Ugetsu

If I were to say the name "Ugetsu" to anyone I know, I would probably see many confused looks on those people's faces. So is the problem with the filmography of one Kenji Mizoguchi, one of the great filmmakers of any time, who's films are praised by anyone who has seen them, yet is still relatively anonymous to the greater movie going public. Before I talk about "Ugetsu", it might help to put the film and Mizoguchi in context. Kenji Mizoguchi is often heralded as one of Japan's three master filmmakers, the other two being Akira Kurosawa, and Yasujiro Ozu; Kurosawa has been the most well-known through western audiences gaining popularity with films like "Rashomon", "Seven Samurai", winning a Best foreign film Oscar for the former. Ozu has been gaining more and more popularity over the years since being introduced to western audiences in the late 1970s, his "Tokyo Story" recently topped the 2012 BFI Greatest films list chosen by directors.

I'm waiting for the day Mizoguchi gets his due, he was known for his long uninterrupted camera movements, which got a nickname known as "scroll shots". The camera was never used to show off, but created a poetry with its motion, sometimes flowing from one scene to another. Compare this to Ozu who took the alternative route and hardly even moved his camera, but still captured a different kind of poetry within his compositions.

Another characteristic of Mizoguchi was his use of women as his main protagonists, usually depicting them in a tragic light, undone either by society or men, and usually succumb to life in brothels as a geisha or a prostitute. These instances were probably most realized in his modern day films "Osaka Elegy" and "Streets of Shame" (His last film), and his historical masterpiece "The Life of Oharu" (For my money, his best film).

With "Ugetsu", Mizoguchi is working with a historical setting, and the story is made up as a fable. It tells the parallel stories of ambitious men during wartime, and the tragic price their wives have to pay for it. Mizoguchi opens the film in a glorious crane shot of a poor farming village, as it focuses in on the main characters. We meet Genjuro (Masayuki Mori) a potter who has high hopes to make his fortune with his bowls, pots, and vases. He is seen loading up a carriage full of his pottery to sell, however his wife Myagi (Kinuyo Tanaki), wants him to stay and watch over her and their child. There has been talk of a war and fear that soldiers could raid their village. Genjuro doesn't seem too concerned about this and forges on ahead to make his fortune. Assisting Genjuro with selling his pottry, is a local farmer Tobei (Eitaro Ozawa), who also has eyes on becoming a great samurai; he is rejected for not having a suit of armor, and thought of as a common baggar, but he becomes comically insistent that he must be one. Tobei's wife Ohama (Mitsuko Mito) is not amused by this and discourages him in not going with Genjuro, but he does anyway.

Genjuro returns with a handful of gold, while Tobei mindlessly follows his pursuit in becoming a samurai. Genjuro becomes blinded by the gold he has received and decides to move him and his family to the big city where he's sure to achieve more wealth. Soon an army does come, and after his latest supply of pottery is almost destroyed, Genjuro decides to leave by boat to avoid any further danger; Tobei and Ohama also come along on the trip.

We go to the group of them on the boat, with one of the most famous scenes in the film, Mizoguchi creates an atmospheric setting full of darkness and fog, as the boat approaches another ship that is drifting. There they meet a dying sailor who warns them of pirates, and tells Genjuro and Tobei to protect their wives. Genjuro becomes worried for Myagi, and they head back so she can stay and protect their son, he continues on ahead with Tobei and Ohama.

While in the city, Genjuro sells his pottery fairly soon to a mysterious beautiful woman known as Lady Wakasa (Machiko Kyo), meanwhile Tobei has run off when he sees a samurai, and follows him on. Ohama tries to stop him, but she is left behind. After witnessing a samurai cut off the head of a famous general, Tobei kills him from behind and takes the head for his own glory. He is then given his glory of samurai with armor and a horse, but after he and some soldiers stop in a brothel, he is shocked to find Ohama working there as a prostitute; earlier after Tobei abandoned her, she was attacked and raped by a group of soldiers.

Meanwhile Genjuro has become enamored by Lady Wakasa, she prompts him to come to her castle, where he is seduced by her. She is in fact a ghost who has mesmerized Genjuro as if he were in a dream, his reality being altered. Meanwhile, we cut back to Myagi, hiding with her child in her village, trying to escape from soldiers.

"Ugetsu" follows the same wavelength as many of Mizoguchi's films, in the way it depicts women as victims especially in the instance where men are the primary decision makers. Genjuro and Tobei are able to follow their ambitions and temptations without any thought of consequence. Both Myagi and Ohama are seen as level headed women, what they say makes good sense. Myagi in particular is the loyal wife, who questions what her husband does, but she is dutiful in following him even if it might not be the best idea to leave his wife and child alone to fend for themselves.

Although the film is technically a fable with supernatural elements, the core story seems very real, and the tragic consequences are heartbreaking. This is mostly due to Mizoguchi's humanistic point of view of his characters; he treats them like real people in real situations, we see Genjuro being seduced by a ghost and in a dream state., but we know far away Myagi is in a very real world of war and poverty. When Genjuro finally is released from the Lady Wakasa's castle, he returns to the real world in shambles, being accused as a thief and losing all of his money.

You sense that Mizoguchi has a deep sympathy with these sort of people who are bereft of riches and must live in war and poverty, it's no wonder the men dream of bigger things for themselves and their family. It is after all established that what Genjuro and Tombei are doing to somewhat selfish, but they are also doing it to show their wives they can be bigger men than what they are. They simply do not realize their wives love them as they are already; Genjuro thinks that he can impress Myagi with fancy cloth, but he does not understand when she says that the cloth means less than his love for her.

But this is also a beautiful dream like film, that seems to float as if it's all a dream. Take the scenes with Lady Wakasa which Mizoguchi films mostly in shadows, framing the mysterious house like a gothic castle. Japanese architecture seems to be made for filmmaking with its use of sliding door frames, and boxed in rooms, Mizoguchi seems to move the camera throughout these rooms very serpent like that seems forbidding, but also enticing.

But it's really the way Mizoguchi uses the camera to give off an emotional response that makes him such a master. There is a shot near the end of the film where Genjuro comes home to Myagi that is quite simply the most elating, and heartbreaking shot in all of film. Without giving much away, I would just say that a shot such as this that can restore faith in film as a great artform, and it could not be achieved without the right movement of the camera, the atmosphere of the scene, and the performances, they all seem to come together perfectly in a symphonic way; a transcendence that can only be felt when at the hands of a master.

When talking about Kenji Mizoguchi, I only regret not knowing more about him; I know him from his films, which are mostly unfortunately unavailable. For its part, Criterion has released seven of his films, all of which are worth seeing, the other titles along with "Ugetsu" are "Osaka Elegy", "The Sisters of Gion", "Women of the Night", "The Life of Oharu", "Sansho the Baliff", and "Streets of Shame". Each film is insightful, heartbreaking, and beautiful. I predict more titles to be released by Mizoguchi soon, and hopefully like Ozu, a re-evaluation of his films are on the horizon. It was said that Mizoguchi dedicated his life to his art, a constant perfectionist who demanded no less from the people he worked with; what a shame it would be to miss his work, or to see it fade away.

The Best Films of 2013....So Far

We are on the 7th month of the year, so we're nicely past the midway point in the film going season. Before you know it, September will come along with the Toronto Film Festival and a whole bunch of Oscar hopefuls that will just be as packed as this summer season seems to be. I've been heading to the movie theatre on a regular basis seeing as much as possible. Once again, my handicap is living in a city that isn't always prone to get the smaller indie or foreign films, although there is the odd one that has made it here. This year, I'm also keeping track of older films I've been seeing for the first time, so I thought I would share a list from both camps. So here is my top five films I've seen so far from 2013 which I would urge you to see if you haven't already.

1. Before Midnight Hands down, the most fully realized film I've seen all year. The continuing saga of Richard Linklater's romance in the real world that started with "Before Sunrise" followed by "Before Sunset". Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy play Jesse and Celine who never seem to run out of things to talk about. "Before Midnight" is probably the darkest of the series of films thus far, and that's because Linklater's reluctance to set us up with cliches, Jesse and Celine are real people who are completely in love and perfect for eachother, but that doesn't mean they don't have their problems. The films have become wiser as the characters have grown older, the first film was like an ode to young love, the second film saw the same two people nine years later full of regret for not having gotten together in the first place. This latest film we see the two living together with children and in love but still unsatisfied. Each film builds more and more, it's a brilliant experiment you don't normally see in movies.

2. The Great Gatsby Purists may take issue to Baz Luhrman's adaption of what is arguably the greatest book of the twentieth century. Luhrman does simplify the book and the character of Gatsby somewhat, however, I didn't think it diminished the pure energy and visual splendor of the film itself. I've had issues with Luhrman's films before, and I don't think this is perfect, but it was entertaining, and Leonardo DiCaprio gives one of his best performances as Gatsby along with Tobey McGuire. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I was enthralled with Luhrman's vision.

3. Mud Director Jeff Nichols is one of the most interesting indie filmmakers around, I was completely enthralled with his first film "Shotgun Stories" which introduced me for the first time to the unique and talented Michael Shannon. "Mud" can be best described as a Southern Gothic coming of age story. Matthew McConaughey plays the mysterious title character which is surely one of his best performances. Mud lives on a small island where he befriends two young boys who agree to help him seek out the love of his life Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), but it's much more complicated than that. For about two thirds of this story, it's perfect, but it begins to get overstuffed and convoluted near the end, but I've never seen McConaughey ever better, in what is my favorite performance so far this year, and Nichols is a gifted filmmaker, I look forward to more of his films in the future.

4. Iron Man 3 Perhaps the first super hero movie that also seems to be commenting on super hero movies. Robert Downey Jr. made the right move by bringing on Shane Black to co-write and direct this latest installment in the series. You can see the filmmakers taking glee in twisting around our expectations for this version, and despite another overstuffed climax, it succeeds in being one of the more original movies of its kind, I even found it more entertaining and wittier than "The Avengers".

5. The Lone Ranger Very similar in tone as "Iron Man 3", as it plays with expectations and isn't subservient to its genre trappings. What we get is more of a comedy disguised as a blockbuster western, not many people saw it that way, and critics have unfairly attacked it. And really look at what Gore Verbinski is doing as a director, he brings in nice surreal elements into the mix and at times fills the screen with vast landscapes. It's a trippy weird western, but so was "Rango" which Verbinski also directed and people seemed to have loved that. The finale is more exciting and visually impressive than most blockbusters which relied too much on video game like effects or 9/11 imagery for their climaxes (I'm looking at you "Man of Steel" and "Star Trek"). Plus Armie Hammer has fun winking at the audience, while Johnny Depp seems to have the shadow of Buster Keaton on his face.

Other films worth mentioning, the best horror film I've seen in awhile was surprisingly the remake or reboot or whatever of "The Evil Dead" which has a very clever and bloody ending, "The Heat" is by far the funniest most humane comedy in a very underwhelming year so far for comedies, and Guillermo Del Torro's "Pacific Rim" is solid popcorn entertainment in the most old fashioned way, however it doesn't come close to his masterpiece "Pan's Labyrinth".

And now for my list of older films that I have viewed for the first time this year. Here are my top five

1. The Life of Oharu Director Kenji Mizoguchi is often compared with Ozu and Kurosawa as one of Japan's masters. Not many of his films are available, I have only seen a few. "The Life of Oharu" is one of the most devastating films I have ever seen in all my life, it's an instant masterpiece in my mind, it's been awhile since I've seen a film that has affected me quite like this has. The story is of a Japanese girl who comes from a noble family, but is banished from her place in society after she falls in love with a commoner. She is then sold by her father to become a courtesan, and the film follows her life as she is reduced to a middle aged prostitute. Mizoguchi was a master at camera placement and movements, the last few moments of this film are ones I will not forget, a profoundly sad but moving film that deserves a place along with all the greats.

2. MacBeth (1948) Orson Welles has been taken for granted for a long time, isn't it time his films deserve the type of treatment reserved for most masterpieces not just "Citizen Kane". His version of Shakespeare's "MacBeth" is a visual feast, all the more impressive in that he made it in Replublic Pictures, a film company mostly known for B-movie westerns. Welles had little time, and a small budget, but he creates a compact masterpiece with this film. To save time, he recorded the voices of the actors which were dubbed over their lines, Welles even dubbed in some bit parts with his own voice. The tragedy of Welles' filmography is how incomplete his films all were, yet you don't really notice it, "Macbeth" is one of his overlooked films that deserves a reevaluation, now if all his other films can be properly released like this one has.

3. Heaven Can Wait Ernst Lubitsch's twilight comedy is everything you should expect from him. The story of a life long philanderer who arrives at the devil's office after his death pleading his case that he belongs in hell. The story is full of wit and sentiment that is sorely lost in movies today, of all the films I've seen this year, "Heaven Can Wait" fills me with the most nostalgia of the type of movies they don't make anymore.

4. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp One of the most famous and notorious films ever to come from Britain, from the famous Archers Powell/Pressburger, it tells the long tale of Colonel Clive Candy (Roger Livesey, a jovial, and principled officer who reflects on his life with the women he was in love with (three, all of whom are played by Deborah Kerr)and his lifelong friendship with a German officer (Anton Walbrook). This film is one of a kind, not quite a comedy, not quite a drama, and not quite a war story, but like "Heaven Can Wait", it's full of nostalgia of a simpler time, in this case, before the Nazi's took over. It's gorgeously photographed in wonderful technicolor.

5. Design for Living Another Lubitsch title, this one done in the hay day of the pre-code era, a fun, sexy comedy about two men (Gary Cooper and Frederich March) in love with the same women (Miriam Hopkins), and the gentlemen's agreement they make with eachother. This films was years ahead of its times, and something that Hollywood wouldn't even attempt today. It was adapted by Noel Coward and oozes sophistication, testament to the greatness of Lubitsch and his immaculate touch he had on his material.

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.

Contempt

Jean-Luc Godard's "Contempt" is one of the most hypnotic films I've ever seen, there is an unusual sort of melancholy that goes with it which is unlike anything else. The film is about a marriage that disintegrates over the making of a movie, it's also a story of artistic compromises and selling out. It can be thought of as both a love letter to cinema, but one that is also full of bitter resentment.

"Contempt" came along early in Godard's career; he was the new wave whirl wind directing films like "Breathless", "A Woman is a Woman", and "Vivre Sa Vie". Those films basked in a certain free style "anything goes" approach to movie makingmaking, they were alive, free and vibrant, you could tell they were made by a young film enthusiast, but also a master. However, all that changed with "Contempt"; his sixth film in only four years; the innovation and enthusiasm is still there, but with less of his virtuoso touches (although they were still visible in smaller ways), and more of an assured approach.

The story of "Contempt" concerns a French screenwriter named Paul (Michel Piccoli), who has been hired by a crude American Producer, Jeremy Prokosch (Jack Palance) to do re-writes on a filmed version of Homer's "The Odyssey". Prokosch is butting heads with the director of the film (played here by real life filmmaker Fritz Lang as a Godardian version of himself), and wants Paul to re-write the script. Paul decides to take the job partially in part to keep his lovely wife Camille (Brigitte Bardot) living in luxury. But in taking the job, Paul loses stature in Camille's eyes, and she soon begins to distance herself away from him; there is also the unsaid implication from Camille that Paul is not shielding her from his producer's flirtatious advances. This conflict leads to the film's centerpiece, which is a lengthy scene of husband and wife in their apartment. Much is said between them in this scene, and much is left unsaid, they dance around their true feelings, things are implied, second guessed, but the truth is never really revealed to us, it's one of the most honest looks at a couple who can't, or won't fully communicate.

The film moves on to Capri where "The Odyssey" is being filmed; Godard keeps things desolate and isolated, not what you would expect for the making of an epic film. The story weaves in and out of the agony of the making of the film to Paul and Camille's further isolation from each other, soon all that is left to do is finish the movie as best as you can.

"Contempt" is the kind of film that very much mirrors the real life making of it. Godard had a much publicized spat with the film's real producers. There is an infamous story of the producers Carlo Ponti and Joseph E. Levine being upset about the official rough cut of the film complaining that there wasn't enough of French sex pot Brigitte Bardot's naked body. Not one nude scene was shot with her, she didn't even have any sexy costumes to wear. Godard's "compromise" came when he decided to film a prologue for the beginning with Bardot laid out naked in bed with Piccoli as they go through an inventory of her body parts. The scene isn't so much erotic, but very romantic as Piccoli pronounces to his wife that he loves her "totally, tenderly, tragically", which also serves as foreshadowing the couple's disillusionment with each other.

You could sense Godard's own commentary on working with his own producers with the character of Jeremy Prokosch played with an over the top absurdity by Jack Palance. Prokosch sees himself as a God, although he's mindless in the ways movies are made. Going over dailies in the screening room with Lang, Jeremy gets upset because what is being filmed isn't in the script, when Lang protests that it is indeed in the script, Jeremy looks at the pages himself only to find that Lang was right, a nice satirical point that most producers don't even bother reading what they are financing.

Paul's dilemma is choosing the pay cheque over the art, and in choosing that, it causes a rift between him and Camille. There is also the suggestion that Paul is in a way pimping out Camille to Jeremy, although probably indirectly, he perhaps doesn't even know he's doing it, yet in Camille's eyes he is.

The way this film has continued to be so striking and moving is how it stimulates us as intelligent viewers, Godard never spells anything out for us, for some, that's his calling card. The long scene in the bedroom is a tour de force of watching a couple in their mundane ways, but also failing miserably at communication. Harsh things are said, then they seem to make up, but then other things are said, at one point Paul strikes Camille, it's like a dance that almost becomes repetitive. There is a moment in this scene in which Bardot wears a black wig, one that purposely makes her resemble Godard's wife at the time actress Anna Karina, who starred in many of his films, while Piccoli wears a fedora that makes him look very much like Godard, an example of life imitating art, Godard and Karina would divorce within a year.

Repetition runs throughout in "Contempt" that I find interesting; much of it comes from the film's famous romantic score by Georges Delerue, certainly a masterpiece of music in its own right. Godard uses the score very much, it floats in the film as if recalling a certain memory, or feeling, but sometimes it acts as just a reminder of the emotional sadness the film carries till the bitter end. The motif of repetition is done again in a series of jump cuts of Bardot's face in different instances, again, I feel they are used to magnify a memory or an emotion, perhaps this was Paul's reflection of his wife, it's hard to tell, but it adds to the allure of the film.

The ending of "Contempt" seems rather inevitable, but it still comes as a shock and only adds to the melancholy of it all. Jean-Luc Godard was the definition of progressive cinema in the 1960s; every new film of his looked as if he had just re-written the book on movie making. He began with a romantic, freewheeling style which bled into a more political and essay type agenda. Between this time, he made "Contempt", his most moving film, which is something you don't often associate with a director like him. You could say Godard's whole subject of his films was film itself, he said once that "film is alive", and no doubt he was the best one who could see the parallels of both a movie and a marriage falling apart.

To Be or Not to Be

Ernst Lubitsch's "To Be or not to Be" is one of the most serious comedies ever made, which makes it all the more hilarious. It is one of those movies that remind you how important it is to laugh at something utterly serious because the reality behind it can be utterly devastating. It is an unapologetic comedy about a group of Polish actors who thwart a Nazi plot to exterminate the underground resistance. It was made in 1942 right in the middle of the second world war as a bitter indictment on the atrocities of the Third Reich, but it's also hilarious.

The film stars Jack Benny as a famous actor Joseph Tura, he's is vein, egotistical, and a great ham. Joseph, along with his wife Maria Tura (Carol Lumbard in her final film) are two of Poland's most famous actors. They love each other, yet they bicker constantly mostly about who's name should come first on the marquee. Also despite their love, that doesn't stop Maria from carrying on a rendevous romance with a young admirer of hers named Stanislav Sobinski (Robert Stack) a young Navi flyer. Each night, Stanislov goes to meet Maria in her dressing room while her husband is on stage playing Hamlet. The cue for Stanislov to meet Maria is once Joseph goes into his "To be or not to be...." speech during the play. Each night at the same time, Stanislov gets up from the audience and leaves to meet Maria in her dressing room, all the while Joseph is under the impression that this is just a regular audience member who is walking out on his performance, something that completely horrifies him.

But pretty soon, this love triangle is interrupted by the very real life occurrence of Germany invading Poland; soon the city of Warsaw is bombed, the theatre is closed, markets and shops are destroyed, and some members of the acting company are seen shoveling snow. Stanislav goes off to fight in the war, but he soon finds out about a double agent for the Nazi's by the name of Professor Siletsky (Stanley Ridges)who has acquired the names of people in the Polish underground movement. Stanislav's is to apprehend Siletsky before he meets the Nazis, but it all goes wrong, and pretty soon it falls on Maria, Joseph, and their troupe of actors to save the day.

The movie has a very straight forward comedic plot which is as hilarious as it is suspenseful. There are some real tense moments such as Maria being stuck in Professor Siletsky's hotel room which is crowded and run by Nazis. There's also a moment where Joseph is disguised as Siletsky to fool the Nazis but he is then put in a room which contains the very real, and very dead person he is impersonating. Yet we forget that we are watching a comedy, and the solutions to these tense moments relieve us with hearty laughter.

Much of the fun of "To Be or Not to Be" has to do with the life and ego of actors. The role of Joseph Tura was specifically written with Jack Benny in mind, and he has never made a more memorable part in the movies. Benny revels in Tura's vanity, and also his insecurity. During the film's moments when Tura is disguised as Siletsky, he often asks the people he's with if he has heard of "that great actor Joseph Tura" to which the reply is mostly a no; however in one of the film's most notorious lines, one of the main officers, Col Ehrhardt (Sig Ruman) replies that he has heard of Tura and saw him performing "Hamlet" once. He goes on to say that "What he did to Shakespeare, we are now doing to Poland". That line, among others is the reason the film was considered bad taste when it was first released.

Indeed the film did not receive a warm reception in its initial release which was due to the scathing satirical take on the Nazi war machine. No doubt it was sensitive material at the time it was made, however I felt watching it that there was a certain immediacy to it that perhaps took the audience off guard. The film takes a brave approach in its portrayal of the Nazis and their political message which, to Lubitsch was absurd. The main fool of the film comes from Ruman's character Col. Earhardt, a bafoonish military officer who is seen on the phone ordering people shot without investigating them, then there is a running joke of him putting blame on his underling everytime he is wrong about something. Earhardt is a rather broad representation of the sense Hitler's Third Reich made to the sane individual.

But the main aim of ridicule here is Hitler, who know doubt was a fearful conqueror to the Polish people at the time, and who's threats were probably seen as no laughing matter. But the idea the film does take is to deflate Hitler's importance, and it does this by laughing at him and his mindless policies which caused the deaths of millions. This is an angry film but with a lot of heart to it.

Ernst Lubitsch was the director of this film, who, in all of the photographs I've seen him in, he's never without a cigar, and is usually carrying a mischievous grin on his face. He was known for his comedies, he thrived in the silent era beginning in Germany, then became greatly known in Hollywood for his sophisticated style in films like "Trouble in Paradise" and "Design for Living". At some point his films were described as having that "Lubitsch Touch" something that has never been explained quite fully. The reason it's never been explained is because "The Lubitsch Touch" means something different to everyone else, yet it all adds up to a signature that is no doubt belongs to him. When it comes to "To Be or Not to Be", I believe his touch has something to do with tact. I don't think Lubitsch ever became explicit, which is why I'm amazed that this film was considered, or could ever be thought of as tasteless. Lubitsch doesn't need to be crass or derogatory to get his point across, he always took the high road with the targets he aimed at. That comes out in the very brief but righteous scenes the film takes, none more so than when one of the troupe of actors played by Lubitsch regular Felix Bressart must be a distraction during a drastic moment at an Opera Hall. This actor has always wanted to play Shylock from "The Merchant of Venice", and when he is captured by the Nazis, he is given his chance to say that character's famous monologue, "If you prick us, do we not bleed..."here Lubitsch sums up the sentiment of the film, a protest against the madness that Hitler stood for. These moments are scattered tactfully by Lubitsch throughout the film to give it weight; a way to stand up against dehumanization by throwing in an ounce of humanity.

Of all types of films that are lost from Hollywood's golden age, it's the Lubitsch ones I think I miss the most. To spend the evening with a Lubitsch film is like spending one with people who always know what the right thing to say is in any situation. With "To Be or Not to Be", Lubitsch is commenting that there are serious, and evil things going on in the world, but sometimes the best way to deal with those things is to laugh at it, he knew that comedy, when done right, could be the source of great courage.