go, then it flows into a gorgeous number with a beautiful symphony backing them up.

There is also the triplets number featuring Astaire, Fabray, and Buchanan as toddlers. They do the entire number with fake feet strapped to their knees. According to Fabray in the making of documentary, they each had to learn how to dance on their knees, there was no trick photography included. The final riot comes with the final ballet call "Girl Hunt", which is a parody of Mickie Spillane pulp novels. The mystery doesn't make a lick of sense, but who cares with all the spirited dancing going around.

Each star makes their own mark on the film, but when you think of "The Bandwagon", it's hard not to think of Astaire. This was the beginning of the next great era in Astaire's career. He was semi-retired by the time he made "The Bandwagon", Gene Kelly seemed to have come in as the next generation. You could make comparisons between Tony Hunter and Astaire's own career, however I don't think he was ever that far forgotten. If anything, "The Bandwagon" shows off some of Astaire's best filmed moments, the aforementioned "Dancing in the Dark", as well as early in the film "A Shine on your Shoes". I love watching Astaire dance, it's one of the greatest pleasures the movies can afford. Astaire was known as a perfectionist along with Kelly, from what I've heard and read about him, he was quiet and shy and very insecure about his dancing. Yet when you see him on screen, it all goes away, and you are left with a man who looks to be enjoying himself.

Astaire would go on to call "The Bandwagon" his favorite film, and it probably is his best, unlike the films he did with Ginger, he's more of a solo act here, more well-rounded and perhaps even more comfortable within his own skin. He's free of any expectations because he's been able to grow as an artist and he's able to just have fun and go with it.

I look at "The Bandwagon" today as one of the great entertainments, something that lasts because the people who made it were the best in their field. That was the norm in Hollywood back then, when they could get creative forces behind one project and made magic. Their talent was taking something that looked so difficult and make it seem so effortless.

Vivre Sa Vie (My Life to Live)

"Vivre Sa Vie" is one of the best films to come out of the 1960s, it was the fourth film by that new wave dynamo Jean-Luc Godard, he wasn't afraid of challenging the way we viewed film, weather it was how he staged his scenes or directed his actors, there was something new and exciting about it. That being said, "Vivre Sa Vie" may be his most subdued film of this period.

The story centers on Nana (Anna Karina), a young girl who works at a record store with aspirations of becoming an actress. Nana becomes unsuccessful with her dream and soon resorts to prostitution, there he life is tragically cut short when she is killed by her pimp. I don't feel like I'm giving anything away at telling you the fate of Nana, since it is plainly clear at the beginning of the film, that it doesn't end well for her.

"Vivre Sa Vie" is more about capturing these moments of time in Nana's life, Godard titles these moments in tableau, there are twelve in total. Godard explains that these tableau's work as pebbles or blocks in time, they are meant to show these little snapshots of Nana at this moment in her life. Because of that, many plot points are often not shown but referred to, Godard even said he wasn't sure as to how long of a span the film is supposed to focus on, it may be months even years, but to him it didn't matter, what mattered was following Nana, almost to a point where the film feels like a documentary, but of course Godard is dealing with fictional material, yet what he does is play with our expectations with what a fictional film could be.

Much of convention is dropped in the world of Godard, he plays with the elements of film like a symphony, using every tool to its full advantage and never afraid to experiment. Some critics consider "Vivre Sa Vie" as simply a film about different conversations, and indeed that's much of what goes on. The opening tableau is Nana in a cafe talking to her ex, but Godard makes the extreme choice of filming directly behind them, showing only their heads. When I first saw this film, that scene always seemed annoying, yet it grew on me the more I viewed it, Godard was making the conversation more realistic, by not seeing the faces, we get the feeling of eavesdropping on a conversation. Similar scenes are all shot differently, sometimes with simple panning from one person to another, and other times from a more conventional two-shot cut. The effect is never distracting, and Godard seems more interested in letting the camera be part of the emotion of the scene.

These techniques aside, what draws me into this film more often is how liberated it is, both in technique and in theme. It is in fact a movie about freedom, and personal liberty, it begins with a quote from Montaigne "You must only lend yourself to others but give yourself to yourself." Nana is a woman at a constant struggle of finding freedom for herself. She is denied her freedom when she becomes a prostitute, but there is a resistance in her as she yearns for love and happiness. Tragically she becomes a martyr and in the film's most famous scene, she is shown inside a movie theatre watching Carl Dreyer's classic silent film "The Passion of Joan of Arc", Godard makes a direct parallel with Nana and Joan in the film, it's also her one burst of emotion as she is seen crying in the theatre.

The film seems to be fighting this philosophical question as well regarding freedom and love, which is summed up wonderfully when Nana runs into an actual philosopher at a cafe. Here he makes a parable regarding "The Three Musketeers" which could directly relate to Nana's own struggles. She questions the philosopher, and challenges him, and it's interesting how she is seen quite intelligent and literate, how you may ask did this girl get driven into prostitution?

It's also relevant to point out, "Vivre Sa Vie" could be thought of as Godard's own fascination with his star Anna Karina. At the time this film was made, the two were married, they made seven films together, their later ones particularly "Pierrot le Fou" showed off their disintegrating relationship, but at the time of this film, you could see Godard was at least in love with her face, Karina is given some of the most flattering close-ups in history. Karina complained that she thought the film made her ugly, but I don't see it. Karina gives Nana a beautiful sadness, and a shine that comes out in her actions; Godard gives her great freedom to play around, including a hypnotic scene where she dances around to a rocking tune trying to get the attention to a young man whom she loves. There is as much joy in her performance as there is in meloncholy and contemplation.

There's so much about "Vivre Sa Vie" that remains with you once you watch it, like most of Godard's films of the 1960s, it's youthful and vibrant, it holds a certain unique cinematic point of view. Godard seemed to be concerned with youthful ideas back then, most of his films were about young people who were alienated, confused, and questioning their existence. He also had more encyclopedic knowledge about film than anyone and he used it as his advantage.

Today Godard continues to take chances for better or for worse; his last film "Film Socialism", was completely incomprehensible, yet you felt there was a mind working trying to stretch the film language as far as it could go. "Vivre Sa Vie" still surprises and delights, it's a film that was and is ahead of its time.

The Doll

One of my favorite opening shots in any movie comes from the charming 1919 silent fairy tale comedy "The Doll". In it, we see the film's director Ernst Lubitsch opening up a toy box and creating the scene from cardboard scenery and dolls for the characters. The film begins and the dolls turn into real life characters while the cardboard scenery remains. It's such a nice little wink and shows off Lubitsch's playful sense of humour to the audience.

"The Doll" takes place in a made up kingdom where a young man named Lancelot (Hermann Thimig) is being pressured by his Uncle the Baron to take a wife. The Baron wants to see his family name live on but Lancelot is a bit of a prudish momma's boy who seems to be afraid of women. He doesn't want to get married, he runs away from his Uncle and takes solace in a monastery which houses a bunch of monks who happen to be broke. Lancelot's Uncle sends word to him that if he decides to marry, he'll give him a large sum of money which the monks need desperately. Lancelot is still hesitant but luckily there is a toymaker in town who specializes in making life-sized women dolls for men.

The dolls are all wound up and can follow orders with the push of a button, so Lancelot figures this is the perfect way to get him from marrying a real woman and still get the money he needs to help the monks.

One such doll is modeled after the toymaker's daughter Ossi (Ossi Ozwalda). When the incompetent assistant accidentally breaks the doll, Ossi takes its place and goes off to marry Lancelot. Lancelot still isn't any the wiser, even as Ossi shows signs of not being a real doll. The toymaker meanwhile realizes that his daughter has gone off to marry Lancelot without his knowing, and his hair begins to raise and turn instantly white with worry.

"The Doll" was made while Ernst Lubitsch was still making movies in Germany, before his golden age of making sophisticated romantic comedies in Hollywood. I always found Lubitsch to be an anomaly; besides him the most famous German directors were Fritz Lang, and F.W. Murnau, these were men who had a reputation for being controlling and somewhat humourless when it came to their films. They were pioneers in what is now known as German expressionism, which usually dealt in dark genres such as horrors or thrillers. Lubitsch always dealt with the lighter side of life, because he had a sense of humour about it.

I've seen many old photographs of Lubitsch and in every one he's always smiling and is usually holding a cigar in his mouth. He seemed to be a man who didn't take life too seriously and therefore didn't make anything sacred.

"The Doll" could be described as one of the very first sex, comedies. Sex has always remained in the movies countless times no matter how much the censors try to take it off the screens. In another director's hands, sex could be seen as sensuous or tantalizing, but Lubitsch simply found it funny. He was probably the first director ever to make fun of sex, and what happens when the lights go out in the bedroom.

With "The Doll", he makes fun of the implications of marrying a toy. "Just as long as it doesn't hurt", says Lancelot when he agrees to marry the doll. The toymaker even gives Lancelot some maintenance tips for the doll, making sure to "oil it every two weeks", and make sure "to give it a good dusting". It's that kind of innuendo which makes "The Doll" hilariously modern, but it's done so innocently, it never sounds crass or dirty.

The glue that holds the film together has got to be Ossi Oswalda, who plays the wonderfully bratty daughter of the toymaker as well as the doll itself. Ossi appeared in a number of Lubitsch's German films, and she seems to have a wonderful comic sensibility. There is just the right sense of charm and mischief in Ossi's performance that Lubistch must've took a shine to her particularly for this film.

The world, "The Doll" inhabits though is like a child's make believe land, and it's with that aesthetic, the film is able to sustain a sense of innocence, despite the rather grown up subject matter. Only a director like Lubitsch could create such a world where even sex could be thought of as so innocent, under his hands it never became taboo, just fun.

When someone talks about the films of Ernst Lubitsch, they are usually given a nickname, it's called "The Lubitsch Touch". No one can exactly explain what his touch was, everyone has their own theories towards what it was. I suppose the point is, once Lubitsch died, his magical touch died with him. No matter how many people tried, they couldn't duplicate his movies. They were a perfect balance of taboo subject matter, and popular entertainment, and I suppose another word for that would be class. But Lubitsch never thought a joke was too cheap to use, you could tell he found anything funny. Did I mention the toymaker's name was Hilarious?

Late Autumn

There is a serenity that comes over me when I watch a film like "Late Autumn", it's a film directed by Yasujiro Ozu so in that sense it already holds a special place in my heart. Ozu was a master filmmaker who made wonderful masterpieces almost all the time. His films were rarely seen outside of Japan for the longest time, but now over the years he's been rediscovered and can now be seen as one of cinema's masters.

What you should know about "Late Autumn" is it's a reworking of the ongoing theme which was prominent in many of Ozu's films, the disillusionment of the family. In this film the relationship between a daughter and her widowed mother is interrupted by the insistence that the daughter should be married. Both woman seem content with the fact they they live together, but society has made it necessary that the daughter should marry.

The mother in this film is played by one of the great beauties of cinema, Setsuko Hara. In earlier incarnations of the same plot, Ozu had Hara play the daughter, but now she is middle aged. Hara seems older, slower, but her beauty and her quiet sadness seems to be even more prominent. Hara wasn't in movies much, she soon retired after Ozu passed away, and in her late career she mostly worked almost exclusively with him. Seeing her in this film is like seeing a history between an actress and her director, it isn't only a character she's playing, but it's an embodiment of an idea instilled in her by a filmmaker.

But "Late Autumn" also has its playful side, it's a modern tragedy but with some wise human comedy in the mix. The trouble makers of the film happen to be three middle aged men who were friends of Hara's dead husband. They plan to play matchmakers for the daughter, it's almost as if the idea came to them on a whim. The tragedy here is how the mother and daughter become pawns in the games of these foolish men. No one asked them to interfere with their perfectly content life, but they have it in their mind it's for the best of both parties that the daughter be married off.

But we don't see anyone judged in "Late Autumn", there are no villains, the tragedy is mostly done organically by typical human error, we understand everyone does things with the best intentions, but change must be accepted, and we mourn for the way of life that will be lost.

"Late Autumn" is a patient film, it asks you to pay attention, for with all Ozu films, he's fascinated with the behaviours and the relationships of his characters. It's brilliant how Ozu can bring out character relationships in a cinematic way. Sometimes he emphasizes a close connection between two people by having them mirror each others movements, or sometimes it's used to show off a comedic situation.

But Ozu is also a master at showing the sadness of life, and also the joys. He shows life as a passage of time full of hope and heartaches. Perhaps no one has been able to show the beauty of loneliness better than Ozu. This is done in the final moments with Setsuko Hara where she is left alone in her room, and Ozu gives us her little moment to reflect that her daughter will no longer be there to greet her home, she is left to continue her life alone. Hara is perfect in this scene, every little movement shows volumes of what she is feeling, that's the secret of Ozu cinema, he was fascinated with the little habits people did, the slight mundane things that filled up their lives, it's what his cinema is all about, it's what make us care for these people, they seem all the more real to us. There are moments in "Late Autumn" where a touch of the wrist or a tilt of the head had more behind it than any emotional monologue could ever tell us, that's the signature of a master.

JFK

In the film "JFK", Kevin Costner plays Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who so far is the only man ever to bring a case of the JFK Assassination to trial, however perhaps a more accurate account would be Costner plays the mouthpiece for the people who believe there was a conspiracy.

When "JFK" was released in 1991, it was a controversial potboiler. Many critics denounced the film for being outlandish and for skewering the truth behind the JFK assassination. Time has now simmered the once notorious film, and while revisiting it I found it to be extremely entertaining and engrossing.

In the film, Costner's Jim Garrison begins his search for the truth behind the assassination of JFK. After the apprehension of lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald (Played here uncannily by Gary Oldman), Garrison becomes convinced Oswald couldn't have acted alone. His investigation leads to Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones), a legitimate businessman in New Orleans who has been linked to Oswald. Garrison has gathered enough evidence to at least bring Shaw to trial, although one might say that it's mostly circumstantial or here say. Most of his witnesses are not reliable, and it becomes clear, Garrison's case doesn't have a leg to stand on, but it wasn't really a case to convict Clay Shaw, but a case to show there was indeed a conspiracy and for that it was a success.

"JFK" is a film about conspiracies, but it's also about the injustice of feeling lied to by the government. The film was directed by Oliver Stone, a man who is at his best when he seems to be dealing with his own lost generation. With "JFK", Stone seems to be trying to get a few things off his chest not just about the cover up, but about how America in general became shaken by the assassination. There are many times when Garrison says he's in over his head and he can't believe how far the conspiracy goes. The thought of governments lying to the country was nothing new to Oliver Stone, he seems to revel in corruption, it sparks something inside of him that makes him inspired. He has rallied against Vietnam, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush to name a few.

With "JFK", Stone is unloading on his audience a certain injustice, the conspiracies act as sort of a collage throughout the film, they all meld together. Sometimes it's difficult to remember all the events or all the people connected with the assassination, but it all doesn't seem to matter in the end. This is just Stone's way of creating some sort of dialogue, he's trying to show that sometimes atrocious was covered up in America's history and his angry about it.

But "JFK" works as just a wonderfully entertaining piece of filmmaking, it's a potboiler, sort of like a more sensationalistic approach to "All the President's Men". It gets to the point where Garrison gets in too deep where he fears for his own safety and is paranoid about who's watching him. The investigation itself just seems fascinating, and Stone seems so passionate about his subject, the film can probably be accused with feeling over stuffed, and with a running time of nearly three and half hours, it's not hard to think that way.

There are moments where Stone's sincerity gets in the way of his story telling, Garrison's impassioned speech to the jury at the end of the film is overlong and wrought with sentimental cliches it doesn't ring true. There is also the half-hearted subplot of Garrison's home life, where we get too many obligatory scenes with him arguing with his wife about how he hasn't spent enough time with his family.

But despite those set back, the big picture works beautifully, Stone keeps things moving, and he gets some great performances from his all star cast. Tommy Lee Jones in particular is effective as Shaw, the main villain of the piece, as is Joe Pesci who play Dave Ferrie a man who is connected with both Shaw and Oswald. Then there is Donald Sutherland as the mysterious man only known as X. Sutherland has a long winded scene with Costner where he seems to spew out every government conspiracy in the record books. Sutherland has that sort of voice you listen to, even if you can't fully comprehend what exactly he's saying, in a way there's an undertow of humour in his performance I appreciated.

For his part, Costner is ideally cast as Garrison, where his role is mostly to listen and react to the information. Costner is a stand in for the audience, he takes it all in, and must make a moral choice to stand up for the truth. In the end, "JFK" is about the righteous search for the truth, I respected its sincere convictions even though they seemed rather naive. It has as much to do about John F. Kennedy as it does about the feelings of Oliver Stone; he wanted to make clear how he felt about being lied to. In my opinion, Stone does seem to have simplistic political views, he is a man with an agenda. He seems to succeed when he's able to get you on his side, "JFK" does so by shear passion and style.

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a great tragedy for America, I'm not sure there has been a film yet to be made that has actually dealt with it in a true and honest nature. "JFK" is still a work of fiction, it's a collage of "what ifs", it's cathartic for people who have been searching for the truth, and haven't been given any straight answers. It's one man's obsession taken to the extreme in hopes of at least communicating his frustrations with trying to solve a puzzle that can't seem to be solved.

Cat People

"Cat People" works like a fever dream, it's a film that draws you in by the power of suggestion, by making you think you saw or heard something on the screen, but perhaps you didn't. It is technically a horror film, yet unlike what the title might suggest it's not a freak show, it is in fact mostly psychological, it remains a metaphor for a failed marriage, a fear of intimacy, and a fear of oneself.

When it was released, no one really thought much of "Cat People", it was a film which was given a small budget and a b-movie title. It was created by the people at RKO as a quick cash answer to Universal's horror movie lexicon which contained titles such as "Frankenstein" and "The Wolf Man". But what the head honchos underestimated was the talent behind the film.

The history of "Cat People" is the history of Val Lewton, a Producer who started out as a protege of David O Selznik. Lewton was given a chance to produce a series of horror films for RKO, only he wanted them to be something special. He was a student of classic literature and stories, he even used to write pulp fiction novels before becoming a producer. With "Cat People" he was given a crummy title and a small budget, but that meant basic free creative control.

Through the guidance of Lewton and director Jaques Tournier, "Cat People" became the story of Irena (Simone Simon) a young woman from Serbia living in New York. She meets a man Oliver Reed (Kent Smith) and the two fall in love and get married. But something is haunting Irena, a story from her homeland has her convinced she comes from an ancestry of people who worshipped the devil and being intimate with her husband will cause her to turn into a fabled cat person and killing him.

Because of Irena's superstitions, their wedding night is spent apart, time goes by and they grow more and more isolated in eachother. Oliver takes solice in his co-worker Alice (Jane Randolph) who loves him. This sparks jealousy in Irena and she begins to act even more dark and brooding. Later Oliver advises Irena to visit a psychiatrist (Tom Conway) to help her cope with her feelings. The doctor however only tries to seduce Irena causing her to become more repressed and aggressive.

This is really Irena's story, she is the loner of the film, the outcast, she doesn't seem to fit in, it's about her fears of becoming isolated from the man she loves and losing him to another women. It's also about her sexual repression, re-watching it, the film reminded me much of Roman Polanski's own horror masterpiece "Repulsion" which was also about a woman dealing with her own repression. The tragedy of "Cat People" is seeing all of Irena's horrors come true, she does lose he husband, and she does unleash the animal within her, but the beauty of this film is how it is left ambiguous.

"Cat People" could've become silly very quickly if they chose to show a woman turn into a cat, but it's much too smart for that. The horror is done by not showing, but only implying. This is done through the isolation of sound, the use of silence, and images which seem to be hidden in shadow. There aren't many scare moments in "Cat People" but when they do happen it's to great effect. Take the moment where Alice believes she is being stalked. We the audience see her being followed by the footsteps of Irena, but soon those footsteps disappear, but we still feel Alice is being followed, the climax of this sequence is one of the most famous of its kind.

Then there is the moment where Alice again feels like she is being stalked, this time in a swimming pool. There are faint echoes of sound surrounding her, and images against the shadowy wall, but again we aren't sure what if anything is there.

These little pieces of creative filmmaking is what makes "Cat People" endure as a classic of subtle horror, but it's Irena's story that still interests me the most. Her horrors are real and they manifest into something super natural, it touches on our own fears of loneliness, isolation, even death. Irena seems to be in a waking dream, on one level it doesn't seem to make much sense, we don't quite see everything, yet we feel like we have. It's a film of the subconscious, that primal level of the mind that is able to connect with these feelings on some level.

"Cat People" isn't so much a monster movie in the same way "Frankenstein" or "Dracula" are. It's more ambiguous where you're not sure who, what, or where the monster is. The story of Irena teaches us that even though we can resist it for as long as we can, the monster will appear, and the horror is knowing it could be inside us.

Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule Seasonal Quiz

) Favorite Vincent Price/American International Pictures release.
Of what I've seen "The Fly"

2) What horror classic (or non-classic) that has not yet been remade would you like to see upgraded for modern audiences?
"The Return of Dr. X"

3) Jonathan Frid or Thayer David?
Don't know of them.

4) Name the one horror movie you need to see that has so far eluded you.
"The Haunting"

5) Favorite film director most closely associated with the horror genre.
James Whale

6) Ingrid Pitt or Barbara Steele?
Barbara Steele

7) Favorite 50’s sci-fi/horror creature.
The Martians from "War of the Worlds"

8) Favorite/best sequel to an established horror classic.
"Bride of Frankenstein"

9) Name a sequel in a horror series which clearly signaled that the once-vital franchise had run out of gas.
"Alien Vs. Predator"

10) John Carradine or Lon Chaney Jr.?
John Carradine

11) What was the last horror movie you saw in a theater? On DVD or Blu-ray?
In Theatres: "Let Me In" On DVD: "The Horror of Dracula"

12) Best foreign-language fiend/monster.
Klaus Kinski's Nosferatu

13) Favorite Mario Bava movie.
Haven't seen one

14) Favorite horror actor and actress.
Actor: Boris Karloff Actress: Vivian Leigh

15) Name a great horror director’s least effective movie.
Sam Raimi "Drag Me to Hell"

16) Grayson Hall or Joan Bennett?
Joan Bennett

17) When did you realize that you were a fan of the horror genre? And if you’re not, when did you realize you weren’t?
I think I just recently realized I was a fan of horror, thanks mostly in part to early Roman Polanski movies. his "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby" are two films I've seen only for the first time over the past few years and I found them totally engrossing. Since then I've come to appreciate more horror films even though they aren't my favorite genre.

18) Favorite Bert I. Gordon (B.I.G.) movie.
HAven't seen one.

19) Name an obscure horror favorite that you wish more people knew about.
"Mad Love"

20) The Human Centipede-- yes or no?
Never.

21) And while we’re in the neighborhood, is there a horror film you can think of that you felt “went too far”?
Not one I've seen, but I have heard of films who's very concepts turn me off.

22) Name a film that is technically outside the horror genre that you might still feel comfortable describing as a horror film.
"Apocalypse Now", "Taxi Driver"

23) Lara Parker or Kathryn Leigh Scott?
Don't know them

24) If you’re a horror fan, at some point in your past your dad, grandmother, teacher or some other disgusted figure of authority probably wagged her/his finger at you and said, “Why do you insist on reading/watching all this morbid monster/horror junk?” How did you reply? And if that reply fell short somehow, how would you have liked to have replied?
My reply was a grunt to that person and I continued watching it. I would've liked to have replied by going into great detail that what I was watching was art, and it was effectively made, and I would've gotten on my pretensious highhorse to defend it.

25) Name the critic or Web site you most enjoy reading on the subject of the horror genre. Kim Morgan, mostly for pointing me in the direction of "Repulsion" among others.

26) Most frightening image you’ve ever taken away from a horror movie.
As a boy it was probably seeing Vera Miles finding the remains of Mrs. Bates in "Psycho", or Quint squirting up blood as he's being eaten in "Jaws". Lately it's the hands grabbing out from the walls in "Repulsion", and the naked old woman kissing Jack Nicholson in "The Shining".

27) Your favorite memory associated with watching a horror movie.
It was my first viewings of "King Kong" and "Frankenstein". They brought the fun out in horror for me the first time.

28) What would you say is the most important/significant horror movie of the past 20 years (1992-2012)? Why?
"The Descent" which is probably the one horror film I've seen that actually felt like an experience, and didn't rely on gimmicks or hoky slaughter. It was a frightening story that got under my skin.

29) Favorite Dr. Phibes curse (from either film).
Can't say I've seen one.

30) You are programming an all-night Halloween horror-thon for your favorite old movie palace. What five movies make up your schedule?
For my first festival it would be more of an outing from the classic period involving

"Frankenstein/Bride of Frankenstein"
"The Invisible Man"
"The Mummy"
"Nosferatu" (1922)
"Mad Love"

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

I remember "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" from childhood. I remember feeling like I was watching a foreign film, it seemed so mysterious and weird, and I was astonished to see one of the main characters speaking mostly french. I thought of how little dialogue there was in the film, yet I always knew what was going on. I remember the lights in the film, not just the ones caused by the UFOs, but the whole motif of the it all; the flashlights, the car headlights, and the helicopters flying towards the people who thought they were seeing the UFOs. I remembered the music, that little five note piece performed by the humans in order to contact and communicate with the aliens. That piece always felt like the start of a children's lullaby to me.

Today "Close Encounters" is still a wonderful film, I have seen it over and over again, I'm amazed at how simple the story structure is, yet how brilliantly a piece of film it really is. It pulls you in at the very beginning as we hear an ominous sound of music at the beginning during the opening credits. We hear it growing louder and louder until it crescendos into the first shot of a dessert windstorm, and we see the first lights of the film coming from a jeep pulling up towards the frame. We are introduced to a group of scientists or government officials headed by a Frenchman named Lacombe. They are investigating the mysterious re- appearance of a group of fighter planes thought lost from the 1940s.

Elsewhere we see Barry (Cary Guffey) a little boy who awakes to find his toys going berserk in his room. Barry isn't frightened by these happenings, he's more inquisitive. He runs off into the night as if following something, while his frantic mother (Melinda Dillion) goes after him.

Then there's Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) a family who goes out the same night to investigate unexplained power outages. It's with Roy we get the first glimpse of a UFO as it hovers over him with a big bright light which cause him to get a sunburn. Later Barry and his mother see UFOs too, which Roy tries to follow as best as he can until they escape into the night sky.

After this encounter we see Roy becoming obsessed with what he saw, his wife Ronnie (Teri Garr) thinks he has gone nuts. He begins seeing strange mountainous shapes all over. He meets up with Barry and his mother later on, and we learn that they are seeing the same shapes. This all leads to a quest for Roy, he doesn't know what it all means, but he knows it's important, and he has to figure it out at all costs. This causes him to alienate his family, virtually abandoning them in order to discover this truth.

So what is "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" really about? In a way it's a little science fiction story about this first communication with benevolent aliens from another planet. On another level it's about one man's obsession which causes him to completely leave his family. It's also about this search for some greater truth, almost a religious experience one might feel towards something, it remains unexplained but we know it's important.

But "Close Encounters" is also a film about music and light, and using those elements in telling a compelling story. There isn't much plot in the film, it's all leading to a very simple conclusion, but it's shrouded in mystery, and the way we are drawn into the story is what's so unique about it. The spaceships in the film aren't really shown in their full glory till the climax, what we get leading up to their appearance are moments containing brilliant light. Sometimes the light can fill up the screen, sometimes there are shreds of it coming through cracks in the door or through a kitchen window.

The music plays an important part as well, it breaks the language barrier between the aliens and the humans. Nothing is ever spoken between the two different beings, but an understanding is met. The ending of the film comes with the beautiful melding of music and light as the alien mother ship comes down, and the language becomes symphonic, we don't know what is being said, but we don't have to, it's all there on screen.

This film was directed by Steven Spielberg, it was his follow-up to his hugely successful "Jaws", but with "Close Encounters" he takes his story telling skills leaps and bounds forward. Spielberg is often mistaken as only a talented craftsmen, but you can sense a young boy genius becoming an auteur with this film. It's with "Close Encounters of the Third" where we first become aware of what is Spielberg cinema. It's a film he made when he was still young and ambitious, he had his own theories about film, and was able to make them both personal and popular.

"Close Encounters of the Third Kind" came out in the summer of 1977, it was a blockbuster, but it could still be thought of as an artistic achievement. By comparison with today's nonsensical blockbusters, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is quiet, ominous, it doesn't show its cards till the end, but it keeps you intrigued, emotionally invested, and touched. Most blockbusters have given up on giving us an experience as joyful, and innovative as "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", they rely on loud explosions and special effects rather than sublime story telling. These films move like muddled sounds all mixed together that hurt the senses, where as "Close Encounters" moves like an orchestra of music and vision which fit perfectly for the movie screen.

Mouchette

"Mouchette" is one of the saddest movies I've ever experienced. It's a bleak film about a young girl's futile life where in it she is left caring for her dying mother, and her newborn brother. Her father is a drunk and a criminal who bullies and beats her. She must go to school in tattered clothes, and over sized clogs for shoes. Later, she is raped, and townsfolk accuse her of being a slut, she cuts her life short by throwing herself in the river.

What does Mouchette's life add up to? This can be what is so horrible about our existence, that something like this can happen. In the beginning of the film we see pigeons get snared in traps, and we see them struggle, one bird looks to have died from a broken neck after struggling to escape the snare. Later before Mouchette's suicide, we see rabbits surrounded by hunters as they shoot at them. There is nowhere for them to run, the rabbits are shot. For me, these are horrible scenarios, seeing innocent creatures pitted against the cruel world. But despite the despair, Mouchette depicts, does it have a sense of grace?

This is the question I keep trying to answer in this film as well as life itself. "Mouchette" was directed by Robert Bresson, who's filmography I've seen little of, yet of the films I've seen, I would say he's a master. Bresson was known to cast inexperienced or unprofessional actors in his films. He remains minimal with the performances by rehearsing scenes over and over until they depict zero emotion. Their faces remain in a neutral stance, and it works. For the young actress depicting Mouchette, her face shows nothing but sadness, anger, and contempt. There is one scene where she is allowed to smile as she is given money to go on a bumper car ride and she is able to flirt with a young man. Her happy dream is taken from her by her father who strikes her before she gets a chance to talk to the boy.

Bresson is the kind of director who's not afraid to show suffering, although he's often thought of as spiritual. Bresson challenges us with "Mouchette", he doesn't find any easy answers, even I'm left to question what the point of it all is. Mouchette's suicide has been thought of as an act of grace, we don't actually see her fall into the river, but we hear the sound of a splash as she roles towards it. The final image is the ripples of water floating back and forth, and the white dress Mouchette was wearing which was supposed to be used as a shroud for her dead mother. It might seem to most that Mouchette had left this cruel plain for a more enlightened afterlife...perhaps.

To be honest I didn't quite read into any spiritual conclusion when I revisited this film, what I saw was an innocent thrown to the wolves, perhaps hoping that the next life couldn't be as bad as this one. But I'm drawn to this question, and Bresson is perhaps struggling with the answer himself. He has come to the conclusion that life can be cruel, and for someone like Mouchette who looks and acts like someone who has never known any kind of happiness, it's unfair. Why should a child like Mouchette live? What hope is there for her? There must be another plain for this child to be happy, if there isn't than what's the point? Bresson to me must've been a humanist, he had empathy for his characters, he paints a bleak world, but he's able to transcend its hopelessness. To me he gives Mouchette hope only in death, it's her release from the snare, it's the only thing we could hope for her.

"Mouchette" is sad, but I don't find it depressing, to me it's like a prayer, in fact the first scene we see Mouchette's mother in church addressing the camera. She says what sounds like a prayer, wondering what will become of her children without her. The rest of the film, we get to see what happens to Mouchette, it isn't pretty, but we are able to see those moments of grace and maybe hope. There is a beautiful image of Mouchette crying holding her baby brother in her arms feeding him. We see the tears from her face drop on her hands as she is holding the child, for me, it did seem like a religious experience, as if something divine was happening within the frame.

"Mouchette" is a film that saddens me, even enrages me, but it's a challenging film, it's philosophical, it begs the question, is this all there is? Can we hope for more?, Is there something beyond all this suffering we put upon ourselves? Robert Bresson doesn't spell it out for us, I'm not sure he had an answer himself. In the end "Mouchette" becomes a fine balance between despair and faith, a place I'm sure most of us have found ourselves in more times than not, it's a film where we hope there is more than the life given to us, and for people like Mouchette, I sincerely hope there is.

Rear Window

The first thing you see in Alfred Hithcock's "Rear Window" are curtains rising in Jimmy Stewart's apartment as the credits role up. This is a nice little wink as to what the movie is about. "Rear Window" is a movie about the movies, the window curtains are like the ones you see on a movie screen. Jimmy Stewart is an audience member, he's stuck in a wheel chair due to a broken leg, and he spends his time looking outside his window at the lives of other people. He can't help himself, he becomes somewhat involved with these little stories happening outside. It's the same feeling we get when we go to the movies.

"Rear Window" was the first Hitchcock movie I ever saw, I was in my teens and back then Jimmy Stewart was my hero; he was the actor I loved to see because there was something about his gangly, likable persona I could always identify with. I saw "Rear Window" for the first time on a hot summer day not unlike it was in the film. It was the perfect summer movie for such an occasion, it was fun, frivolous, and involving. I didn't really think of "Rear Window" as much more than great entertainment after that first time, but as years past, I found myself revisiting it over and over.

On one level "Rear Window" does work as frivolous entertainment, Stewart plays L.B. Jefferies, a photographer who after risking his life for a photo is confined to a wheelchair. He spends his days looking out at the neighbours. His two constant visitors are his nurse Stella (Thelma Ritter) and his gorgeous socialite girlfriend Lisa (Grace Kelly). There is much drama unfolding in Jefferies backyard including a newlywed couple, a lonely woman looking for love, a sexy sociable ballet dancer, and music composer. Inside the apartment is a funny little romantic comedy as Jefferies must decide wheather or not to marry Lisa who is madly in love with him, but he wants to keep his independence.

Everything comes to a tipping point when Jefferies suspects his neighbour Thorwald has killed his wife. Together Jefferies, Lisa, and Stella become amateur sleuths as they try to figure out what happened to Thorwald's wife. All in all, these nice little elements makes "Rear Window" one of the most entertaining Hollywood movies ever made. It may be a murder mystery but it remains a light one, in fact after revisiting the film again, I was amazed at how Hitchcock takes such such dark subject matter and turn it into such a lively entertaining picture.

But "Rear Window" is more than this, it also could be thought of as the way we view movies, and a way we could view Hitchcock films in general. Jimmy Stewart for us is the audience within a movie, he sees something outside his window, whether it's a murder or two people kissing and he reacts to it, as we do when we are watching a film. In short, it's the basic primal instinct we all get when we are watching something from a distance. We are all observers in one sense or another, sometimes we feel guilty about it, sometimes we think nothing of it, but it seems to be in our DNA to know what's going on around us. Isn't this why we go to the movies in the first place? Movies are meant for us to empathize with a person or a situation, they can even make us feel like we are living different lives.

"Rear Window" does have an out of body experience for me, where I sometimes get the feeling I'm inside Jimmy Stewart's apartment, experiencing what he's experiencing, and in a way that's the ultimate escape, that's what movies can do even more than plays or books, there's something about seeing moving objects reflected in front of us that makes it all the more real.

When I watch "Rear Window" I actually don't want it to end, I know there's some point where they are getting close to the figuring out the murder, but I know once they do, the film will be over, and I will be sad. This is why people still watch Hitchcock movies, and why even people who don't usually watch classic films still watch Hitchcock movies because he knew exactly what people wanted. Basically in movies we want to be involved in some way or another, you can take away all the computer generated special effects from today and if you are not involved then there's nothing there, there's nothing to remember.

Maybe that's why movies sometimes feel like a memory or a dream, we look at them as if they are from another life we lived before. We were lifted out of our stupor or mundane ordinary life and experienced something unexpected or exciting. I know when I go to the movies, I sometimes feel more alive in a movie theatre than I do in real life, if that makes any sense.

"Rear Window" is among Hitchcock's top three or five greatest films, he was a master at what he did because he understood what cinema could do, how it could be felt, and how it could be experienced. His films are the kind of films that remind me why I fell in love with the movies, and why they continue to haunt me. In some ways they are as an entertainment, but they touch something far more primal and personal in me that has become such a big part of my life.

His Girl Friday

"His Girl Friday" is a dance done in words, right when Rosalind Russel walks into the office of Cary Grant, she's inviting him to a tango, and he's more than willing to oblige. These two people were once married, but there's still a spark to them because they know they can bring out the worst in one another but also the best. In short, these two people were made for each other, in fact they deserve each other, and if they did not end up together in the end, then it would indeed be a tragedy.

The legend of "His Girl Friday" started with the story of when director Howard Hawks invited a bunch of friends over to his house. He or someone at the party took out Ben Hect's play "The Front Page" where the play is inspired from, only with two men in the roles of reporter and editor. Hawks then suggested to have a woman play the reporter role, which suddenly changed the whole dynamic and in fact making it funnier and sexier. For the film, Hawks would get Rosalind Russel to play Hildy the ace reporter, and his favorite actor Cary Grant as her editor Walter Burns, and with that this screwball masterpiece was born.

The set up is simple, Hildy goes into Walter's office telling him she's quitting the newspaper business for good and getting married to a nice momma's boy Bruce Baldwin (Ralph Bellamy) and live the rest of her life in Albaney with him and his mother. We know this isn't the life for Hildy and Walter knows it too, his job is to get her convinced her life is as a "Newspaper man". It just so happens Walter needs Hildy's skills to cover a hanging of a man named Earl Williams who's accused of murdering a cop. Earl may be innocent, but there are many political powers wanting to hang him for their benefit.

Hildy agrees after Walter agrees to give the newlyweds a large insurance policy which is Bruce's vocation. But we, including Hildy know it won't be that simple, Walter will stop at nothing short of murder to scoop the story and keep Hildy on his payroll.

Watching "His Girl Friday" now, is like watching a favorite routine. In these kinds of films, there are certain riffs, certain rythims the actors work with that stay with you. Even after all these years, there are certain lines, or zingers that still get me off guard and surprise me.

The film is never stale, it's fast and furious, life would have to speed up in order to pass these guys by. Everyone in the film live in the moment, to them it's a game, a routine, it's fun, it's exciting. Hawks himself loved focusing on people and their profession, you could see a guenuine affection towards how people could love their work. Hildy in particular is the quintissential Hawks woman, someone who could role with the guys, and just be as tough, even more tough. The most feminine person in the film is poor hapless Bruce and his mother. Of course Hildy shouldn't be with him, Walter is the only one who could upstage her, he's got her number, and she knows it. She loves the dance, she doesn't want the music to stop and niether do we.

Walter is her svengali, make no mistake, he's a manipulator, he's a conman, a crook, and a swindler, and if he wasn't portrayed by Cary Grant, we may not like him. It's to the benefit of Hawks, Grant, and the script, that we want Walter to succeed, he's a comic dynamo, I miss him in that part in the middle where he's not on screen, and when he is finally with Hildy in the last 20 or so minutes, it's like banter that comes down from heaven.

I suppose this film is what you would call a favorite, it's basically as perfect as perfect could be. It's designed to lift you up out of mundane life and watch two people who know eachother inside out have some fun. They are liars, swindlers, and cheaters, but it's okay, this is what love should be, if only it were this perfect everywhere.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

"Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" is a charming film, about a man who during the Great Depression comes into a large sum of money, and decides to give it away to people who really need it. In the climax of the movie, this man is prosecuted for his actions and his sanity is tested. Yes, I started this paragraph by saying this is a charming film. It keeps its charm because it was directed by Frank Capra who could balance popular entertainment and social commentary more seamlessly than everybody. But when one thinks of the mindset of this film it gives somewhat of an unsettling vibe.

It's important to note, "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" was made right smack dab in the middle of The Great Depression in 1936. It was an enormous hit garnering Capra his second of three Oscars for Best Director. This was the moment Capra could do no wrong, he had a knack for mixing screwball comedy and backwoods American sentimentality, although I would say his ideas in the end come off as pretty radical.

"Mr. Deeds Goes to Town", is the story of Longfellow Deeds (Gary Cooper), a naive simpleton from a small town who spends his time playing the tuba and writing poetry. When Longfellow's rich Uncle dies, he comes into a great fortune and is suddenly whisked away to New York City to live the high life. But Longfellow doesn't seem to gel with the big city life. He's pestered by moochers and frauds, people who just want a quick buck from him. When he doesn't want to have anything to do with their reaction is that there must be something wrong with him.

Longfellow's antics are also covered by an ace newspaper reporter named Babe Bennett (Jean Arthur). Babe disguises herself as a damsel in distress whom Longfellow rescues in order to gain his sympathy and get close to him.She begins to write articles which show Longfellow in a very unflattering light. Predictably though Longfellow falls in love with her, and vise versa just to make things more complicated. But the real weight of this story comes when Longfellow decides to give away all his money to needy people, which causes an uproar throughout the moochers and frauds he had to deal with as they try to discredit him.

It's curious to watch "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" and wonder just what the mindset was in mid 30s America. Capra was obviously making some comment about how the world seems to have gone to the dogs at the height of the Great Depression. As we face an economic crisis of our own, seeing people out of work, yet also seeing some people in America fight to stave off upper class tax hikes, it might not be hard to believe someone trying to give money away could be thought of as an act of insanity, certainly Capra didn't think people were too far from it.

Of course "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" remains a romantic comedy, and its scenes are meant to exaggerate, but it wears its heart on its sleeve. Capra had a reputation for making earnest moral fables such as these. Longfellow Deeds is the kind of naive simpleton easy to get behind. He's the kind of guy who gets exploited by people like Sarah Palin all the time because he stands for simple American ideals and what the country should be built upon. Palin believes a fellow like Deeds should run the country, and maybe Capra believed that too. Of course politics and the economy are more complicated than the simple ideals, and the movies make a guy like Longfellow a wish fulfillment. What I'm touched by in the film is the utter sincerity, and the heartfelt honesty throughout it. What Capra has done, like he would do with Jefferson Smith in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", and George Bailey in the more ambiguous "It's a Wonderful Life" is give us someone to root for, someone who knows seeing his fellow man suffer is wrong, and would it be nice to be a millionaire and give that man suffering a helping hand.

"Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" thus transcends any political label you could put upon it, because it's more interested in showing, in very simple terms, the difference between right and wrong. Capra's heroes could not be corrupted, they needed to keep their simple ideals in order to show the audience where the moral compass was pointing. It was only later with "It's a Wonderful Life", where Capra would show the dark side of his heroes and the repercussions of not being able to be corrupted.

Still "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" raises to big issues, but deals with them like a sweet fable; it's a moral film that children could see and know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Gary Cooper was the ideal strong silent type of his time and he's so good and likable, it's hard not the root for him. Jean Arthur is a treasure, a tough talker with a soft center, she would basically play the same role again for Capra in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", but it's never boring to watch her. A great group of character actors fill the rich scenes of gentle humour and sentiment.

"Mr. Deeds" was remade into a soulless film by Adam Sandler in 1999, it's so easy to see the difference between that film and the original which seemed to have been made with a beating heart.

Battleship Potemkin

Open up any film text book and near the beginning, there will no doubt be a reference, or a chapter concerning "Battleship Potemkin". This film was one of the game changers; like "Birth of a Nation" before it, and "Citizen Kane" after it, it influenced the ways movies were made. Even if you have never seen a piece of "Potemkin's" celluloid, you must be familiar with the famous "Odessa Staircase" sequence, often called the most famous scene in movies. This is the sequence where thousands of Russian peasants are run off the mighty steps at Odessa by Cossacks with guns. It's famous for its brutal images, but perhaps even more famous for its use of editing and montage, which found its way into the basic film language. But there's something I always found off putting about "Potemkin", I can understand its influence and importance, but I'm not sure if I've been profoundly moved by it.

"Battleship Potemkin" tells the story of the famed Russian battleship mutiny of 1905. It was there that the sailors of the ship took command from the officers after they were tired of being malnourished and mistreated.In the film, the mutiny causes an uproar with the peasants of Odessa who also rebel and stir a revolution within Russia. This revolution causes the attack on the Odessa staircase, but it ends with the Battleship gaining sympathy with the other ships as they join together in brotherhood.

The interesting thing about "Battleship Potemkin" is how it seems to document these historic events into a fictional, and propaganda context. The film doesn't follow a series of characters, it doesn't seem to be interested in getting invested with who they are, but rather what it is they are fighting for. By doing this, the film is saying, it's not the individual who's important, but rather the people as a whole. There's nothing wrong with saying that, "Potemkin" wouldn't be the first film to do that, but as someone watching the film I felt a disconnect with it.

"Battleship Potemkin" is a film with an agenda, a political agenda, and maybe it's because I'm not a political person, I didn't feel much sympathy with what they are saying. The opposing faction could just as well make a film which is an argument against what "Potemkin" is saying and so on and so on. That's the problem I find with propaganda films. The best propaganda films I would say come from Frank Capra who could be political but he adds human characters who could be likable and sentimental so it's easy to get on their side.

What "Potemkin" does very well is go along like a fine oiled machine, not unlike its own battleship. The director of the film was Sergei Eisenstein, who was the Godfather of Russian cinema. Eisenstein seems more obsessed with wowing us with this new found film technique of his. He brings about a new storytelling element with his use of montage which are quick cuts to get the audience more involved. The ultimate use of this montage is in the Odessa staircase sequence. It's here Eisenstein is able to get us involved with the human suffering by being able to concentrate multiple stories on the staircase at one time. The editing is swift and effective, Eisenstein is a master at building tension within the frame, the technique is almost invisible, it's only later if you break down the sequence of events do you understand why you become so invested with this scene; no doubt Hitchcock was strongly influenced by this technique.

But still I would argue the effect of this film is largely mechanical, mostly because, the Odessa sequence no withstanding, we are meant to stay away at a distance. Eisenstein seems like a cold director who doesn't let us in in any way. That could be the difference between him and Hitchcock. Despite his reputation as a cold director, Hitchcock did like his characters and he seemed to like his audience as well in order to let them in on the fun.

Perhaps part of the reason I feel this way towards "Battleship Potemkin" is because I'm fatigued by it. I've seen it about as many times as I suppose one should. I can't get anything else from it. I've also seen films by Renoir, Ozu, and Truffaut, who put more of a human touch on their films, and I tend to favour them.

I don't deny the power of "Battleship Potemkin" or its importance on film history, anyone who loves film should see it, there is a beauty to its mechanical way of telling a story. The Odessa scene alone should be studied by anyone who wishes put together a sequence. This was a time where film was still very young and taking its shape, and "Battleship Potemkin" took the kind of leaps this artform had to go in order to grow. I like revisiting films like these if only as a back to basics reminder; what other leaps and bounds are left to explore?

Scorsese: An Overview

I've just finished my library of Martin Scorsese films which started with his first film "Who's That Knocking at my Door", and ends with his latest HBO documentary "Public Speaking". Here's an overview of his career.

The Certified Masterpieces:

"Mean Streets", "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "Goodfellas"

The ones that should be considered classics

"Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore": A modern woman's picture in the spirit of the fifties films with Jane Wyman, telling the story of Alice (Ellen Burstyn)a recently widowed woman with no prospects attempting to start a new life along with her smart mouth son. It's funny, heartwarming, and quite unlike anything Scorsese has done.

"New York, New York": A musical which blends the style of two of Scorsese's idols, Vincent Minnelli's splashy artifice and John Cassavetes' blunt realism. In my opinion it meshes beautifully and is one of Scorsese's most unsung (No pun intended) masterpieces)

"The Last Waltz": Another kind of musical, this one a documentary of The Band's last concert. A film that celebrates the life of a rock star, but the performances in the film are what make it so memorable.

"Casino": Unfairly maligned because of its close relation to "Goodfellas". I think of it as more of a companion piece. The pacing is just as frantic and musical as "Goodfellas", also the use of voice over narration is just as innovative. I also found the ending far more tragic and subdued, but it remains a wondrous film experience.

Other Underrated Gems

"No Direction Home: Bob Dylan" :Scorsese's documentary in two parts about Dylan is probably the best film he's made in the new millennium. It goes from Dylan's humble beginnings to him being the voice of his generation which is something he never really wanted. We come to empathize with Dylan who just wanted to make the music he wanted to make.

"Who's That Knocking at my door": Scorsese's first film is not perfect, but what first films are? It does show an original voice and a lot of great visuals, you can see himself struggling with the same themes which would become more prominent in "Mean Streets".

"Shutter Island": In my opinion the best film Scorsese has made with Leonardo DiCaprio, a psychological thriller which is really about one man's guilt and how he comes to terms with it. It may not all hold together, but to me it's one of Scorsese's most moving finales.

"After Hours": A film I was introduced to just recently, a wonderful comedy in the same vein as The Coen Brothers' "A Serious Man". Griffin Dunne plays a man who is stuck in down town New York where he can't seem get out. Throughout the film, terrible things keep happening to him.

"Gangs of New York": Not the masterpiece Scorsese had probably wanted, but a visceral look at a history not often talked about, the roots of violence, and gang warfare, in a sense, the roots of America.

"The Aviator": Along with "Gangs of New York", it's often thought of Scorsese's prestige picture, where it looked like he was trying to win an Oscar. Look at this film again, again not perfect, but Scorsese has a way to get inside the mind of his characters unlike anyone else. Howard Hughes is no exception. It's a dark bio, plus an extravagant look at old Hollywood.

"Public Speaking": A warm look at Fran Libowitz, it's pretty much her show, Scorsese basically points the camera at her and lets her go. She's one of the great modern intellectuals and displays that mantra throughout the film, she's also full of acid wit which is nice.

Overrated

"The Departed": Although not a failure, it seems to be more of a practice in style. Unlike "Goodfellas" and "Casino" which feel alive and vibrant, this film doesn't kick into high gear, but it's well crafted with great performances. Scorsese could no longer be ignored by the Academy, and like so many of the greats they decide to honor him with one of his good but not great films.

Misfires

"Boxcar Bertha": His first Hollywood movie has some nice images particularly and a violent tragic ending, but the script lets it down. Produced by Roger Corman, it seems like a warm up for Scorsese, "Mean Streets" came right after this one which left it in the dust.

"The Color of Money": Scorsese's weakest film, a sequel to "The Hustler" which didn't need a sequel. There's no climax, but what we are left with is Paul Newman who saves this movie by knowing this character inside and out.

What I still Need to see

"The Last Temptation of Christ": Unfortunately I was unable to find a copy of this film in time. Netflix was showing it, but the aspect ratio was wrong so I gave up.

"Cape Fear": I've seen most of the film on television but not in sequence.

What I need to watch again

"King of Comedy": Saw it many years ago, I remember being very young and not getting how dark it was, or what it was trying to say.

"Kundun": Saw it when it was first released, it was rated PG so it was the only Scorsese film I could see.

"The Age of Innocence": Again saw it when I was young thanks to the PG rating, but have yet to revisit it.

Goodfellas

The first time I had heard of "Goodfellas" it was at a Christian Camp when I was about thirteen or fourteen. At the camp we were given a list of movies that were deemed sinful against our church, "Goodfellas" was at the top of the list. Of course "Goodfellas" is sinful, it's about gangsters, what kind of gangster movie would it be if it wasn't sinful?

However because it was on that list of sinful films, it took me awhile to finally see "Goodfellas". By that time, film had become a new kind of religion, and I didn't feel like I was going to go to hell just for watching a movie.

"Goodfellas" doesn't feel like a typical gangster film, it's fast, it's kinetic, it's full of rhythm, it's almost like a musical without the show tunes. This is pop art, a visceral experience. It can be shocking, brutal, and violent, but it can also be funny, light, and joyful. This is Martin Scorsese at his most entertaining, his most surprising, and his most fun.

It's funny, but I don't really consider "Goodfellas" to be as serious as other Scorsese masterpieces like "Taxi Driver" or "Raging Bull", despite the fact that this is a film which examines the life of a gangster. Unlike other modern gangster films like Coppola's "The Godfather" or De Palma's remake of "Scarface" which took a more operatic approach to the genre, "Goodfellas" takes us back to the streets. We meet Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), a man who comes into the mob at an early age. He's seduced by the lifestyle, the clothes, the money, the power, everything that the movies have exploited for decades.

Henry begins his mob life as a young man, and we watch him grow up becoming more and more important. His usual crew consists of Tommy (Joe Pesci), a hot headed psychopath, and Jimmy (Robert De Niro), the leader of the bunch who usually plans out big scores for the fellas to do.

We see Henry's rise in the gangster life, to his inevitable fall where he ends up in the witness protection program. Movies like this usually end with the main character being killed off, but Henry was actually a real person who did end up in the witness protection program. His story was published as a book called "Wiseguy" by Nicholas Pileggi who co-wrote the film's screenplay with Scorsese.

What makes "Goodfellas" standout from the crowd of gangster films it followed is not letting itself fall under the trappings of cliche. The gangsters here are shown as real people, they talk like they probably do talk. As with "The Godfather", the gangsters portrayed here are Italian Americans, and we get a certain authenticity with their way of life and culture. There is probably more talk about what the men are eating than about killing. We see scenes where Henry and the guys are sitting around the table, playing cards or at a restaurant. Scorsese always knows when to pull the rug out from under us, by offsetting these normal scenes, with violence.

To this day, it's hard to find a film more shocking in its violence than in "Goodfellas", it comes so sudden, mostly from Pesci's character Tommy, who is like a lit fuse ready to go off. But the violence is never dwelled upon, it's treated as a daily routine within the lives of these guys. It does serve as a wake up call to the audience, that power comes with a price, and it's something that proves to be Henry's downfall. By the end, he's trapped in a corner, he's no longer safe, and the only way out is to betray these men, and end up the rest of his life hidden.

I don't think "Goodfellas" has anything new to say about gangsters, it's serving the same story that crime doesn't pay, but it's in the execution of this story that makes it so brilliant. Scorsese is a master of the film language, he seems to be having a ball exploiting every technique known to man. He never slows the film down, if you watch it, you can see it has its own pace, it flows together effortlessly, it's all thanks to the timing, and editing by Scorsese's longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker, who has done every one of his movies since "Raging Bull".

There were also leaps and bounds of innovative camera work introduced in the film, most notably the famous Copacabana scene, where we see Henry enter the club with his wife Karen (Lorraine Bracco), with a steady cam following them in. It's done all in one drawn out shot, as they come in through the kitchen, and enter to take a front row seat near the stage.

Scorsese has also been known for substituting original film scores in favour of existing music, and here he does it masterfully. How could you forget the the sweeping montage of murdered bodies over the song of "Layla", it's one of the great movie moments in history. Scorsese has the talent of finding the right song for every scene, either used to set the right mood, or to juxtapose what is actually going on, it all works beautifully.

"Goodfellas" is a great film because it's fully of energy and vitality. It's a way for us to live vicariously through these dangerous men for awhile, we admire them because they live a life that looks cool and dangerous, but we know with this kind of life, there are extreme consequences, which is safe for us, but not for Henry Hill.

I don't think "Goodfellas" is as deep as other Scorsese films, but I don't think he has ever been this fun with the film language before, watching it is always a treat, it's one of the great American genre films of the last twenty years, it's a master at the height of his powers showing the kids how it's done.

A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese

I've been going through some of the films of Martin Scorsese as of late, which is a little project I've been wanting to do all summer since I read a book about Scorsese not long ago. Some of the films I've seen over and over again, some I've only seen once, others I haven't seen at all.

I think I'm beginning to have a further appreciation with Scorsese's films, not just with his heralded classics like "Taxi Driver", or "Raging Bull" but also his less popular films like "New York, New York", or "After Hours". Scorsese's films have become more important to me as I grow older, before I couldn't quite understand his world. Scorsese was raised in Little Italy, he was attracted to characters with loose morals, that was a world I was unfamiliar with. Yet as I watch them now, I can understand these films a bit more, I find myself getting into the heads of the protagonist, and it's as if Scorsese is daring us to follow him into these dark realms.

But the one thing that does set Scorsese apart from his contemporaries is his need to tell a personal story every time. Even when he makes a presumably money making film such as last years "Shutter Island", it becomes a personal statement. The character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in that film is a deeply disturbed individual who is ridden with guilt. The film isn't so much about the mystery he has to solve, but about how he can reconcile the demons inside of him. The decision the character makes at the end of the film is the reason I think Scorsese made the film in the first place.

Also let's not forget, Scorsese is also a teacher, he has instructed film classes at NYU almost as long as he has been making movies. He's made some very in depth documentaries about film, and film history. One such documentary is entitled "A Persnal Journey Through American Film", which was a three part series he made in 1995. The series can currently be shown in its entirety on You Tube. I just finished watching the whole thing. In it Scorsese makes his passion for film into a personal look into the making of movies. He discusses different kinds of directors dating from D.W. Griffith all the way to his mentor John Cassavetes.

I have often been asked why I love to go and watch old movies, there are many reasons. People argue that old movies are there purely for nostalgic reasons, and they can't compete with the movies made today. In "A Personal Journey", Scorsese shows the importance of classic films, the dark themes hidden inside of them, the poetry of there shots, and what each director was trying to get to.

You get the feeling after watching the documentary that old Hollywood films had a lot more depth and personal stamp than the films we see today. For me it's pretty much sums up why I think these films are so important and why they have lasted.

For those of you interested I've embedded the first part of the documentary below, you can catch the the other two parts on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWEXIWlX4NY

Raging Bull

I've never met the people in "Raging Bull", meaning I've never been a part of the world it depicts. "Raging Bull" is a vicious world, but a beautiful one, it's beautiful because it believes that a violent man like Jake LaMotta deserves redemption. At first he seems beyond redemption. He's a self-destructive man, he alienates his wife and his brother through his suspicions and paranoia. But at the end of the movie, Jake LaMotta is tamed going from a middle weight champion to a bloated nightclub owner, he has made his mistakes, he has paid his penance, we have seen his battles both lost and won, and what we are left with is a man who doesn't ask for our judgement, but our acceptance.

Watching "Raging Bull" again just recently reminds me just why it remains my favorite film by Martin Scorsese. Scorsese has a gift of giving us people it's difficult to sympathize with, let alone forgive. With "Taxi Driver" he gives us a psychopath, but he ultimately becomes a tragic figure through his own loneliness, with "Raging Bull", we are given a man who can only act out through violence, and that becomes a liability on how he treats the people around him.

We first see Jake LaMotta" (Robert De Niro) like he is at the end of the film, an overweight, over the hill nightclub owner who is reciting his routine to himself. Why are we given this image of him first? It does work as a bookend, but perhaps we are also being set up for this life we are about to see, perhaps it's a reminder to us to what this man was to become.

We see Jake early on, he's testy, he's temperamental, he's loud. In the ring, Jake fights hard and rough, the way Scorsese films the fight scenes, there doesn't seem to be much technique, only two men who punch and punch back, although I'm not an authority on boxing in any way. At home, Jake torments his manager/brother Joey (Joe Pesci) to no end. In one scene Jake has Joey hit him in the face harder and harder until his bruises are cut open. Jake seems to live off his violent nature he can't get enough of it.

He meets his wife Vicki (Cathy Moriarty) who he has a hold on, she suffers through verbal abuses by Jake and later is subject to slaps and punches. Jake becomes possessive of Vicki, Scorsese shows Jake's point of view when Vicki is touched by other men, it's maddening, Scorsese for my money is probably the best filmmaker to get inside the head of a diseased mind. It is indeed diseased because there is never any proof Vicki was ever unfaithful. But all the suspicions come to a boil when Jake accuses Joey of sleeping with her. In a long heated scene full of scary domestic violence, Jake confronts Joey about the false accusation beating him to an inch of his life.

There are other things in the film that damn Jake, one such instance comes when he is asked to take a dive in a fight by local gangster. In return they have offered Jake a chance at a title shot. Jake decides to take the fall, but his reputation and his own integrity is in ruin. After the fight, we see Jake being comforted and breaking down in his dressing room.

Having not been raised catholic, I'm not quite sure about the religious implications of "Raging Bull". Martin Scorsese can be thought of as a catholic director as the themes of guilt, and forgiveness come up very often in his films. I do think in Scorsese's mind, the ring becomes somewhat of a metaphor for Jake, it's where he can wash away his sins, he's fighting for something very primal, is it forgiveness? I'm not sure, perhaps his life in the ring is seen as a sort of purgatory. There is one fight where Jake fights his rival Sugar Ray Leonard and the ring is seen through fiery smoke which was rigged in front of the camera to give the effect. Jake is also seen in a heated steam room which in my mind looks to be as close to a room in hell could be. In this scene he asks for some water but is denied it as his trainer closes the door on him.

In his final fight with Sugar Ray, Scorsese shows Jake up against the ropes holding on trying not to fall (Sugar Ray never knocked him down). He's submitted blow after blow, gushing blood that splatters on the spectators. It's a sequence that I think is meant to remind us of Christ on the cross and his sufferings. Jake is a bloody mess at the end, perhaps the suffering has stopped.

I suppose the whole film could be seen as a purgatory, even near the end Jake isn't let off easy, he's arrested for a vice crime involving an under age girl and is sent to jail. We see him breakdown again screaming and punching the walls of his cell, yelling he's not an animal. It's a primal performance all the way through with De Niro, it's sometimes maddening, but in the end it's a bruised battered performance.

I'm not quite convinced "Raging Bull" is a perfect film, but it is a very passionate one. Scorsese has rarely made perfect films, but they are filled with raw emotion, I think this is his rawest and most beautiful film and after years of first being introduced to it, it's still in my opinion his best and most complex. It could also be seen as the culmination of the collaboration between him and De Niro, a relationship where the star and director have been so in sync with theme and character.

"Raging Bull" fascinates me to no end, it's a film that asks us to take a leap of faith with a character we may not identify with, but like with all of God's creatures at least deserves our understanding.