Movie Review: Film Socialisme

I don't think there is any other film where my opinion has flip flopped more while I was watching it than "Film Socialisme". In many ways, this has been the film I have been waiting for, in other ways, it's a film I've dreaded. I can't quite make my mind up about it, but for the sake of argument, I am going to say you should see "Film Socialisme", people who love film as I do should see it, people who love new and different film should see it, people who love the weird, short circuit mind of Jean-Luc Godard should see it.

What is "Film Socialisme"? I can't really say, it seems to have three parts to it. The first part takes place on a cruise liner where we are introduced to many different characters, of the ones I remember the most, a man in a fedora, a young boy and girl who seem to be brother and sister, and famed new wave music icon Patti Smith who seems to be playing herself.

The second part of the film consists mostly at a gas station, or near a small town surrounding the gas station, this has a woman who sometimes seems to be a reporter, maybe a filmmaker, her camera woman, a young boy first seen in a Soviet Union t-shirt, a woman who may be an actress playing herself, and her daughter who hangs around the gas station.

The last part in a series of images put together by Godard which involve newsreel footage, old films, and still photographs, and in the end, you may have an idea what it all means, but maybe you don't.

All in all, "Film Socialisme" doesn't work as a movie, yet there's a part of me that think it is brilliant, stay with me. Jean-Luc Godard is a giant of the French New Wave, he made movies in the sixties that were far beyond what other people were making at the time, today we are still trying to catch up with what he introduced into the film language. The way he used jump cuts in "Breathless", or how he cut out the soundtrack in "Contempt", or how he blended the film essay format with narrative/mockumentary in "2 or 3 things I know about her". In total he made 15 films between the years 1960-68, that is the Godard the majority of the people know and love.

With "Film Socialisme" I feel the film got away from Godard, it doesn't make a clear link, but I also think this was a brave film for him to do, because here he is tinkering with the film language yet again.

More than with any other filmmaker, Godard makes me ask the question what is film, what can film accomplish as an artform. We must remember, film is barely over a hundred years old, I feel like there are still new boundaries to be broken, new room for experimentation, and new ways to explore what film can do, so in that way I think "Film Socialisme" is a success.

Godard seems to be trying to create an entire movie based on film, and he uses his tools in new and unique ways. Take some scenes on the Ocean Liner, where Godard uses live sound. We hear the wind blowing in the microphone, usually the director would choose ADR. Why does Godard choose to do this? I'm not sure but it does give off a certain effect.

Godard also chose the film sometimes with HD cameras, and sometimes with video. Occasionally he plays with the image by overexposing it, underexposing it, or distorting it all together, sometimes to the point where we don't hear what the people are saying.

This also brings me to the issue with the subtitles. This is mostly an all French film, I could hear some German being spoken and a little Russian, very little English, and other languages I know little of. Subtitles are provided, but only three words appear at a time. I know enough French to understand that some of the subtitles correspond with some of the words being said, but it's certain they are saying more. Again I'm not sure what Godard was meaning, I took it as sort of his version of "Babel" where people aren't meant to understand eachother. Done this way, I found the film to be somewhat liberating, instead of the subtitles being just words the people are saying, Godard is incorporating it as part of the film, making what we are seeing one hundred percent authentic cinema.

Now as to the finale which in my mind was the most effective part of the film where Godard is bombarding us with image after image. We are shown images from Eisenstein's "Potemkin", which are cut with modern day children on the steps of Odessa in Russia. We see images of war, the holocaust, words appear on the screen which seem to reflect the conflict with Israel and Palestine. All this comes to a heated climax, where again we are meant to interpret in for ourselves.

In the end I felt adrift with "Film Socialisme", but I also felt liberated by it, I wasn't given the conventions of a usual film, I was faced with new possibilities of the potential it could be. "Film Socialisme" isn't a masterpiece, but I think, and I really mean this, it could lay the groundwork for a new and unique movie that has yet to be made.

Godard created a film that looks to the future, Hollywood seems to think the future is with 3-D, which to me seems like a step back. Movies seem to be jumping back from what we have learned, it's the price paid for being the most popular artform. It needs to grow, to flourish, to experiment to discover its true potential. "Film Socialisme" had the courage to try something never done before, it failed at being great, but perhaps it can lay the groundwork for new and exciting cinema.

Un Chien Andalou

It begins with a man cutting a woman's eye open with a razor blade, and ends with the same woman and another man dead buried half way in the sand. In between there are severed hands on the street being poked at with a stick, two priests being dragged across the floor tied to two pianos with dead donkeys on them, and a hand with a hole in it which contains ants.

These are some of the more famous images in "Un Chien Andalou", which is arguably the most famous short film ever made, also the most famous surrealist film ever made.

The film was made in 1929 in Paris, it was directed by Luis Bunuel, one of the great masters of cinema. He collaborated on the film with his friend at the time Salvador Dali, the famous painter who is seen on many t-shirts and posters. Dali and Bunuel created something special with "Un Chien Andalou", it was a culmination of cinematic surrealism at the time. This was the type of film which could provoke and challenge its audience not so much with narrative form, but with images, both shocking, funny, and tragic all at the same time.

What's great about "Un Chien Andalou" is how compact it is, which is why I think it stays refreshing. I enjoy films which test boundaries as to what cinema is, "Un Chien Andalou" did that in spades. Up to that point, movies were still considered brand new, sound did come in two years prior with "The Jazz Singer", but even that stayed to a conventional storyline which was pioneered by filmmakers like D.W. Griffith. Film had a narrative language, but the surrealists wanted to go further, to them film might've been a way to express the inexpressive.

"Un Chien Andalou" works in a dream logic, dreams are places where things don't make sense, yet to the person dreaming it, there might be some sort of Freudian explanation to all of it. I'm not sure if at any point Bunuel is making any sort of a statement with these images, I feel it was his idea to create a film to test his audience.

What I can say for certain is "Un Chien Andalou" is a film to be experienced, there are images in it that remain shocking, unsettling, and yes very funny. I do enjoy the film and am moved by it, it's in the way Bunuel mixes his images together, how each is cut, they always seem to blend into one another. There is also in his choice of music which heightens the way we may feel about a certain image. I always found it rather touching when a man on a bicycle is struck down in the streets of Paris, people gather around. The music is a classical piece which escapes me, but it raises my emotions. Does Bunuel mean us to feel a certain way with these images? Again I don't know.

I've seen little of Bunuel's work, what I have seen though are markings of a unique voice. His "Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" was a film I saw in high school before I knew what the word surrealism was, yet it was the first film along with Fellini's "8 and a half" which made me think I was seeing a dream. "Un Chien Andalou" has the same effect on me even more so, it is as if we are watching an actual dream, it has that nonsensical yet familiar feel to it.

Surrealist cinema is a dying art form, you can see it practiced by people such as David Lynch or Guy Maddin today, I enjoy these films because they are meant to provoke, sometimes they fail to move me, but they always leave me curious. When I look at "Un Chien Andalou" I think of how much innovation there was back when film was beginning, and how much we still have yet to learn about this very young and exciting artform.

The Art of W.C. Fields

I read a rather disheartening article the other day. It was a review of W.C. Fields' "Never Give a Sucker an Even Break". In it, the critic dismisses the film, and he claims Fields is no longer funny for modern audiences. Recently I just purchased a box set of Fields' work and curiously enough I had just viewed "Never Give a Sucker and Even Break" for the first time before stumbling upon this critique. Needless to say I was shocked as to what he was saying.

Now this is me, I know I may have a bias towards old movies, I always seem to have to defend myself towards my taste of movies to modern audiences. I enjoy these movies not because it's nostalgic to do so. It's so well and good to say they don't make them like they used to, of course they don't, no one does. A more concise claim would be they don't make them as well anymore, comedy included.

W.C. Fields was no exception, I would rank him in the list greats like The Marx Brothers, Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, Woody Allen, and Monty Python. Fields isn't as fondly remembered today as some of the people I mentioned above, and that's too bad.

Fields usually had two separate characters he would play, usually it would that of a con man, a blowhard who would do whatever he could to get rich quick. He would quip amazing bits of quotations most of which he would write himself. The way he spoke in these characters probably would be his most famous trademark.

But Fields would also have another character, that of the long suffering, frustrated man who could never catch a break. These are the men of such films as "It's a Gift", or "The Man on the Flying Trapeze". Those films especially concern the art of frustration. Everyone in the world is against him, his wife, his in-laws, his children, his neighbors. Everything seems to try and keep him down, but he has enormous tenacity to keep going.

Both of these characters, the blowhard con man or the long suffering man are perfect comic personas for Fields' unique voice. Fields is the unlikely hero who usually wins in the end. In "It's a Gift", Fields almost loses his entire family over the buying of a worthless property, but he lets his character win out by having that property surprisingly worth millions anyway.

It's not always so clean cut however. In one of his most overlooked films "The Old Fashioned Way", Fields plays the manager of a failing theatre company who gives up his daughter, the only person who truly stood by him in order for her to marry a man of higher stature. It doesn't end on a bad note, we see Fields at his old tricks trying to petal throat tonic, you can't keep a good man down.

I suppose it's in the comedic philosophy where one can relate to Fields, it's cathartic to see him in films like "The Man on the Flying Trapeze" where he gets four parking tickets in a row, or in "It's a Gift" where he can never seem to get a good night's sleep. They are all very subtle slices of life that could drive the common man up the wall, but we basically see Fields strive through it, he tries to complain but no one listens, mostly because there's always someone who complains by to him louder.

To see Fields succeed is one of the joys of his films, because so much is set up against him. I can most commonly see a link to the films of Buster Keaton, who also plays a character commonly at odds with the unfair universe.

There is of course those special little moments I see most often in old films where the stars can't bare to show their stuff. A particular special moment for me happens in "The Old Fashioned Way", where Fields takes time from the plot of the film to show off his juggling skills. This was the first time watching this film and it was delightful just to see his juggle, there isn't any special camera techniques, it holds in one take on Fields as he mesmerizes us with his talents. I don't laugh so much in these scenes as a smile, it's the same feeling I get when I watch Harpo play the harp or Chico play the piano, or Chaplin doing the famous dancing of the roles. These men came from Vaudeville, entertaining people was in their blood, they loved to show it off, and it was a treat just to watch.

So short answer, yes W.C. Fields is funny, for the record the film of mention in the gentleman's unflattering piece, "Never Give a Sucker an Even Break" is a gem of a movie, it may not have a comprehensive plot, but Fields never worried about that. He understood movies was able to do just about anything he wanted, including jumping out of an airplane to chase after some whiskey only to wind up on a mountain paradise with a lovely young woman who has never seen a man before.

I don't know much about the personal life of Fields only that he spent most of his life battling alcoholism, alcohol always played a large part in his films and his characters. What I know of Fields is what I have seen on screen, he was a special comedic voice, he seemed to go at his own pace, sometimes it was slow and steady, and sometimes it was rapid fire, either way you saw him, he made a special place in movie history, today they just aren't as good.

Summer Hours

In many ways "Summer Hours" is a humble film. It's about 100 minutes long, the cast is small, and there isn't a hint of sentimentality or melodrama in it. Yet it's the kind of film I wish I was exposed to more often. "Summer Hours" is a french film and it shows why the French have such a rich history of cinema, it follows the tradition of humanity seen in the best films of Renoir and Truffaut. It deals with universal themes such as life and death, and the passing of time. It's a film which doesn't show its cards in the very first viewing, you become involved in it because it's so inviting. I'm sometimes asked why I like foreign films so much, I look at "Summer Hours" as an example, it's such an escape from the norm of Hollywood, it's a patient and calm film, I'm not bombarded by it, I'm immersed in it, I am able to take it all in.

"Summer Hours" begins at the birthday party of a matriarch Helene (Edith Scob). Helene lives in her old summer house which she shared with her famous painter Uncle who died long ago. She has preserved his art along with rare collectible items in the house, yet she is very practical, she's seventy-five, she knows she isn't going to live forever. Her children are all grown living lives of their own and she is prepared that when she is gone her summer house along all the famous art will have to be sold.

Helene does in fact die early in the film, and the rest of the story has the children going through the process of selling the estate. The eldest son Frederic (Charles Berling) is the most reluctant, he wants to keep the house for their children, and he's certain the rest of his siblings feel the same way, but it comes to a complete shock to him that they don't. Jeremie the youngest works in Asia, and has just been promoted, he decides to move to China permanently as he sees it best for his family. The sister is Adrienne (Juliette Binoche), she lives in New York where her career is, she's also getting married and doesn't have a practical reason to keep the estate.

It is decided to sell the estate, and since Frederic is the only one of the children still living in France, he is in charge of making most of the decisions. Throughout the film we go from the closing up of the house, to the appraisal of the artifacts, to seeing them in a museum, and we close with Frederic's children having one last party at the house.

In many ways "Summer Hours" is about moving on, and accepting that the memories we have also die with us. It may seem sentimental and foolish to think those memories live on. The last time we see Helene, she has a wonderful speech about how she knows when she dies, secrets will go with her that nobody will know of. There is speculation in the film of Helene's relationship with her painter Uncle, something Frederic wasn't prepared to accept, yet nothing is really ever made clear.

But this is also about the dissolution of a family unit, and when that happens it always makes me think of the films by Ozu.In Ozu's films, there is always an event' be it either a death or a marriage which signifies something is ending in a family unit, "Summer Hours" makes the same comment with the mother's death. Helene was the only link of the family to keep them all together. The only time we see everyone together is in the beginning on her birthday. It becomes apparent that after the house is sold, the siblings will see less and less of eachother. It's important to point out that director Olivier Assayas doesn't sentimentalize this at all, he leaves it sort of as an unspoken void. There are no heartfelt goodbyes, probably because they believe they will see eachother in some capacity, but also because they are all busy people raising their own families and running their own lives. There always seems to be this disconnect between them that isn't mentioned.

What "Summer Hours" does so beautifully is keeping an objective point of view. There are no bad people in this film, we don't resent Jeremie and Adrienne for their decision of selling the estate, yet we sympathize with Frederic's predicament. Assayas shows the selling of the estate as a tough decision, and what a perfect world it would be if they didn't have all the demands of real life. Assayas doesn't dwell on these things, life goes on, but what he is conveying is that it is a tragedy when we are forced to give up the past, breaking that link for the next generation. It's no coincidence Assayas begins the film with Frederic's children playing in the fields of the estate, and ending it with the daughter who knows she is losing a part of her history. It's bittersweet, but the power of human nature is we can acknowledge it and move on, which makes "Summer Hours" such a moving film.

When I fist saw "Summer Hours" I couldn't quite get it out of my head, it stayed with me. I picked it as my favorite movie of 2009, because it was the film that had a lasting impression on me, there's so much I could appreciate. The camera movement was so fluid, which was also a trademark of Renoir. Watch how it goes in and out of rooms at different points, being able to follow multiple characters. The beauty part is how it isn't distracting and you hardly notice it. The performances are all natural, but I wanted to mention two scenes that stood out for me. One is Helene's final scene which I mentioned somewhat above. Her children have just left, she is alone only with her loyal maid. The scene is dimly lit. She tells of how her children have their own lives and she isn't a part of them anymore, then she speaks of not wanting to leave the past behind. To me it's one of the most understated emotional scenes in modern movies.

The second scene is with Juliette Binoche as Adrienne. Binoche to me is one of the greatest actresses working today. It's the scene where she has just seen her mother's casket. She comes into a waiting room where her boyfriend is waiting there. It is one of those moments where her face says it all what she is feeling, all done with no dialogue, and the camera just stays on her face.

I think what I would want more of in films are faces, Bergman called it the most powerful thing to film. I don't get enough of those moments, where we are only asked to observe, there are no quick cutaways, you don't have to interpret anything, it's all there on the screen, it's film in its simplest form, and nothing to me can be more powerful.

Schindler's List

We try to rationalize everything, but there are some things we can't. How can you rationalize the Holocaust? The great horror of the 20th century, it happened, we can put it in context, we can study it, we can denounce it, we can put whatever spin we can, yet we can't hide from the truth it happened, and we must own up to the fact that it has left a stain on the rest of humanity.

The best way to show the holocaust is simply just to show it. The images, and the testimony of the survivors are powerful enough. To dramatize it, in a different matter altogether. "Schindler's List" is a film that has dramatized events surrounding the holocaust, but as Stanley Kubrick once said about the film, it isn't a film about the holocaust, it's a film about survival. The holocaust was nothing but death in its cruelest form, "Schindler's List" acknowledges this with images of the liquidation of the Krakow ghetto, burnt corpses, and the Auschwitz death camps, but it's really the story about how one man was able to help over a thousand Jews evade the holocaust and survive.

Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson) is a German industrialist, at the beginning of the film he wears a Nazi pin and does business with other Nazis. With the aid of his Jewish accountant Iztak Stern (Ben Kingsley) he creates an enamelware plant. Stern suggests to Schindler near the beginning of the film to hire Jews as they are cheaper than Poles, which would mean good business and more money for him. Schindler becomes a success, but soon the Jews are transported to a camp run by Amon Goeth (Ralph Feinnes). Goeth has orders to liquidate the Krakow ghetto which contains Jews, we see Schindler viewing this from a hilltop.

Schindler is still a businessman, he becomes friends with Goeth, and he does business with him in order for his Jews to continue working at his plant. But by this point, Schindler must resort to bribing in order to get his workers. His plant has become a haven for the Jews, but soon, orders come in to send them all to Auschwitz.

In the Holocaust, you lived and died by being on a list; we are shown from the very beginning of the film people's names on lists, when there name is called they must line up, one list is good, the other list isn't. "Schindler's List" understands this, and the interesting thing about the story is how much of a commodity people become. During the Holocaust, Jews weren't thought of as people to the German army, they were liquidated at random, that's how scary it became, you were no longer a name, an individual, you were something to be sold, traded, or exterminated. Schindler was able to save the Jews through the method of buying and selling, and he wasn't under suspicion because he was a businessman.

The other interesting thing about this film is how a man like Schindler would go from a rich entrepreneur, who spent all his money to save over a thousand people. Through the film, he changes organically, There's not a point in the film where he stops turning a blind eye all of a sudden, it's all through subtle moments, and gestures he gets to that decision. Much of it is done through Stern, his loyal friend and business partner who plays like his conscience. Stern never tells him what to do, but he does enough to point him in the right direction.

Goeth is the alternate example, he's a villain, he's vein, he's man, and he kills without mercy. Goeth may have also influenced Schindler's decision, because through him, we can see the true horror that was in power back then.

"Schindler's List" was directed by Steven Spielberg, the most powerful man in Hollywood. Spielberg is a filmmaker who I think is more complex and brilliant than most people give him credit for. He may be the most successful man in movies, but he's first and foremost a filmmaker. "Schindler's List" doesn't reveal itself until near the end, with the one flaw of having Schindler give a heartfelt speech which doesn't fit with the rest of the film. Spielberg works the film, giving it a frenzied pace, (it's hard to believe it's three hours long). There is a long montage of Schindler building his plant, at the same time Stern working vigorously collecting workers, at the same time saving them from almost certain death. It's a masterful use of the film language and sequence not often talked about, I was amazed at how full of suspense, drama, and movie making it was.

But Spielberg doesn't shy away from the extreme acts of violence and core emotion. The thing I remember most in "Schindler's List" is the faces. It's as if we are watching real documentary footage at times, but much attention is paid to the children, who Spielberg must sympathize as true victims of the Holocaust.

Besides the ending and a few uses of color here and there, "Schindler's List" is mostly a black and white film, and it's another reminder of why black and white should be used more often. The images become more authentic, it's a dark place in history we are sent to. The cinematographer was Januz Kaminski who Spielberg has worked exclusively since then. Together they were able to recreate the same harsh realism later in "Saving Private Ryan", then again in "Munich".

The performances by the Neeson, Kingsley, and Feinnes, can be thought of as career bests by all three, the music by John Williams is restrained, beautiful, and sad, the recreation of 1940s Europe is vivid.

I have seen "Schindler's List" many times since its release, it's hard to believe it's been almost twenty years since it first came out, it still feels new and fresh, to me it remains one of the most moving films ever made. It declared Spielberg as an artist rather than a craftsman, as if people needed convincing. The ending to "Schindler's List" is uplifting, it ends with a remembrance of the Holocaust and of a man who you could say won a small battle in a horrific time. It doesn't wipe away our memories, but it's a way we can remember and to remind ourselves that there is a place for good in the face of evil, but we must never forget.

Hannah and her Sisters

"Hannah and her Sisters" is a film I could see loving more and more in my twilight years. Not that I don't love it today, it is still one of my favorite Woody Allen films, but it's also one of those films that becomes more meaningful as I grow older. I remember first seeing "Hannah and her Sisters" when I was very young and I was seeing Woody Allen films for the very first time. Back then I probably didn't fully understand all the themes Allen was playing with, this was an adult film, and I was not fully there yet. Still I enjoyed it, the acting stood out for me, the dialogue, I knew I was seeing something quite brilliant; Allen mostly deals with intellectuals in his films, speaking a language I could only hope someday to understand.

I've revisited the film multiple times since then and it brings about such a warm quality to it, Allen is often harsh and judgemental to his overly neurotic characters, but here he seems to at least forgive them and accept them, it's probably no coincidence the film begins and ends with Thanksgiving dinner.

The story is one of Allen's most ambitious, Hannah (Mia Farrow) is married to Eliot (Michael Caine) who's in love with her sister Lee (Barbara Hershey). Lee is in a suffocating relationship with a genius painter (Max Von Sydow) and decides to start seeing Eliot. Hannah's other sister is Holly (Dianne Weist), a struggling actress who doesn't seem to have any direction in her life. She is always asking Hannah for money, she's a former coke addict, and she's full of anxieties and insecurities.

There is also Hannah's ex-husband Mickey (Allen), a hypochondriac comedy writer who, after a health scare decides to find out if there's actually a God by trying to find religion.

Anyone of these characters Hannah, Lee, Holly, Eliot, Mickey, even the painter are strong enough to have their own film, but Allen balances these stories and their themes beautifully, I was amazed at the end just how well it all comes together.

Each character has their own specific needs, that aren't being met, they are unhappy, they don't know what they want or what they need, they all seem lost. Even Hannah, the one who does seem to have it all together, she is the most responsible one of the family, she takes care of everyone. On the outside Hannah doesn't seem to need help, as she's a natural caregiver to her sisters, her husband, and even her parents who don't have it perfect. Yet near the end of the film we get a very emotional scene involving Hannah and Eliot where she basically does admit she has needs just like everyone else.

Holly looks to be the opposite of Hannah, she resents her and always thinks she's belittling her and her career. There is a lunch scene in a restaurant where all three sisters are together, all emotions, resentments, and betrayals seem to come to the surface in this scene, so many things are said and left unsaid, yet we know what each sister is thinking, it is the emotional height of the film and it's one of Allen's best.

The acting is just stellar in this film, Allen has always had the gift for giving actors roles they could really sink their teeth into. Oscars were awarded to Weist and Caine for their roles, and they are magnificent, but I want to draw attention to Farrow, perhaps one of the most underrated actresses of her time. Farrow worked with Allen almost exclusively during the 80s and early 90s which might by why she wasn't given much notice. But there is a certain sadness she brings to her best roles, Hannah was probably tailor made for her, but look at the hurt she brings to it and the utter surprise in her eyes when Eliot speaks of her never needing him, it's great film acting.

Perhaps the whole moral of the film comes from Mickey who recounts his very comedic attempt at suicide after he comes to the conclusion life is meaningless. After the incident Mickey goes to a movie house to try to put his life in the right frame of mind. On the screen is the Marx Brothers in "Duck Soup" (Obviously) and it's there where Mickey finds some happiness and enjoyment out of life.

"Hannah and her Sisters" is probably Allen's most forgiving film to his characters, they are often dysfunctional, but he never judges them. Unlike some of Allen's films, these people are given a chance to be forgiven and to start with a clean slate. In real life, things might not have worked out so well for Hannah, Eliot, Lee, Holly, and Mickey, but their lives are in a movie, they are meant to show us how we could live ours if we could be just as forgiving to ourselves. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone is unhappy from time to time. I think with "Hannah and her Sisters", Allen is showing us without these unhappy moments and mistakes, life wouldn't be worth living, and as the final bit of dialogue in the film shows, it is also full of surprises.

Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule Seasonal Quiz

1) Depending on your mood, your favorite or least-loved movie cliché.
In any sports movie where there is an inspirational speach by the coach and/or teammates.

2) Regardless of whether or not you eventually caught up with it, which film classic have you lied about seeing in the past? "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" only because someone leant it to me and I told him I saw it cause he kept asking me about it every day. I finally did watch it though.

3) Roland Young or Edward Everett Horton?
Edward Everett Horton

4) Second favorite Frank Tashlin movie
Have yet to see his films unless you count his cartoons.

5) Clockwork Orange-- yes or no?
Yes although I don't find it to be Kubrick's greatest, but it remains interesting to me.

6) Best/favorite use of gender dysphoria in a horror film (Ariel Schudson)
"Psycho"

7) Melanie Laurent or Blake Lively?
Melanie Laurent

8) Best movie of 2011 (so far…)
Of what I've seen "Rango"

9) Favorite screen performer with a noticeable facial deformity (Peg Aloi)
Montgomery Clift in his later years.

10) Lars von Trier: shithead or misunderstood comic savant? (Dean Treadway)
I have never seen his films.

11) Timothy Carey or Henry Silva?
Timothy Carey

12) Low-profile writer who deserves more attention from critics and /or audiences
Sarah Polley

13) Movie most recently viewed theatrically, and on DVD, Blu-ray or streaming
Theatrically: "Thor"
DVD: "Public Speaking"

14) Favorite film noir villain
Harry Lime in "The Third Man"

15) Best thing about streaming movies?
You don't have to pay for them

16) Fay Spain or France Nuyen? (Peter Nellhaus)
Don't know either of their work, but Fay Spain was in "The Godfather Part 2" which I just recently watched so I choose her.

17) Favorite Kirk Douglas that isn’t called Spartacus (Peter Nellhaus)
"Ace in the Hole"

18) Favorite movie about cars
"Two Lane blacktop"

19) Audrey Totter or Marie Windsor?
I'll go with Marie Windsor for her part in "The Killing"

20) Existing Stephen King movie adaptation that could use an remake/reboot/overhaul
Christine

21) Low-profile director who deserves more attention from critics and/or audiences
Martin McDonagh

22) What actor that you previously enjoyed has become distracting or a self-parody?
Seth Rogen

23) Best place in the world to see a movie
Of the places I've been to Princess theatre in Edmonton. In the world, i'd imagine Paris would be wonderful.

24) Charles McGraw or Sterling Hayden?
Sterling Hayden by a nose, how can you deny "The Asphalt Jungle", "The Killing", "The Long Goodbye" and "The Godfather" among others, plus the fact that he was almost Quint in "Jaws"

25) Second favorite Yasujiro Ozu film
"Late Spring" thank you for the Ozu question, more please.

26) Most memorable horror movie father figure
The Devil in "Rosemary's Baby"

27) Name a non-action-oriented movie that would be fun to see in Sensurround
I don't know what that is.

28) Chris Evans or Ryan Reynolds?
Ryan Reynolds although that question wouldn't keep me up at night.

29) Favorite relatively unknown supporting player, from either or both the classic and the modern era
From the classic era: William Demarest
From the modern era: John Slattery

30) Real-life movie location you most recently visited or saw
Would it be a cheat to name my own movie in that case the "Good Morning" set.

31) Second favorite Budd Boetticher movie
"The Tall-T" although I have to revisit his films since I've only seen a few of them once.

32) Mara Corday or Julie Adams?
These Actresses are becoming more and more obscure

33) Favorite Universal-International western
"The Man from Laramie"

34) What's the biggest "gimmick" that's drawn you out to see a movie? (Sal Gomez)
3-D for "Avatar" I couldn't resist back then, now I can.

35) Favorite actress of the silent era
Lilian Gish

36) Best Eugene Pallette performance (Larry Aydlette)
"The Lady Eve"

37) Best/worst remake of the 21st century so far? (Dan Aloi)
Of the ones I've seen the remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" with Nicole Kidman, I don't even remember what it's called.

38) What could multiplex owners do right now to improve the theatrical viewing experience for moviegoers? What could moviegoers do? owners can hire people who know how to work projectors. Movie goers can take chances at smaller films so there can be bigger venues for them.