The Gold Rush

What comes from watching Charlie Chaplin is noticing the simplicity of his films. Chaplin came around just at the right time, sound was not yet invented, actors could not rely on dialogue but rather their faces to convey emotion. Directors had to find ways to tell their stories visually, it was giving a voice to a new type of artform. "The Gold Rush" was the film, Chaplin created at the height of his powers, silent film was still dominant, and he was the biggest star in the world. Watching it again recently, I marveled at his simple story but how very complex it must've been to put it all together. It's filled with famous, and priceless Chaplin gags, and benefits from the kind of pathos he was known for.

There is a plot in "The Gold Rush" involving Charlie as a gold prospector, he holds up in a cabin with two husky and tough gentlemen, one is bad, the other is not so bad unless he gets hungry. The bad one is Black Larson (Tom Murray), a criminal wanted by the police, and the other is Big Jim (Mack Swain), a gold prospector who has just made his claim. Black Larson goes out hunting for food, while Charlie and Big Jim are forced to wait for him, all the while, their hunger becomes unbearable. This starts the film's first memorable comic set piece, the scene in which Chaplin eats his own shoe. The humor comes not just from the situation of one being so hungry, he must eat his own shoe, but it's also from the way Chaplin presents this gag. First we see him at the stove preparing the shoe as if he were a gourmet chef. He sits down with Big Jim and carves it like a turkey. The Tramp, ever the optimist never looks upset that he's eating the shoe, but treats it like he would a fine dining experience, serving up the laces as if they were spaghetti noodles, and eating from the morsels of the nails as if they were chicken bones. It's not just that we are witnessing a perfectly ludicrous and comedic scene, but we are somewhat transported into Chaplin's heart of his character, making the best out of a bad situation.

Meanwhile Big Jim, in contrast becomes mad with hunger and begins to imagine Chaplin as a giant chicken. This gag has become somewhat of a cliche; everytime we see a character who is hungry they would inevitably look at someone else that illustrates a certain meal for that person. It was said this particular gag was inspired by the Donner Party story about a group of pioneers who became trapped in snow and had to resort to cannibalism. If this inspiration were true, it would go to show how interesting the mind of a comedian works, having a tragedy such as cannibalism resort to a comedy of errors.

Pretty soon, the story shifts from the cabin, and Big Jim returns to his claim to find Black Larson trying to steal it. They fight, and Big Jim is knocked out, forgetting where his fortune is but having The Tramp help him in the end; meanwhile Larson is killed rather conveniently by the stormy elements. Charlie in the meantime, goes back to a gold prospecting town and falls in love with a girl named Georgia (Georgia Hale). Georgia is a dance hall girl who doesn't seem to notice him at first, but in a way to make her boyfriend jealous, she dances with Charlie who is smitten more with her image than with her.

The dance is a comedic ballet as The Tramp tries to keep his pants from falling down, hiking them up with his cane without Georgia noticing. Soon he finds a rope to tie around his pants, but he fails to see the dog also attached it, which causes a perfectly timed situation, one of those moments that doesn't require camera tricks such as coverage or many cuts, but done in one long take to see Chaplin effortlessly dazzle us with his physical comedy.

Later, Charlie invites Georgia and her friends over for a New Years Eve party, but he doesn't know that she does not really love him and is only using him for a malicious joke. But The Tramp remains hopeful fantasizing about the party and entertaining them with the "Dancing of the rolls". This is perhaps the most famous scene in which Chaplin takes two dinner rolls, sticks forks in them and dances them around the table like tiny legs. Again one of those moments that takes us out of the film but we don't seem to mind. It was a way to marvel at the artistry of an entertainer, like W.C. Fields who stopped his films occasionally to do a juggling act, or a Marx Brothers movie that gave room for Harpo to play his harp. We remember that comedians were above all entertainers, and moments like these were there because they wanted to perform for us, and we wanted to see them do it, the movie could wait. It was said that while "The Gold Rush" played in movie theatres, the projectionist would rewind the film back to the dance of the rolls as the audience demanded an encore performance.

As with most Chaplin films, there are moments of great pathos, this was something that always separated Chaplin from his contemporaries. When Georgia fails to come to The Tramp's party, he hears the rest of the town ringing in the new year and singing "Auld Lang Syne", Charlie is left alone. Chaplin, who was one of the great screen actors conveyed this type of emotion beautifully, and this was also a reason why he remained so popular; we could always sympathize with The Tramp, but we could also relate to him. The Tramp could be thought of as the first outsider in film, he looked, and acted different, he couldn't help being himself, but he longed to fit in and be with people who would usually not accept him. Chaplin could always contrast his comedy with pathos, but this scene best describes the way his kind of world viewed The Tramp.

"The Gold Rush" isn't a flawless film, it ends happily with Georgia somewhat redeemed as a nice girl who truly loves Charlie. Charlie famously re-edited the film in 1942 with a new musical score and a narration spoken by himself, I've never bothered watching this version, finding the narration unnecessary and annoying, but apparently there were scenes cut in this version that make Georgia more sympathetic towards The Tramp, perhaps one day I'll watch it to see if it's an improvement, but it is a rather minor flaw in the big picture.

Chaplin has said that "The Gold Rush" is the film, which he would most want to be remembered for, and perhaps it's true today, but I would wager he is more remembered for his full body of work that helped define cinema, which is worth more than just one film, no matter how great. However, I see how Chaplin could be particularly proud of this film, it's probably has his greatest string of gags more than any of his other films, and in a way he found the perfect comedic situation to show off his Tramp character. In my mind "City Lights" is probably still his greatest work, but "The Gold Rush" is the film I think of when I think of The Tramp. Whether it's the image of him eating his own shoe with such delicacy, or him dancing the rolls for the amusement of others, or his sad, longing face as he listens to the people who have rejected him singing "Auld Lang Syne, it's all you need to know about The Tramp in a nutshell, and he is timeless because of it, that is why he will never leave us, and why his indelible mark on cinema remains true today as it did back then.

Movie Review: Man of Steel

I think we lost something in "Man of Steel", and I suppose it's all there in the title, where was Superman. I suppose it all depends what you think Superman is that will determine the level of enjoyment you have while watching "Man of Steel", I feel like I'm a generation behind. "Man of Steel" is meant to be a reboot, it's meant to cater to those who were not satisfied with the non-violent exploits of Bryan Singer's homage to the Christopher Reeve films "Superman Returns". This new Superman will throw a punch, again, and again, and again, and again, he will also destroy most of Metropolis, and part of Kansas. That's all well and good, it's fun seeing Superman kick some serious alien ass, and destroy some big giant alien technology, in fact this is the most alien intergalactic Superman yet, which is what I liked about it. But I was not fully satisfied, in favor of spectacle and action, they gave way to that bit of heart and sincerity that made people care about Superman.

The beginning of the film gets our attention right away retelling Superman's origin story, with an impressive and expansive look at a dying Krypton. There we meet Supe's father Jor-El (Russel Crowe looking very stoic and Shakespearean). It turns out Jor-El and his wife have had the first natural birth of a Kryptonian in ages. This doesn't sit well with General Zod (Michael Shannon who gives a menacing but one-note performance), who establishes a coup on Krypton and considers Jor-El an enemy. Jor-El quickly escapes Zod and rushes off to send his new born son off the Earth. Jor-El than dies at the hands of Zod, and Zod along with his soldiers are banished in the phantom zone. All this, along with Krypton's destruction seem to happen so quickly, but I suppose it has to if we're ever going to get to the real story.

We meet Jor-El's grown up son, Kal-El (Henry Cavill) not yet Superman, but drifting through the world trying to discover who he is. We learn through flashbacks, we was brought up by the Kents (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane both of whom I wished were in this film more) and named Clark. Clark learns of his super powers at a young age, something that he learned how to control through the help of his adoptive parents. There is a great scene of a young Clark in a class becoming scared and confused when he discovers his ability of x-ray vision, and super hearing, he runs away frightened only to be coaxed out by his calming mother.

Soon Clark finds a Kryptonian spaceship that has been uncovered by the military, and he learns from a conscious projection of Jor-El who he really is. It's now time to put on the cape and suit (tights excluded this time) and become Superman. There's a quick montage of him testing his limits and learning to fly, something that could've been more entertaining if it wasn't so rushed, but there's still more story to get through.

It turns out Zod and his army have escaped the Phantom Zone after Krypton was destroyed and made their way to Earth. There plan is to use Earth as another Kypton and destroying mankind in the process, this is something Superman can not abide, and that's when the ass kicking commences.

Let's start with the look of the film, I actually liked the darker tones which is nice contrast to the earlier classic Christopher Reeve films, and later in Singer's film, this is a grittier story, with the world at stake, we get the feeling that this Superman is in a post 9/11 world. The special effects are all dazzling, I mentioned earlier of the impressive look of Krypton which has never looked better, it has the scope of anything you could see in the most recent "Star Wars" films. The space ships and alien technology also look very inventive and state of the art, there is a machine in one the films' many climaxes that Superman must destroy in order for Zod's army to be put back into the Phantom Zone that was a high light.

But despite all this new fun showing this new Superman universe, I ultimately found the film too heavy handed. Here the mythology of Superman is taken way too seriously, and that probably has something to do with the creative team behind it. The producer was Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight trilogy which were great films but hardly what you would call light and breezy), with his writer David Goyer ("Batman Begins") and director Zack Snyder ("300", "The Watchmen"). They were tasked to create a marketable version of Superman for wider audiences, and maybe that's cynical of me to say that, but I did feel an underlining cynicism with the whole new approach to this character.

The dialogue by Goyer becomes very flat and wooden as if sometimes he was taking a cue from recent James Cameron or George Lucas screenplays. He relies too much on explaining the mythology of the universe that he forgot to give people anything interesting to say. Gone is any wit or charm, pros like Crowe and Costner come off the best when reciting ridiculous bits of dialogue, but most actors look embarrassed or bored.

Probably most disappointing was the performance of Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Adams has always been the type to light up a room with her performances going all the way to her breakthrough role in "Junebug", I was most excited to see her step in the role as Lois Lane, but this version of the character doesn't play to her strengths. She's still the ambitious "anything for a story" reporter, but she's clamped down to a grounded reality that doesn't let her play around. Even her scenes with editor Perry White (Lawrence Fishburne) should play like fireworks, but they are instead stale, Snyder seems to have problems getting these character scenes come to life.

For his part, Cavill is a credible Superman, he keeps him humble and charming, plus he has that Superman look just on his face. But gone is the sunny, witty, and yes....romantic performance of Christopher Reeve who no doubt does not belong in this Superman universe, I don't put that on Cavill's shoulders, he works great with what's given to him.

The fights in "Man of Steel" are impressive at the beginning, but soon they become monotonous. They are faster, and more destructive than the last time Superman fought Zod in "Superman 2", but if you look at that earlier film, the fights seemed to be more inventive by playing around with visual gags, rather than just two practically invincible aliens clobbering each other with their fists.

I suppose "Man of Steel" represents a new mentality to comic book movies, and one I'm not fully comfortable with, I felt much of the fun, and spirit of Superman was left to the wayside in favor of more action and violence. I don't mind action and violence, when it's motivated, but now it's something to be expected, and it's used almost to the extent that they were overcompensating for the failure of "Superman Returns". There is even an unexpected twist to the Superman character near the end of the film, which I suppose was implemented to make him into a more darker and complex character, but for me it seemed like a cynical move and disturbed me to see it.

I suppose you can't expect things to stay the same, I wasn't expecting a re imagining of the classic Christopher Reeve films, I felt I got that with Bryan Singer's version which wasn't perfect, but did keep the warmth, humour, and romantic relationship alive between Superman and Lois. I was impressed with the scope of "Man of Steel", but less impressed that the creators felt compelled to do away with the good hearted joy of seeing a Superman film. If there's a heart to this film, then it's made of steel.

Star Wars

There's no getting rid of "Star Wars"; ever since it debuted in the summer of 1977, it has stayed with us. We've seen it through merchandising, television specials, fan fiction, and of course those infamous prequels who's mere mention would cause an internet revolution among those loyalists known as fanboys. Yet despite this over exposure throughout pop culture, the original "Star Wars", remains an inventive and exciting acheivment in popular movie making.

It's easy to be cynical about "Star Wars", perhaps in the long run it has caused more harm than good. It's primarily responsible for ending the era in the 1970s that focused on personal film making, and ushered in a more special effects, blockbuster driven Hollywood, where franchise has become a bit of a dirty word. The copycats it spawned are too many to count, everyone wants there own "Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away..."but can we hold all that against it? Revisiting the original "Star Wars" again after many years of staying away from it, I admit the same old magic worked for me, it's an imaginative movie owing a debt to everything from Saturday matinee cliffhangers, westerns, and Akira Kurosawa samurai films.

George Lucas, the creator and lord over this universe concocted a story as simple and straight forward to follow as any young boy's adventure saga. Borrowing the character archetypes described by Joseph Campbell in his book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces", Lucas created his own mythology as we follow the story of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), a farm boy from Tatooine with dreams of adventure, getting caught up with a band of rebels who fight for freedom in the galaxy against the evil Galactic Empire.

Luke is taken under the wing of an old Jedi Master Obi Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness), where he starts learning the ancient religion known as the force. Together with a space smuggler named Han Solo (Harrison Ford), his co-pilot Chewbacca (a large furry creature) and two odd couple droids (C3P0 and R2D2), they must go save Princess Leia (Carrie Fischer) from the clutches of the notorious villain Darth Vader (Voiced by James Earl Jones). There is also a giant space station the Empire has created known as the Death Star which can obliterate entire planets, that the rebels must destroy before it's too late.

So what is "Star Wars"? It's hard not to talk about it as a film without bringing up the phenomenon that comes with it. It began as a modestly budgeted space opera, it was in severe "b-movie" territory which meant no one really took it seriously. But this was also a film unlike anything else that came before it; this was to be a state of the art entertainment. Lucas and his creative team implemented new special effects techniques that still look impressive today, the excitement one gets from looking at Han Solo's ship the Millinium Falcon docking on the the giant death star, or the climactic tie fighter dog fight at the end can still capture our imagination. There is also careful detail made in art direction, such as the Mos Eisley space port where we see various species from throughout the galaxy inhabiting the local tavern; Lucas makes his universe look very lived in.

But obviously, the story has something to do with this film's longevity. It's a simple story of heroes and villains, going on a quest, and good ultimately triumphing over evil, but it's in the way it's executed that makes it so memorable. Lucas fills the film with a lot of good will and optimism, despite the many obstacles our heroes face, we know they're going to get out of it eventually, we're here to have fun, and Lucas takes advantage of that. Take the famous scene in the garbage compactor where Luke, Han, Leia, and Chewbacca are at the mercy of walls that are closing in on them, a scenario that seems to have been used since the dawn of film, yet Lucas knows this, he's winking at the audience with this scene, and we know with Han Solo's wise cracks ("One thing's for sure, we're all gonna be a lot thinner), that our heroes are gonna be just fine.

The actors are also key in making this film work, and I found their performances very fun despite their reputations. As Luke, Mark Hamill embodies the young hero on a quest, he seems caught up in the excitement and the wonder of it all. Carrie Fischer brings a lot of sass to the role of Leia, despite some awkward moments where she seems to slip into an English accent, perhaps to make her Princess sound more stately. Then there is Harrison Ford as Han Solo, I've actually forgotten just how good he is here. Save for Indiana Jones, Ford has never looked more off his leash than playing this swashbuckling, devil-may-care character. He shows off his charm, humor, and roguish heroism so well, it's no wonder he was the one who came out the star.

"Star Wars" soon came out as a phenomenon, spawning the successful sequel "The Empire Strikes Back", a darker toned film with our heroes in real danger (the image of Han encased in carbonite looks rather unsettling in a blockbuster), and of course there's that famous reveal of who Darth Vader really is (A great twist that has never been equaled in a popular movie). The trilogy ended in crowd pleasing fashion with "Return of the Jedi", as Han is rescued from the clutches of vicious slimy gangster Jabba the Hut, and Luke fulfills his destiny in a final showdown with Vader; Ewoks were in it too, and they were cute.

Perhaps, Lucas should've ended it there with a nice cap to his story, but by then, it seemed that "Star Wars"had become the sort of Empire it was rallying against in its own movies. The controversial decision was made to reissue "Star Wars" in a special edition that added new scenes, and new computer generated special effects. The idea of whether the films really needed an update can be disputed, but it says a lot to the originals that the effects haven't really dated, and of course the "Han shot first" debate will go on forever more than any law waiting to be passed in state legislature.

Then came the prequels, that unforgivable trilogy that introduced mediclorines, digital technology, and Jar Jar Binks. True, these films aren't perfect, they are hindered greatly by Lucas' wooden dialogue; and too many awkward love scenes between Anikan Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and Padme (Natalie Portman). However I found the films filling the same spirit of the cliffhanger as the previous ones, just not as successfully. Christensen, Portman, and Ewan McGregor never become as engaging as Hamill, Ford, and Fischer were, probably because the perquels didn't carry the same sense of adventure and fun (A Han Solo character probably would've helped the stuffy self-importance the films sometimes had).

With talk of a new trilogy on the horizon, "Star Wars" will be with us forever; which I think says more to the original films than whatever came after them. I feel with every new "Star Wars" film, it's more a vein attempt to re-capture that type of feeling people had when the first one attacked our movie screens. But with a phenomenon like "Star Wars", a new cynicism can form; copycats are adopted, and the heart and spirit that were there can be diluted. What we have left are the original films, still full of invention and imagination, they can take us back to when we were kids, they can get us excited about going to the movies and still make us wonder at all the possibilities that are still out there for us, and what's still left to dream up.