Works from Two Cannes Directors: Woody Allen and Terrence Malick

Once again, I failed to make it to Cannes! It would be a dream to go one year just one year, until then I can only yearn and dream.

One of my favorite movie times of the year comes when Cannes opens and I get to hear about all the great films premiering from there, most of which won't see the light of day in my neck of the woods, unless they are "Kung Fu Panda 2".

Two films that did make their premier at Cannes this year came from two of my favorite directors, Woody Allen and Terrence Malick. Allen's "Midnight in Paris" opened the festival out of competition. As a fanatic of both Allen and Paris, the film seems delightful. Malick, the great reclusive director had great success with "The Tree of Life", only his fifth film in 35 years.

Seeing that I was unable to see their latest films, I decided to visit films from these directors I haven't seen yet.

For Woody Allen I chose "Everyone Says I Love You", a modern musical, that seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle with the rest of his work, not many people talk about it anymore. It's the story of an upper class extended New York family as the film seems to follow them throughout the year. This is also a musical Woody Allen style, which includes many old standards from the jazz era. I found many parts of this film to be utterly charming, it's lightweight, romantic and fun. Allen is known as a cynic sometimes, but I think he's best when he lets his romantic self come to light. Allen has made better movies than this, but very few of them have been this magical.

Next up was Terrence Malick's "The New World". I had yet to see this film centering on the story of Pocahontas as she encounters John Smith (Colin Farrel) and later moves to England and marries a tobacco farmer (Christian Bale). Terrence Malick is one of the most lyrical filmmakers today. I found "Days of Heaven" and "The Thin Red Line" to be existential masterpieces. I found "The New World" a challenge, I grew impatient with it, yet there are passages as beautiful and poetic as he has ever done. "The New World" didn't keep my interest as much as his other films, that isn't to say I'm dismissing it, Malick isn't the kind of director to get the brush off. I found after watching "The Thin Red Line" again, it became more deeper and meaningful to me, who's to say the same can't be said for "The New World". I will definitely revisit it again some day.

Happy 70th Mr. Zim Where ever you are.

The Godfather Part 2

They said it couldn't be done. I don't know who "they" is exactly, perhaps there is not "they", whoever they may be, "they" are the ones who said you couldn't improve on perfection. Yet if there was a time, it actually happened, it was in 1974 when "The Godfather Part 2" premiered. Was it better than the first? This has been asked by scholars of film throughout the world, was it indeed better? There must be one, a definitive greatest "Godfather" film. Surely it couldn't be part three, that mess of a movie about redemption and the Vatican with Sophia Coppola showing why she's best behind the camera.

Alas I cannot choose, for I deem them to be both masterpieces of film art, they stand above other mafia movies, for, dare I say, they are each a piece of a large story, perhaps the most ambitious of 70s cinema. It is all a story of America, a story about power, attaining that power, and becoming corrupt by it, so much so that you lose your soul.

One thing "The Godfather Part 2" has as an advantage to part one is Francis Ford Coppola gives space to explore the Corleone family and its power struggle from two different points of view. We see the humble beginnings of the original Godfather Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro) as he escapes from his native village after his family is wiped out from a local Don, and he comes to America. We also see his son Michael (Al Pacino) now head of the family after the events of part one.

Michael is a changed man since the events of "The Godfather", he has been thrust into the family business in order to protect his father. His new ventures with the family include the Casino business where he forms an alliance with a Jewish gangster Hymon Roth (Lee Strasberg). Roth is someone not to be trusted, he tries to assassinate Michael, and turns his own brother Fredo (John Cazale) against him.

Michael's entourage is also different from his father's. His adopted brother Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) is more or less sent in the background. The family home is now in Lake Tahoe Nevada, while people from the olden days seem to stay in New York. One of these is Frank Pantangeli (Michael V. Gazzo), who is having problems with his family and resents Michael's alliance with Hymon Roth. Unlike his father, Michael seems to be more paranoid with whom he can trust, for awhile he seems to be in control, yet it comes a shock when he finds out his it was his own brother Fredo who betrayed him.

This is Michael Corleone becoming unglued, as he tries to keep his power he is alienating his family. Kay his wife (Diane Keaton again the one ounce of goodness in the film) is drifting further and further away. Like in the first film, the last time we see Kay is when a door shuts in her face, only this time by Michael, and even more colder than before, because it is done so matter of fact.

In contrast, Coppola takes us to the youth of Vito as he makes his fortune. Vito was always the more sympathetic Don because you can see what he did, he did for his family. Perhaps he was just smarter than Michael, or perhaps less selfish. We see Vito gain his power by killing a local Don in New York thus gaining respect by the people. However he is never seen as a corrupt individual. Vito is more like a Robin Hood to the people who does favors to the poor and small business owners. He is unlike the Don who he kills or like the one who killed his family.

The scenes of young Vito are gorgeous to look at in their reproduction of old New York, and Coppola's tracking shot of De Niro stalking the Don that he kills is a tour de force of dramatic effect.

There is a difference of power when it comes to the time of Vito and the time of Michael. Coppola shows us perhaps the noble venture of Vito to create a better life for his family, but Michael becomes a shadow of who his father was as he doesn't know when to quit until there is no turning back for him. By the end of the film, we can only imagine where Michael can go from here.

Coppola leaves the film on the right note of dread, there is no operatic music when the family does away with their enemies as it was in the first one, Nino Rota's score is more melancholy and bleak, Gordon Willis' cinematography also seems less stylistic and more hard. Pacino's Michael is more dangerous, more dazed, more unsettled. Michael looks more tired, and there seems to be little feeling in his eyes, when he slams the door on Kay for the last time, it's as if he's sleep walking.

One of the final scenes in the film is a flashback which incorporates Sonny (James Caan) and Tessio (Abe Vigoda) back from the dead. In this scene you can see many things happening, it's when Vito was still in power, it's when the family was all together, you can see all four Corleone brothers talking near the end. You can see Michael, a misfit who decides to enlist in the marines and fight in the war instead of doing what his father wanted. It's heartbreaking to see and I think it gives Michael a little bit of grace before the last shot where we see him alone with only the shadows of his past to haunt him.

So which film is the greatest? I watched "The Godfather" just recently, it was a beautiful film, highly stylized, it's so iconic, a film I fall in love with. However I would argue "The Godfather part 2" is more tragic, more ironic in its idea of the American dream and the corruptibility of power, it puts the period on a fascinating saga. If "The Godfather" was a poem about a certain way of life, then part two was its eulogy.

The Godfather

What can you say about "The Godfather" that hasn't already been said? It's a film of legend, it changed the cinematic landscape. It's a miracle it was made, it came from a pulp novel, it was directed by Francis Ford Coppola, he won an Oscar for the screenplay of "Patton", yet he was a relative unknown director. Coppola saw Marlon Brando in the role of Don "Vito" Corleone, but he was considered washed up.

Al Pacino was in constant fear of getting fired for his portrayal of Michael, could you imagine anyone else playing that role? Imagine Robert Redford, who was at least the producer's original choice. How could Michael be blond. There was arguments that the film looked too dark to be sold as a blockbuster. Plus this was a film about the mafia, it was violent, it was bleak, and we were meant to sympathize with these people.

A tough sell all the way, most movies have their stories of how they were made, but with "The Godfather" it's just another part of the legend. The film is so good, so beautiful, it should be studied for every student of filmmaking, screenwriting, cinematography, and acting, it takes you to school every time.

The film remained a mystery to me as a child, I was not allowed to watch it, there it was one night on television, I was completely enraptured by it from the beginning. There was that wedding, which takes up the entire first half hour of the film. We are introduced to the world of Don Corleone, inside his office, he is granting favors, be it murder, or threats, doing all very dignified, in contrast outside is a big family celebration with the large extended Italian family.

We meet Michael (Pacino) the war hero of the family, the only one who is legitimate, this film is of his downfall of course. He's young, there is love in his eyes for Kay (Diane Keaton), he loves his family but he swears never to become like them. But later, The Don is shot down, Michael must protect him, and he ends up killing the people responsible.

There are also Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) the adopted son, and lawyer to The Don, he's the voice of reason in the world of crime. There is Sonny (James Caan) the hot headed older son who is meant to take over for the Don. Then there is Fredo (John Cazale) the innocent, he doesn't know any better. It's mostly a family of men, sure there are the women, Coppola has great sympathy for them as they are not allowed into this world, they are left out in the cold, but they are the ones who mourn the most over the deaths of husbands and sons.

"The Godfather" is Shakespearan in its execution, the dialogue seems to come from an older time, yet it's modern. Take the scene where Vito looks over the corpse of Sonny and says "look how they massacred my boy", it's poetry from the streets.

The performances are just as memorable, Brando was perfect in the part of the Don. It was said he read his lines from cue cards off camera, he put cotton in his mouth for the large jowls, every word he says is like a razor sharp whisper. He can be fierce and gentle.

Duvall and Caan are both excellent, each one playing off the other, they compliment the scenes they are in, and don't leave Cazale out, more of him will be written in part two, this was merely his introduction.

Diane Keaton is heartbreakingly sweet as Kay, hers is the final face we see in the film, she's in the background, like all the women, she's the conscience Michael leaves behind, as the door closes on her.

I leave the best for last, this is the saga of Michael Corleone, he can join Charles Foster Kane as one of the most complex characters in American cinema. Al Pacino pours everything he has into this part. The key scene of course is when Michael is in the restaurant and he kills for the first time. So much is going on in that scene, Pacino is understated perfection, just watch him in the bathroom as he pulls out the gun, and that moment he composes himself before he goes out again. For some reason, that moment spoke volumes to me.

"The Godfather" was photographed by Gordon Willis, who was a master of using shadow and light, it is a dark film, but no darker than an average noir. Let's not forget the music by Nino Rota, who worked with Fellini, you can't escape the music here, it's everywhere, it always has the hint of sadness, but it could also evoke beauty and dread.

I feel like I've repeated what many other people have already said about "The Godfather". I still remember when I was younger seeing it for the first time, I knew it was great without being told it was. It showed me its power in the very first frame with Nino Rota's first few bars of music. It's one of cinema's greatest achievements, now go watch it, then watch it again.

The Wild Bunch

There is a code going on in "The Wild Bunch", it's the code of scoundrels, but non the less it is felt. "The Wild Bunch" is a film about outlaws, murderers,and thieves, yet we come to sympathize with them. We are on their side despite much of the carnage they can leave in their wake.

The film begins with the bunch robbing a bank, they are Pike (William Holden) the leader, Dutch (Ernest Borgnine), Angel (Jaime Sanchez), and Lyle and Tector who are brothers (Warren Oates and Ben Johnson). When the bunch get to the bank, they already have a posse ready for them, they are lead by Thornton (Robert Ryan) who used to ride with Pike, but now he's forced to side with the law in order to stay out of prison.

The robbery becomes a bloodbath, and innocent civilians aren't spared, however Pike and his crew make it out with Thornton's team not far behind. The bank was supposed to be the last score for everyone thought, but they have been tricked finding out the money was replaced with washers. Pike and the others then come across a corrupt Mexican General (Emilio Fernandez) who hires the bunch to steal guns for his army so they can use them to fight the rebels.

I was unsure about "The Wild Bunch" when I first saw it so many years ago. I can't remember when I first saw it, but I can group it together with other important films of that time like "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Easy Rider". These were the films made by a new and young Hollywood, one that separated themselves from old studio systems which worn out their welcome.

"The Wild Bunch" was directed by Sam Peckinpah, a filmmaker I know little about except his reputation of being a hard drinker who was usually at odds with studio executives. I've only seen a handful of Peckinpah's work, from what I have seen his films are full of violence, sex, and a certain nihilistic point of view towards life. But his films are also full of poetry, because despite a bleak outlook, Peckinpah's characters carry with them a code of honor, and that's what I think works with "The Wild Bunch", and that's what makes it one of the great westerns.

Most of the cast of "The Wild Bunch" are men, if there are women anywhere in the film, they are mostly prostitutes who the men have sex with. Pike does have a woman who he was in love with who is shot by her jealous husband in a flashback. Angel also has a woman who he kills because she leaves him for the corrupt General. But if there is a love story, it's between these men, their code, and their honor towards one another. Perhaps the most heartbreaking relationship is between Pike and Thornton, who you could see in flashbacks how one betrayed the other. although they are on opposite sides of the law, their is no animosity to towards the other, but you feel a certain respect between them.

The climax of the film happens after Angel is taken by the General for stealing guns for his village. The Bunch see him dragged across the street by the General's car, so later they get together to get him back. Up to that point the bunch don't have much else except eachother, they have money, but we don't see them doing much with it other than spending it on whores and liquor. They make their last stand for the only thing they believe in, themselves and there is honor in that.

There is a lot going on in the relationships of this film, Peckinpah was one of the great poets of male camaraderie like Hawks and Ford, I miss filmmakers like those. There's usually great sadness in the eyes of these men, they can say very little but the others can understand what they mean. Pike's most common phrase in the film is "let's go", in context, he usually means exactly that, but the final time he says it, before they meet their destiny, there is something behind that. Holden is perfect in the role of Pike, he was an actor who succumbed to alcoholism, he was past his 1950s leading man prime when this came it. There is tiredness in his eyes and melancholy. The same could be said for Robert Ryan who play Thornton, and man who probably was Pike's real soul mate. Holden and Ryan never speak to eachother in the film other than a flashback, but we understand the past between them, it's an unspoken bond.

"The Wild Bunch" came at me unexpectedly with all its carnage and bloodshed, I was young, I probably wasn't ready for it, I wanted to stay in the safe nostalgia of a Ford or Hawks film, I wasn't ready to grow up just yet. Today I changed my tune, "The Wild Bunch" paved the way for the westerns of today more than any other film, I feel a great sadness come over me everytime I see Pike and the others in that final showdown, but I always feel pride towards them. They were men who kept their word, and in their world, it was the only thing worth a damn.

Sunset BLVD.

It's been a few years since I last basked in the dark, demented world of Billy Wilder's "Sunset BLVD.", one of the all time classic films. It's a world that has fascinated me since I was young; I'm entranced by it, yet horrified by it. It may have been the first really dark film I remember seeing.

"Sunset BLVD." was the film I was watching when I heard about the death of Princess Diana. I'm not sure that is significant, but I always associate that moment with this film. You could say the death of Diana sort of mirrors the ending of "Sunset BLVD." In the film we see the tragic murder of a B movie writer by an aging Hollywood starlet. It ends with a media circus event, news cameras, gossip columnists, and police officers surrounding the tragedy, Diana's real life death came with a very similar vibe. Like the narrator of "Sunset BLVD", Joe Gillis says, (who's corpse it is we see in the beginning of the film) "It's funny how much people care about you when you're dead."

But the tragic, ironic, cynical, and sad world of "Sunset BLVD." doesn't start with this realization, it's only where it's headed; it's all about the dark side of Hollywood. As people who go to the movies, we are usually spared this side of Hollywood, we get the glamour, we get the excitement, we get the stars, the artifice, the special effects. We get the franchises, the summer blockbusters, the Oscar contenders, and the box office results. But there was a time, when we could be shown this other side of Hollywood, that all the fantasy, the glitz, and the fame had its toll. That's because once upon a time, there was a man named Billy Wilder, a man who wasn't afraid to show the nastiness of his business. Looking at "Sunset BLVD.", you can tell Wilder loved Hollywood, but he also had a bone to pick with it.

The story is about Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), an old silent actress who's star has since faded. She lives in her all but abandoned mansion with only her man-servant Max (Erich Von Stroheim) attending to her every need. It is on a fateful day Joe Gillis happens to find himself on Norma's doorstep after running from debt collectors. Joe is an unhappy out of work scriptwriter who is in desperate need for a break. Luckily Norma just happens to have a script she needs work on; it's a script of "Salome", which she wants built as her triumphant return to the movies. Joe is more than willing to help out with the script, and Norma in return is more than willing to keep Joe there as her companion, to which Joe doesn't object to, at least not right away.

Much of the action of "Sunset BLVD." takes place in Norma's mansion with only her, Joe, and Max around to supply the story. Occasionally other characters make it into the scene, such as Norma's "waxworks" as Joe calls them. They are other faded actors from the silent screen who join her for bridge. The outside world isn't seen often by Norma with the exception of the scene where she visits her old stomping ground Paramount Studios to see Cecil B. DeMille regarding her comeback picture. That scene may be the definition of bitter sweet as Norma gets to relive her moments as a star all too briefly.

There is budding romance as well, and perhaps the only ray of hope for Joe in the character of Betty Schafer (Nancy Olsen). Betty is a young wide-eyed dreamer, someone who hasn't seen the harsh realities of Hollywood yet. She wants to write a film with Joe, the two fall in love, but for Joe it comes too late, his fate is sealed at the beginning of the film.

Hollywood must've been a strange mistress to Billy Wilder. Here was a director who made his career in Hollywood, a successful career. You could hardly say a director who could make a film like "Sunset BLVD." wasn't a success. The film had its share of detractors, there was the famous story of Louis B. Mayer walking out of the film in a huff saying he Wilder shouldn't have made it since people like him made his career.

But when awards season came, "Sunset BLVD." didn't do too bad earning a best original Screenplay Oscar, I wonder how Wilder might've thought about that. Of course the Academy wasn't that forgiving, it lost most of the other major awards to "All About Eve" that year. That film was a cynical look at the theatre world, I suppose since it wasn't directly about Hollywood, they could honor it.

But despite all the cynicism, and harsh realities of the film, I can't condemn Wilder for not caring. Wilder was a cynic, and may I point out most good writers are. Wilder loved making movies, so much so in his later on, he spent years and years of getting other projects off the ground, projects that would never see the light of day.

The characters of Joe Gillis, Norma, and Max are burned in our memory as a reminder that not all is well in Hollywood. Each one is a tragic figure, each have been scarred by Hollywood's wrath. Their stories of course are very well documented in other writings about the film. There is of course the story of Betty which is never written about. She tells the story of her failed attempt of being an actress, where producers wanted her to get a nose job, where she did but then they still shut her down because she's not that good of an actress. That small story got me thinking of the extremes people sometimes go in order to be noticed, to wipe away imperfections in the blink of an eye. Yet Betty does it, and so she's not an actress, she stays in the business still dreaming. She's the love of the movies Wilder brings in almost as an antidote to the bitter pills he keeps serving.

To put things back into perspective on a personal level, "Sunset BLVD." may have helped me grow up a little about Hollywood. I remember I wanted to be an actor, not just an actor, but a star, I wanted people to come and see my movies because I was in them. I wanted to go to Hollywood and live the dream, I don't really want to do that anymore. The Hollywood now has changed so much since Wilder's days, back then he could make a movie like "Sunset BLVD.", now it's highly unlikely such a film could be made within the system. I wonder if Wilder knew just how good he had it back then. The cynic never stopped, "Ace in the Hole" was right around the corner and it was probably even more devastating in depicting human cruelty to oneself. Then a decade later came "The Apartment", a romance set in a cruel world of corporate businessmen who sell humanity cheap.

But with all the anger thrown at you, you can see the love, you still weep for Norma Desmond, so deluded, so alone, so sad, Wilder never lets you forget behind the madness there was a real person inside, slightly exaggerated, nevertheless we mourn for her and her world she lives in.

Sullivan's Travels

Comedy is a tricky thing to take seriously, in fact it's not meant to take seriously, that's why we're supposed to laugh at it. Yet if you ask any comedian I'm sure they would say it is a very serious thing. Comedians are often criticized when they try drama, people want their clowns to be happy not sad. So here's a tricky scenario: a director known for comedies wants to make a serious picture. In order to prepare himself to make the film, he decides on an experiment; he will leave his Hollywood lifestyle for a time to see what it's like to live as a bum. Not a bad premise, there's plenty of room for satire, and gags ; but there is also some room for sentiment and pathos as the film director really does get a chance to see what life is like for people who really have nothing.

This is the plot of "Sullivan's Travels" one of the greats. it was directed by Preston Sturges who made "The Lady Eve", "Miracle on Morgan's Creek", "Christmas in July", and "The Palm Beach Story" just to name a few. Each of those titles are true blue comedies, some of which are the funniest films ever made, but "Sullivan's Travels" is something special. It's a comedy with the right tone in order to show just why comedy is so important. There isn't a heavy handed approach, just when it seems to be getting soft around the edges, Sturges keeps his sense of humour, which in the end is the real heart of the film.

Joel McCrea plays John L. Sullivan, the film director with the noble idea of going out and seeing what it's like to really suffer. In the early stages of his experiment, he is followed around by a large entourage motor home who follows him around for insurance purposes. He manages to get them off his trail, yet for some reason, no matter where he goes, he always seems to end up back in Hollywood.

On his travels he meets a girl (Veronica Lake), why? "Because there's always a girl in the picture" as Sullivan quips. She's a disillusioned actress ready to quit Hollywood when she meets Sullivan, but she's attached to Sullivan and becomes his partner in his quest.

"Sullivan's Travels" is the kind of film that gets better as it goes along, the tone shifts from light hearted to darker very quickly. There is a long unspoken montage of Sullivan and the girl experiencing life as vagrants. It's perhaps Sturges' most blatant use of pathos in a film, but to me it remains powerful and effective.

The denouement of the film is even more surprising as once Sullivan is finished his experiment, he goes back to pass money to the homeless, only to be knocked unconscious, robbed and locked up in prison, it's here where he learns just what his fluffy comedies mean to those who have nothing.

Preston Sturges dedicated "Sullivan's Travels" to the clowns of the world, the ones who make us laugh, to him comedy was a serious business. It's hard not to watch Sullivan and not think of Sturges, he must've wanted to make serious movies, but when he tries it, they would flop. Sturges was always more at home with comedy, it was his true calling, very few could direct a pratfall, or a zinger so well. He had timing that rivaled Groucho, and a dialogue to match anything by Billy Wilder.

Which gets me back to why "Sullivan's Travels" is such a great film. Because it's a comedy which shows why we need comedy. Why do we need comedy? Because it's a cockeyed world we live in and sometimes the only thing stopping us from going crazy is seeing something ridiculous. Sturges never forgot that, he would go on to make more comedies, always with a satirical undertone, but "Sullivan's Travels" was a pit stop where he got to say "This is why I make the movies I make", sometimes you have to let an artist indulge in those little vices.

Is "Sullivan's Travels" Sturges greatest film? That's hard for me to say, "The Lady Eve" leaves me laughing the most, but "Sullivan's Travels" leaves me smiling the most, either way my world is happier because at some point a man named Preston Sturges made movies.

Did film Criticism ruin Christopher Nolan for me?

The other night something struck me which I thought was rather odd. I was sitting in my house with my roommate, we were about to watch Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins", a film I had liked before when I had first seen it and had no problems with it up until this present time. Once the film started there was this feeling inside of me not wanting it to start. When the film did in fact begin I found myself enjoying it less and less. That isn't to say I disliked the film, I just wasn't taken with it like I was before. I began noticing things that bothered me about the film, the way it was put together, the way it was cut, jumbled in places, sometimes if felt like some sequences were unfinished. The dialogue was also very dry, the characters didn't seem real to me at all, they mostly sounded like symbols, plus for a super hero movie it seemed rather grim and not very fun.

What happened to me between the time I first was taken with "Batman Begins" and today? Well when it did come out in 2005, I was six years younger, I was a partial comic book fanboy. This was to be the first Batman movie to show how Batman became Batman, and what fanboy wouldn't want to see that? I had also not started this film blog yet, which has become somewhat of a hobby of mine over these past five years it's been operating. I'd like to think of this film blog to be a part of my own evolution as a student of film. Throughout this time I've grown to love different kinds of movies, I've even surprised myself at what kind of movies I'm open to, and I like to think that I've helped a few people discover films they otherwise wouldn't know of.

Always growing, always evolving, a lot had happened since I was first taken with "Batman Begins". I wasn't just a student of film, but also a student of film criticism. The Internet is full of bloggers like me, and for most film critics it has been the only way to express their views as well. I surf weekly, sometimes daily for recent articles from favorite critics, and recently I've been hearing a lot about the films of Christopher Nolan.

Nolan is riding high these days thanks largely to his Batman sequel "The Dark Knight" which has become one of the most successful films of all time. Add to that his own personal movie "Inception" which became one of the very few non-franchise hits of last summer, and no one in Hollywood is hotter. There was even a little controversy this year at the Oscars that Nolan was snubbed for a Best Director Oscar for "Inception", plus it has been argued "The Dark Knight" was robbed of that honor as well.

Despite all his loyal followings and acclaim, I've started to notice cracks in his armour. The first instance for me happened with "Inception", a film I found to be "okay". I gave it a fare review, but I was not blown away by it. Nolan has a set up for a very interesting action movie, and his set pieces are constructed well, but the movie left me cold. I was overwhelmed by the rules Nolan sets for himself, much of the scenes were about how the whole movie works. Nolan has a problem with just showing how the film works, when he does stop the dialogue, he is capable of pulling off pretty impressive action sequences.

I found it even more in "Batman Begins", the characters are never able to come out of its restricted environment. Batman/Bruce Wayne is never interesting to me, neither are the villains, listen to the first bit of dialogue between Christian Bale and Liam Neeson, and you might see what I mean. The characters talk of the themes of the film and what the inner demons Bruce is battling and the journey he must take for himself. The only things that are shown are action scenes, yet Nolan doesn't even put these together as well. The editing is all over the place in "Batman Begins", you don't know where characters are in relation to others. Nolan isn't the only one who does this, many action scenes done today are like that, as if they haven't been storyboarded, or they have been story boarded too much.

When it all comes down to it, I do still enjoy Christopher Nolan on a certain level, but what he puts on screen isn't memorable. I'm not moved by his films, but there are far worse ones made today in mainstream Hollywood than his. Nolan has ambitions, and he's able to put them on screen, and I think there is always something interesting he's trying to convey, at the same time, there are far more interesting and intriguing films and filmmakers than him.

I like to think I'm evolving as a film goer, I like to be challenged, and entertained at the same time. I'm interested how certain films can move me whether with a certain shot, an edit, a performance, or a piece of dialogue, I try to stay hyper aware of these things as I watch movies, perhaps my perception of what I'm seeing is changing, that to me is never a bad thing, it shows growth.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

It's hard to imagine, but there was a time when people thought animated movies wouldn't work. Of course it took a man named Walt Disney to show it could, and the rest as they say is history.

"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was a high water mark in the history of movies and animation, it proved that yes there can be a full length feature of only animation and that people would go see it. Much like "The Jazz Singer" did by introducing sound, "Snow White" could be regarded as just as important, and it also stands up better as well.

Disney adapted the age old Grimm Fairy Tale, a story which is important to point out had its dark undercurrents and put his own spin on it. Snow White is a Princess who is hated for her beauty by the evil queen. One day the Queen tells a huntsmen to take her out to the woods and kill her bringing her heart back as proof that she is dead. The huntsmen is about to kill Snow White, but is too taken by her beauty, he tells her to run away into the woods so The Queen won't find her.

There she finds the cottage of the seven dwarfs, (Sneeezy, Dopey, Doc, Grumpy, etc....). The Dwarfs find Snow White sleeping in their bed when they come home, at first they are frightened but of course they come to love her and protect her from the Queen.

It's hard for me to pinpoint how many times I've seen "Snow White", I remember as a child watching it, I even remember when it came back into theatres for a limited engagement, there was a time Disney did that. It's a testament to Disney's work to that images have had a lasting impact. The moment when Snow White finds herself lost in the woods, and the dark inanimate objects come alive in a macabre way, or when The Queen transforms herself into an ugly old women to trick Snow White are some of the scariest and most impacting moments in children's film.

Then there are the peaceful moments with the dwarfs such as them coming back from digging diamonds in the minds singing "High Ho, High ho, it's home from work we go", or when Snow White asks them to wash up before dinner, something that seems foreign to them. There's something about these scenes embedded in my memory, I could probably stop watching "Snow White" for twenty years, and still remember these moments.

There is a primitive look to the film, but much care is given to every detail. Also this being the first of its kind, it's safe to say the animators were also learning along the way. Admittedly Snow White isn't the most expressive character, her face reminds me of a more refined Betty Boop. The Dwarfs more or less steal the show, as does Snow White's animal friends, which of course would be a trademark.

Despite its short comings, "Snow White" is still a great movie experience for the images, the music, and the heart that went into it. Walt Disney has become a brand name and it's hard to imagine such humble beginnings but I guess most empires are built in the same way. Walt Disney the man never stopped experimenting and honing the craft of animation. Leaps and bounds were jumped a few years later with "Pinocchio", and "Bambi", but "Snow White" was the stepping stone, to one that proved to the world animation had its own place in cinematic history.

The General

It is said that there are some directors who when you watch their films, that is all you need to know about making a movie. Hitchcock usually falls under this category, as does Welles, but I would make room for Buster Keaton.

Keaton has made a slow but steady rise to the annals of film history, even though he remained popular in his hey-day, his films weren't as revered as say Charlie Chaplin or even Harold Lloyd. Times have changed, and Keaton has now eclipsed both his silent contemporaries as a master of cinema. It's difficult to talk about just one of Keaton's films, in his list of Great Movies, Roger Ebert payed Keaton a high compliment by not just focusing on one of his films, but instead bunching them all together in one essay simply called "The Films of Buster Keaton", he doesn't do that to any other director.

But there is of course "The General", if there is one film most talked about in Keaton's canon, it is this film, his most well known, and according to most including Keaton himself it's his best.

I've seen "The General" many times like I do all my favorite films, it was in fact the first silent film I had ever seen, it was actually the only silent film my local movie store had. I still chuckle at the film from time to time, even though I know all the gags inside out, when I watch to movie now, I mostly stand in awe at how it is constructed.

The story has Keaton as a civil war engineer named Johnny, he has two loves in his life his train engine and his Annabelle (Marion Mack). When war breaks out, Johnny is the first to enlist, but the army reject him thinking he's more valuable as an engineer. Annabelle mistakes this as Johnny being a coward and she tells him never to see her until he is in uniform. A year goes by, Johnny brings his engine into Annabelle's town, when both her and his train are taken by enemy hijackers; so begins an astounding chase sequence as Johnny goes to regain his two true loves, not only that but he must also warn about an oncoming attack.

It wasn't till recently when I watched "The General" just how much Keaton shows in his frame, and just how much he can show without cutaways. I was surprised just how little Keaton relies on close-ups, he keeps things rather wide, but it works well with his brand of comedy. Everything is visual, it's how Keaton reacts to his surroundings that make his comedy so memorable. Chaplin was known for his performance, gaining sympathy by using close-ups, there isn't anything wrong with that, he also used wide shots to pull of wonderful gag sequences, yet Keaton's gags seem more complex.

One of my favorite moments in the film is when Keaton is loading a canon on his train to fire at the enemies in front of him. Once he lights the canon, he becomes stuck, suddenly he finds myself eyeing the barrel of the canon, the sequence becomes both amusing and a bit scary. Timing becomes everything as the train hits a turn in the tracks just as the canon goes off avoiding Keaton and at the same time coming close to shooting his enemies. I find this scene to be a quintessential Keaton moment, Keaton stays in the realm of reality, the canon fire could've been resolved within a simple cutaway, but we are kept in real time, we see the situation played as it would in real circumstances, it's all about timing, and just dumb luck.

There is another beautiful shot of Keaton and Mack now being chased by a train; all in one take, we see the enemy soldiers jump from their train onto Keaton's cart, the camera pans over to show Keaton heroically unhooking the cart with the soldiers on it, thus evading them.

"The General" is full of many of these moments, but Keaton is also a master of the smaller bits of comedy, he also doesn't hog the spotlight, he has much fun at Mack's expense showing her ineptness at the gravity of the situation. At one point after staving off a chasing train, Keaton is astonished to see Mack sweeping the engine, almost to bring a bit of normalcy in the hectic situation. There are also multiple times where Mack is given control of the engine which she always seems to move backwards towards the enemies. Mack is certainly an MVP in this film and unlike much of the women in Chaplin films who are idealized, she's able to join in the fun.

It's hard to pinpoint one scene or one moment in "The General" that truly sticks out above others, it's all a pure whole, it's one of the very few films you could argue is perfect. You can't take away one shot, it is all necessary, it's also hilarious.

Comedy is often regarded as light fare, yet when an artist like Keaton comes along, he's able to make it seem so sublime, he can lift it to something memorable, and even philosophical. You can see in his films the way Keaton viewed life, when compared to Chaplin, he seems more grounded in a reality. Keaton was a realist, where Chaplin was a romantic, I happen to love both comedians for different reasons. But Keaton just might have the edge, he's easier to root for, he's self-made and doesn't ask for sympathy, he fights at what the world throws at him, he tries to make sense of its unpredictability and chaos and moves on as best as he could. Keaton was always a mover, there is hardly a moment in "The General" where anything stops, it's constantly going forward. Perhaps the best metaphor for Keaton's comedy comes in "The General", again in real time, Keaton is at the very front of a train with a giant beam in his hands, the train comes close to another beam on the track. Without thinking he takes the one in his hands to knock the other one off the tracks, the train moves forward, Keaton avoided catastrophe, it was both heroic and funny, Keaton always acted above and beyond the call of duty.

Pan's Labyrinth

Fantasy is often taken for granted in today's movies. Nearly all the popular kids films are full of fantasy, yet they have become diluted into adolescent eye candy. Yet when fantasy gets into the hands of someone who knows how invaluable the stories can be, it could be both magical, yet horrifying.

Guillermo Del Torro's "Pan's Labyrinth" is perhaps the best fantasy film ever made, it blends both the horrors and magic of a fantasy world with those of the horrors of a real one.

The film takes place in Spain just after the Spanish Civil War. We are told at the beginning of the film, the war is over yet there are still rebel forces in Spain fighting off the dictatorship. The main character is Ofelia (Ivana Banquero) a little girl who enjoys storybooks, which immerses her in a fantasy world. Ofelia's mother pregnant and has re-married a Spanish captain named Vidal (Sergi Lopez). We find out right away Vidal is a sadistic dictator, he runs a camp which is meant to rub out any remaining rebels in the area. While at the camp Ofelia meets Mercendes (Meribel Verdu) a maid working for Vidal but who is actually a spy for the rebels.

While this story is going on, Ofelia is taken into an alternate one as well, as she soon discovers she may be the reincarnation of a Princess from another world. She receives this information from Pan (Doug Jones), an ancient faun who's duty it is to find the Princess and bring her back to her family. In order for Ofelia to prove she is indeed the long lost Princess, Pan puts her through three challenges, each one is a test of bravery in some way.

It's safe to say "Pan's Labyrinth" is in no way a children's film, Del Torro does not sugarcoat any part of the action going on. Vidal the dictator might bring reminisces of Ralph Feinnes character from "Schindler's List", he is the epitome of evil. The fantasy world isn't any safe haven for Ofelia either, each trial she faces, she is risking her life, most memorably running from a child killing monster who has his eyes in its hands. This creature is also played by Doug Jones and is quite frightening to look at.

What works so well in "Pan's Labyrinth" is how invested we are in both stories, so much is at stake, and never do we sense that any ending to this could be happy. We also don't know what to make of Pan, is he actually trying to help Ofelia, or is he setting up to betray or trick her, nothing is fully answered until the end.

"Pan's Labyrinth" is also a film about fighting fascism, Del Torro is probably the most knowledgeable filmmaker when it comes to fantasy elements in films, to him the stories mean so much more, they are allegories to what is happening in the real world. The mythical monsters in children's stories always come from somewhere, and fascists were always a target as the monster. The violence in the film doesn't pull any punches, Del Torro doesn't hold anything back in the real world. Yet despite all the hopelessness we sense, it's never quite gloomy, there are always the heroes, and you can tell Del Torro admires the courage of his characters like Mercedes and plucky Ofelia who fight for a better tomorrow. Many people die in this film, but Del Torro shows it isn't in vain.

It had been a few years since I saw "Pan's Labyrinth", when I just recently watched it, I was struck by how new it all seemed. It's a very moving film, something I was emotionally invested in until the very end. What struck me about this film unlike other fantasy films is how real all these characters seem to be. Despite all the fantastical things that was going on, Ofelia always seemed to be grounded in what was happening to her at the moment, it didn't matter if she was against her evil step-father, or a child killing monster, she responded as truthfully to what was around her. "Pan's Labyrinth" feels like it could get away from you at any moment, but it only sucks you in the more you see it.