Taxi Driver

"Taxi Driver" hits a nerve with me everytime I see it. It has become so well known, so embedded with the American psyche, you can quote the famous "Are you talkin to me" speech again and again, but whenever I see it, all of the film's infamy goes away and I'm dragged down to the world of Travis Bickle.

"Taxi Driver" is about Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro), a lonely cab driver living in New York City. Travis is lonely in two senses, one he lives alone, and two he's alone in the mind, meaning, he's not connected with the people and places around him. The world is a stranger to him, and he can't associate with it. To paraphrase, Travis is a psychopath, and we are entering into his mind the time right before he blows a fuse.

We see Travis at the beginning talking about the streets of New York City and how he hopes some day a real rain will come down and wipe all the garbage off the streets for good. He speaks about the pimps, the hookers, and the gangs he sees every night as he roams the streets in his cab. His hope comes in the form of two women whom he meets. The first is Betsey (Cybill Shephard), who he has a crush on, he sees Betsey as a pure woman who hasn't been touched by the garbage. The second is Iris (Jodie Foster) a twelve year old prostitute he meets and decides to try and save from her sordid lifestyle.

Our first instinct of Travis not being right in the head comes at the very beginning, he goes to pornography theatres, and even takes Betsey there on a date. She is disgusted right away and is turned off. Travis doesn't understand why, he had it in his head that this is what normal people do on a date. He tells her he could take her somewhere else, but he doesn't exactly know where.

When Betsey leaves, and we can see Travis becoming more and more dangerous. He tries to confide in a fellow cab driver The Wiz (Peter Boyle), who doesn't really know what to say to him, but reassures him all cab drivers go through this and tells him to either get laid or get drunk, which will set him right.

When we see Travis with Iris, it becomes a fantasy with him or sorts to help this girl out and save her from her pimp (Harvey Keitel). Iris herself is somewhat taken aback by this gesture, she never even once seems to ask for Travis' help or want it. We get the sense that he's doing this more for him than for her.

So why do we still revisit "Taxi Driver", why does it fascinate us to no end? Is it because we can see a little of ourselves in Travis Bickle? I can understand the majority of people who have seen "Taxi Driver" don't go on homicidal tirades like he does at the beginning of the film, yet screenwriter Paul Schraeder, along with De Niro, and director Martin Scorsese have gotten to something here, which is difficult to shake. I think "Taxi Driver" is a film more about the thoughts we get that come from loneliness, it's about this depression we can experience. It's the feeling felt deeply within Schraeder as he wrote the script, and the same thing Scorsese felt when he was obsessed with directing it.

"Taxi Driver" may be the closest film to come to that feeling of sheer isolation and loneliness one can feel, and with that comes this desperation to do something, which is why the finale of this film could be seen as cathartic, it's Travis acting out these dark impulses on an unforgiving world, it's a release for him, and in a way for the audience. In our own dark perverse way, we can at least empathize with Travis' struggle.

I actually find "Taxi Driver" a tragedy the more I see it. We are seeing the disintegration of a human being, I was moved by this struggle, of him trying to sustain this monster inside of him. Travis is a tragic figure, because he never figures out how to exist in this world, he is beyond help when the film opens up.

At the same time, there is something repulsive about this film, I can't quite shake. The whole world it depicts sends shivers down my spine, but at the same time, I can't deny the effectiveness of this world, it's the depths of hell on Earth as seen by Shraeder and Scorsese.

It's fair to say Robert De Niro was never more commanding as an actor as he was back when this film was made. I'm amazed at the courage both he and Scorsese went through in all of their projects they made together and apart. De Niro is the third piece to this puzzle to help us understand Travis the most. Each movement is perfect, each expression is spot on. De Niro makes the sickness in Travis so real and surprisingly so moving.

"Taxi Driver" is an anomaly in American film, it was even an anomaly in the 1970s which had its share of dark, edgy films which tested boundaries. But nothing could come close to "Taxi Driver", it was a benchmark of what 70s cinema was all about. It was dark, personal, shocking, violent, and it was a success. There was no other era which this movie could've been made, and be a success.

What's left to say about "Taxi Driver"? It still exists, it still shocks and horrifies me. It speaks of that dark place of desperation, loneliness, and despair. Those aren't always the nicest things to see depicted in a movie, but they are difficult to deny. "Taxi Driver" brought something up to the surface and people were ready to see it, even if it still makes us uneasy.

Best Films of the Year So far...

It's about mid-season in my movie watching and although I haven't seen all the movies I've wanted to ("Tree of Life", "Certified Copy" are top on that list), but I've been getting out to the movie theatre as much as I can watching whatever new film is out there, so I'm happy to say there are a few worth watching. So without further adieu, here are my top five.

1. Midnight in Paris: I thank Woody Allen for the most delightful, charming movie to come out all year. I caught this on a warm summer evening after a night out with friends with dinner and wine. It's probably was the nicest night I had all summer and the best movie experience I've had all year. "Midnight in Paris" isn't as deep as Allen's other great movie about a great city "Manhattan", but it has just the right amount of magic to remind us why we go to the movies in the first place.

2. Bridesmaids: A very funny movie, if a little overlong, Kristen Wig is the heir to Lucille Ball, she gives the funniest performance of the year so far. It's raunchy but heartwarming, like the best films from producer Judd Apatow.

3. Rango: Hands down the best animated film so far, and it wasn't in 3-D. It's about a reptile who becomes a hero in a western town full of different animals. The film is a psychedelic visual delight and very, very funny.

4. Horrible Bosses: Okay, so this is probably not the smartest film of the year, in fact I would almost put it under as a guilty pleasure, but for "Horrible Bosses" is a film I like to think of as a really intelligent "Idiot" comedy. As idiot comedy is the kind of comedy where everyone in the film is below average intelligence, but the movie never forgets that. This is for people who still chuckle at The Three Stooges movies. The three leads work well together, and I still laugh when I think of some of the scenes. That's all I'm going to say about that.

5. Green Lantern: A film which was butchered by most critics, but I'm willing to defend. Yes it's a flawed movie, but it was the one super hero movie I saw this year with the most ambition. I don't know what happened, either they ran out of money, or the script was redone too much, but I feel like there was a bigger story that was meant to be told, and I was intrigued at the possibility of that. Unlike "Thor" or "X-Men" which existed mostly to fulfill fanboy's needs, "Green Lantern" stood apart from them and tried to be majestic and epic, if missing the mark.

One film on this list which I am reserving my opinion for is Jean-Luc Godard's "Film Socialisme", a film I have reservations about but I'm also convinced it is the most daring film made this year. I urge you to see it so you can make up your own mind about it, only keep an open mind about it.

As for the worst film so far, there is only one, Michael Bay's "Transformer's Dark of the Moon" which is a film I decided to go see because I believe Bay is a filmmaker with his own unique style and maybe he deserves a shot. I found a few sequences fascinating, but all in all, it was a film of excess, it wallowed in its own stupidity, and it ended on a joyless note. I was agonized throughout most of this movie's existence.

Day for Night

I'm not sure "Day for Night" is a film about how films are made, I think it's more a film about how films should be made. They should be made by a crew of people who love doing their job, they should be made by actors who are excited to be working and have fun being on set, they should be made by a dead-panned director, an unassuming perfectionist, who treats his crew as a family.

I would love to be on the set for "Meet Pamela" the film within the film of "Day for Night", it all seems to lovely and fun, when you watch it, you know you are watching people who love movies. This is indeed a movie lover's kind of film, it was directed by Francois Truffaut, a man who I'm convinced loved movies more than any other director.

"Day for Night" is the story of a film being made, it's about what goes on behind the scenes with the actors, the crew, it's about their little dramas, and the drama itself of making a film on schedule and on budget. It's about getting the shot where the cat has to drink out of the bowl of milk, but you can't get him to do it. It's about the aging actress who is sad and resorts to drinking before her scene, and she can't quite remember her lines or which door to open. It's about another actress who is pregnant but isn't showing yet, however when she comes back to finish her scenes in six weeks, she will begin to show. It's about an actor who dies tragically, and right before the very last scene. It's a love story about the people who make movies, they are a funny sort of a surrogate family, and when it is finished, they all hope to make another one soon.

The reason I think I connect so much with "Day for Night" is I've lived these types of experiences, although mine mostly lays in theatre. I've been in productions or have helmed productions where everyone seems like a surrogate family, everyone is there for the work, they are there because they love the artform. When the show ends, there is always a small bit of sadness because we have lived with this production for awhile, but we know something else will be on the horizon.

Before I saw "Day for Night", I had one experience behind the camera trying to direct my first short film. I found that process to be not very fun, with people who didn't seem to want to work on it, I became frustrated, and defeated when it was all over. I regretted the way the film ended up, I didn't even want to look at it again.

Time went by, I had the urge to make another film, I had seen "Day for Night", seeing how everyone treated eachother which was the opposite of what I had experienced. When I had the chance to make another short film, it became much more low key, I was given more freedom to play around, to improvise, to experiment. It became a pleasant experience, and afterwards, I wanted to make another movie right away.

I think leading up to that time, I had learned to accept the art of movie making, I was ready to take on the headaches, but I felt I had something to prove, and a story to tell. If anything "Day for Night" is a reminder to me why I love movies, why I get so excited about it.

Francois Truffaut, was a director who has inspired many young filmmakers. His philosophy of film was that it could work as a journal, a way to bring out something very personal from your own life. Each one of Truffaut's films have a personal touch, and he was in my mind when I made my short film, I wanted to say something personal in the way I would hope he would. I've just realized, this isn't so much a review about the film "Day for Night" as it is a confession.

I'll forgo the many subplots of "Day for Night" which include a multitude of characters who operate in and around the film. Some of them are real actors who were cast as actors, and some of them are real technicians who were cast as technicians. Truffaut cast himself as the director, he plays him as someone who I suspect is close to himself in real life. He's a perfectionist, but he is never a dictator, he gains the trust of his collaborators through his integrity and love of the work. He's gentle with his actors, but in a way manipulative because you know he is always thinking about the film.

I don't know what else to say about "Day for Night" other than it's about the movies, and movies as Hitchcock said is "life with the dull bits cut out". "Day for Night" is a film for those people who don't think just going to the movies is enough, one has to be part of it as well, they want to get that sensation of seeing film go through a camera capturing drama unfolding, then to see the dailies, and finally to see the finish product knowing full well that they played even a little part in its creation. "Day for Night" is for people who believe movies are magic, and there's a reason they are.

The Earrings of Madame de...

"The Earrings of Madame de..." is a love story made for the movies. It's made for the movies because it shows visually the way love can make us feel, it can show a new love blooming between two people during a waltz which to them last for weeks. It can show the transformation of a ripped up love letter which seamlessly turns into falling snow from a train. It can show the transformation of a woman who once only thought of materialistic things into someone who would trade it all for the passion in her life.

"The Earrings of Madame de...." is a magical, romantic film, not just in the love story but in its ideas, it flows fluidly like the camera movements we are not meant to notice but makes it all move like a dream.

The story centers on a woman only known to us as Madame de... (Danielle Darrieux) She is a rich aristocratic woman who is married into a loveless marriage to a French military man (Charles Boyer). At the beginning of the film we see her searching for some earrings, for which she wants to sell back to the jeweler in order to pay off some debts. The earrings were a gift from her husband so they mean nothing to her.

Later that night, she pretends she has lost the earrings, but later her husband finds out from the jeweler she sold them. He buys back the earrings only to give them to an old lover of his who's leaving town. She has to give up the earrings for money and they then land into the hands of an Italian Baron named Donati (Vittorio De Sica). Donati sees Madame De... one day and falls for her hard. The two start an affair together and he later gives her the very same earrings she thought were gone from her life forever. The earrings are the same, but now they are given to her by a man who she loves, but soon because of her little white lie to her husband at the beginning of the film, her fate is sealed.

"The Earrings of Madame de..." was directed by Max Ophuls, filmmaker I don't know much about, I've only seen a handful of his films, but each one has impressed me with its elegance and style. Ophuls was a German director, but he made films all over Europe as well as in Hollywood. "Madame de..." is a french film which was co-financed by the french and the italians. Ophuls was known as someone who mastered the moving camera, sometimes he uses it to show a person's point of view such as the beginning where we follow Madame de in her bedroom searching for her earrings. The most impressive moment for the moving camera probably comes in the ballroom scene where we see the evolution of the love blooming between Madame de and Donati. The ballroom is where they rendezvous, and the seen cuts to days and days after as their love grows. It's sort of like the antithesis of the breakfast scene in "Citizen Kane", where we saw two people in love at the beginning than are shown that deteriorating as it progresses. The use of the waltz is quite effective, not once does it look like they are doing their own dancing, I suspect they were on a lift which moved around as the camera followed, it gives the effect of two people floating through the room, past other onlookers, we are as swept up as they are.

The music is another character in the film. The main love theme which was by Oscar Strauss and Georges Van Parys is one of the most beautiful constant love themes ever played, we sense the romance and passion in the music, much like the film it's part of this dream.

The real core of "The Earrings of Madame de..." might be frivolous to some. We are dealing with upper class people, from an earlier period, films like these aren't often made today. If they are they usually appear stuffy and self-important. This film frees itself for convention period drama, in part it's about a woman who lived a life of materialism and she could've gone on quite happily that way, but she chose to fall in love with a man who was not her husband and their were consequences for that. However because of her new found love, she is able to find a deeper meaning, and a new found passion for love she didn't have. She could've been quite an unsympathetic woman had she not found this love. Yet we do feel for her husband, a man who sits coldly by at the beginning who has to endure her beautiful wife being flaunted over by admirers, only now to be pushed aside for a man she is really in love with. The husband isn't without his passion which brings this film to a tragic conclusion, yet it remains beautiful because love seems to bring all these people into an understanding, they become human beings for us, and how could we blame these people for being in love.

I'm curious to know if love does in fact exist in the way we're able to portray it in the movies. Can it be that passionate, where you're willing to give up all you treasure for the one you love. Can you become sick with love? Can it make you go crazy? Yes this is all melodrama, perhaps a film like this couldn't be made today, it may be too melodramatic for people to take seriously, still it's beautiful, it's elegant, it's like a sweet dream, it's one of the great romantic pictures. When I first saw this film I thought it was cold and frivolous, time as gone by, I now see how lovely it is, it speaks to the romantic in me and to the one who believes love exists and it can be a very beautiful thing, at least in the movies.

The Third Man

The first copy of "The Third Man" I owned was an old video found in the garage of my Grandfather. He was getting rid of a bunch of stuff and he knew I liked old movies, so he thought I might like it. As a kid it was liking finding treasure, "The Third Man" was a legend to me, I had heard of it, I've known of its stature in the annals of film noir, but I had never seen it. I made a friend of mine at the time extremely jealous by having my very own copy.

I mention this little anecdote, because it taught me the joy of finding old and discarded things that that can be priceless to someone who know its value. "The Third Man" is indeed one of those films which hold value to me, it is one of those films that remain entertaining no matter how many times you see it (Some day I must make a list of those kind of films). It deals with dark subject matter, but it's easy to forget that and get lost in its atmosphere, it's wit, it's music, and the indomitable force that is Orson Welles.

For those not schooled in "The Third Man", here's a brief synopsis, I don't want to restrict myself to spoilers so be forewarned as you read this. The story starts off with the arrival of Holly Martins (Joseph Cotton), a pulp fiction writer to Vienna. Holly is meant to meet his good friend Harry Lime, who has offered him a job and a place to say, but he finds out Harry has been in an accident and was killed.

At Harry's funeral, Holly sees a host of mysterious characters, and he is picked up by a Military Policeman Major Calloway (Trevor Howard). Calloway explains Harry was involved in the black market and was one of the most wanted men in Vienna. Holly doesn't believe Calloway and decides to conduct his own investigation. He finds many things regarding Harry's accident don't add up and comes to the conclusion that he was murdered.

The only person who witnesses the accident is a porter who worked in Harry's building. In the police report it was told that two people were around Harry when he died, but the porter remembers seeing the third man who pertains to the title. Holly tries to track down this third man with the help of Anna (Valli) who was Harry's girlfriend and who Holly now finds himself falling in love with. But the porter is soon killed, and Holly now finds himself fearful of his life.

What I've explained is basically the first hour of the film, I haven't even gotten to the famous entrance of Orson Welles, who, yes, plays Harry Lime, the dashing criminal and without a doubt one of the most charming and ruthless ones in film history. Welles' contribution to the film is felt throughout, no doubt director Carol Reed had seen "Citizen Kane" which is clearly an influence from the lighting to the tilted camera techniques right down to having Joseph Cotton and Welles as long time best friends.

"The Third Man" is all about this mystery that is unravelling, it's based on a book by Graham Greene, who also wrote the screenplay (There are rumours Welles himself wrote some of his own dialogue along with his famous Cuckoo clock speech), but like all great films, there's so much more to it.

"The Third Man" has its own feel which separates itself from other film noirs of its era. Let's begin with the music by Anton Karas, who uses a classical guitar to depict the different moods of the film. Karas uses it very sparingly sometimes to evoke playfulness, sometimes dread, and sometimes sadness. The soundtrack to the film itself became a popular seller in its day.

Reed also gives great effect to the black and white cinematography, particularly the scenes where we see Harry running in alleyways, only seeing his exaggerated shadows on the wall. You see those shots and they remind you why black and white film is such a useful tool.

The performances themselves are unforgettable; Joseph Cotton makes for a sympathetic hero, at times sad, and self loathing, but often witty and self deprecating. As Anna, Valli is a vision of loveliness, she finds herself utterly devoted to Harry no matter what he has done, we can see why both he and Holly fall in love with her.

But the film really belongs to Orson Welles, although the amount of time he spends in the film could be described as a glorified cameo, but Welles' scenes are what make this film iconic. We can see part of Harry Lime in Welles, much like we could see Charles Foster Kane in him as well. He's part charmer, part scoundrel, in a way you route for him, he's the kind of villain you wish could get off scott free despite his atrocities just because you may want to see another film with him again.

"The Third Man" is the kind of film that doesn't need to tell you it's a classic, I saw it as a young boy and I knew back then it was a very special movie. I don't get tired of it, it can still put me under its spell with mystery, and intrigue, like all great detective stories, and transport me to that world only the greatest films could concoct. To say you are a fan of film and not see "The Third Man" doesn't make sense to me.

M

1931, was a break out year for movie monsters, Bela Lugosi played Dracula, and Boris Karloff played Frankenstein for the first time. But in the Germany saw the premier of a much more real, primitive monster in the child murderer portrayed by Peter Lorre in "M".

"M" isn't a horror film really, but it could be mistaken as a horror film due to Lorre's unforgettable performance. Pretty soon he would play for Hitchcock in "The Man Who Knew Too Much", and then he would be off to Hollywood as one of the great character actors of all time. Lorre is the star of "M" although he isn't given much screen time, but even when he's not on the film, his presence is known.

The film is about a child murderer who is stalking the streets of a German town, killing young girls. The town is in a panic, citizens are stricken with fear and paranoia, everyone has become a suspect. Police are seen cracking down harder than usual due to the public demand. Criminals are being harassed more than usual as their speak easys and brothels are raided more often.

With "M" the criminals and the police are given a common enemy, even regular criminals have had enough of this child murderer. The band of criminals decide to concoct a plan to catch the murderer themselves, so we are given two stories of their trail of the murderer and the police's more procedural investigation.

"M" was directed by Fritz Lang, who, legend has it was offered to head the German film industry under the Nazi party, but decided to flee instead, to Hollywood where he would spearhead some of the greatest film noirs in history. Lang seemed to understand the sort of paranoia happening in Germany at the time, and used it to great effect in "M" and two years later with his last German film "The Testament of Dr. Mabuse".

What makes "M" such a curious film is how the criminals come out as the heroes of the film and the commentary Lang makes on society's law. Lang sometimes comes off as an anti-Hitchcock in his films, both directors use police prominently in their films, but where Hitchcock was able to keep his films playful and light at times, Lang strived for a more cynical approach. He was a pessimist and it shows in the climactic scene where Lorre is brought towards a court of thieves and murderers all of whom want to do away with him. Yet his lawyer pleads with them that the man is sick and must be taken to an institution. His fate however was sealed once he was brought among the court, but he's saved at the last minute by the police who find him.

I don't think Lang seems to be on the side of the law in this case, although he does seem to be able to argue both points, and the key might be in Lorre's performance where he's able to make this monster seem sympathetic, yet the question remains does he deserve saving.

I don't think this is meant to diminish the role of the police who are seen as competent in their job particularly detective Lohmann played by Otto Wernicke, who may have been the inspiration for detectives like Columbo to Dirty Harry.

The argument is made that if a child murderer like Lorre's is given up to the police, there's a chance where he might be deemed cured by society and able to walk out a free man. It's a slippery slope towards vigilantism which Lang knows the dangers of as well.

With "M" I don't think there are any easy answers, Lang ends the film on the mothers of the girls who were killed who give out a warning to watch your children carefully. It is really the victims of these crimes who deserve justice, it's something that's still debated in our criminal courts, but what we do get with "M" is one of the earliest film noirs, it's dark, it's moody, you revel at the closed in streets Lang makes for the hunted man, until he is trapped in the corner. It is mostly a crime movie with the social commentary in the end. It has a lasting effect and should be viewed by every film fan, and a terrific start to one of the great character actors of film.