Vivre Sa Vie (My Life to Live)

"Vivre Sa Vie" is one of the best films to come out of the 1960s, it was the fourth film by that new wave dynamo Jean-Luc Godard, he wasn't afraid of challenging the way we viewed film, weather it was how he staged his scenes or directed his actors, there was something new and exciting about it. That being said, "Vivre Sa Vie" may be his most subdued film of this period.

The story centers on Nana (Anna Karina), a young girl who works at a record store with aspirations of becoming an actress. Nana becomes unsuccessful with her dream and soon resorts to prostitution, there he life is tragically cut short when she is killed by her pimp. I don't feel like I'm giving anything away at telling you the fate of Nana, since it is plainly clear at the beginning of the film, that it doesn't end well for her.

"Vivre Sa Vie" is more about capturing these moments of time in Nana's life, Godard titles these moments in tableau, there are twelve in total. Godard explains that these tableau's work as pebbles or blocks in time, they are meant to show these little snapshots of Nana at this moment in her life. Because of that, many plot points are often not shown but referred to, Godard even said he wasn't sure as to how long of a span the film is supposed to focus on, it may be months even years, but to him it didn't matter, what mattered was following Nana, almost to a point where the film feels like a documentary, but of course Godard is dealing with fictional material, yet what he does is play with our expectations with what a fictional film could be.

Much of convention is dropped in the world of Godard, he plays with the elements of film like a symphony, using every tool to its full advantage and never afraid to experiment. Some critics consider "Vivre Sa Vie" as simply a film about different conversations, and indeed that's much of what goes on. The opening tableau is Nana in a cafe talking to her ex, but Godard makes the extreme choice of filming directly behind them, showing only their heads. When I first saw this film, that scene always seemed annoying, yet it grew on me the more I viewed it, Godard was making the conversation more realistic, by not seeing the faces, we get the feeling of eavesdropping on a conversation. Similar scenes are all shot differently, sometimes with simple panning from one person to another, and other times from a more conventional two-shot cut. The effect is never distracting, and Godard seems more interested in letting the camera be part of the emotion of the scene.

These techniques aside, what draws me into this film more often is how liberated it is, both in technique and in theme. It is in fact a movie about freedom, and personal liberty, it begins with a quote from Montaigne "You must only lend yourself to others but give yourself to yourself." Nana is a woman at a constant struggle of finding freedom for herself. She is denied her freedom when she becomes a prostitute, but there is a resistance in her as she yearns for love and happiness. Tragically she becomes a martyr and in the film's most famous scene, she is shown inside a movie theatre watching Carl Dreyer's classic silent film "The Passion of Joan of Arc", Godard makes a direct parallel with Nana and Joan in the film, it's also her one burst of emotion as she is seen crying in the theatre.

The film seems to be fighting this philosophical question as well regarding freedom and love, which is summed up wonderfully when Nana runs into an actual philosopher at a cafe. Here he makes a parable regarding "The Three Musketeers" which could directly relate to Nana's own struggles. She questions the philosopher, and challenges him, and it's interesting how she is seen quite intelligent and literate, how you may ask did this girl get driven into prostitution?

It's also relevant to point out, "Vivre Sa Vie" could be thought of as Godard's own fascination with his star Anna Karina. At the time this film was made, the two were married, they made seven films together, their later ones particularly "Pierrot le Fou" showed off their disintegrating relationship, but at the time of this film, you could see Godard was at least in love with her face, Karina is given some of the most flattering close-ups in history. Karina complained that she thought the film made her ugly, but I don't see it. Karina gives Nana a beautiful sadness, and a shine that comes out in her actions; Godard gives her great freedom to play around, including a hypnotic scene where she dances around to a rocking tune trying to get the attention to a young man whom she loves. There is as much joy in her performance as there is in meloncholy and contemplation.

There's so much about "Vivre Sa Vie" that remains with you once you watch it, like most of Godard's films of the 1960s, it's youthful and vibrant, it holds a certain unique cinematic point of view. Godard seemed to be concerned with youthful ideas back then, most of his films were about young people who were alienated, confused, and questioning their existence. He also had more encyclopedic knowledge about film than anyone and he used it as his advantage.

Today Godard continues to take chances for better or for worse; his last film "Film Socialism", was completely incomprehensible, yet you felt there was a mind working trying to stretch the film language as far as it could go. "Vivre Sa Vie" still surprises and delights, it's a film that was and is ahead of its time.

The Doll

One of my favorite opening shots in any movie comes from the charming 1919 silent fairy tale comedy "The Doll". In it, we see the film's director Ernst Lubitsch opening up a toy box and creating the scene from cardboard scenery and dolls for the characters. The film begins and the dolls turn into real life characters while the cardboard scenery remains. It's such a nice little wink and shows off Lubitsch's playful sense of humour to the audience.

"The Doll" takes place in a made up kingdom where a young man named Lancelot (Hermann Thimig) is being pressured by his Uncle the Baron to take a wife. The Baron wants to see his family name live on but Lancelot is a bit of a prudish momma's boy who seems to be afraid of women. He doesn't want to get married, he runs away from his Uncle and takes solace in a monastery which houses a bunch of monks who happen to be broke. Lancelot's Uncle sends word to him that if he decides to marry, he'll give him a large sum of money which the monks need desperately. Lancelot is still hesitant but luckily there is a toymaker in town who specializes in making life-sized women dolls for men.

The dolls are all wound up and can follow orders with the push of a button, so Lancelot figures this is the perfect way to get him from marrying a real woman and still get the money he needs to help the monks.

One such doll is modeled after the toymaker's daughter Ossi (Ossi Ozwalda). When the incompetent assistant accidentally breaks the doll, Ossi takes its place and goes off to marry Lancelot. Lancelot still isn't any the wiser, even as Ossi shows signs of not being a real doll. The toymaker meanwhile realizes that his daughter has gone off to marry Lancelot without his knowing, and his hair begins to raise and turn instantly white with worry.

"The Doll" was made while Ernst Lubitsch was still making movies in Germany, before his golden age of making sophisticated romantic comedies in Hollywood. I always found Lubitsch to be an anomaly; besides him the most famous German directors were Fritz Lang, and F.W. Murnau, these were men who had a reputation for being controlling and somewhat humourless when it came to their films. They were pioneers in what is now known as German expressionism, which usually dealt in dark genres such as horrors or thrillers. Lubitsch always dealt with the lighter side of life, because he had a sense of humour about it.

I've seen many old photographs of Lubitsch and in every one he's always smiling and is usually holding a cigar in his mouth. He seemed to be a man who didn't take life too seriously and therefore didn't make anything sacred.

"The Doll" could be described as one of the very first sex, comedies. Sex has always remained in the movies countless times no matter how much the censors try to take it off the screens. In another director's hands, sex could be seen as sensuous or tantalizing, but Lubitsch simply found it funny. He was probably the first director ever to make fun of sex, and what happens when the lights go out in the bedroom.

With "The Doll", he makes fun of the implications of marrying a toy. "Just as long as it doesn't hurt", says Lancelot when he agrees to marry the doll. The toymaker even gives Lancelot some maintenance tips for the doll, making sure to "oil it every two weeks", and make sure "to give it a good dusting". It's that kind of innuendo which makes "The Doll" hilariously modern, but it's done so innocently, it never sounds crass or dirty.

The glue that holds the film together has got to be Ossi Oswalda, who plays the wonderfully bratty daughter of the toymaker as well as the doll itself. Ossi appeared in a number of Lubitsch's German films, and she seems to have a wonderful comic sensibility. There is just the right sense of charm and mischief in Ossi's performance that Lubistch must've took a shine to her particularly for this film.

The world, "The Doll" inhabits though is like a child's make believe land, and it's with that aesthetic, the film is able to sustain a sense of innocence, despite the rather grown up subject matter. Only a director like Lubitsch could create such a world where even sex could be thought of as so innocent, under his hands it never became taboo, just fun.

When someone talks about the films of Ernst Lubitsch, they are usually given a nickname, it's called "The Lubitsch Touch". No one can exactly explain what his touch was, everyone has their own theories towards what it was. I suppose the point is, once Lubitsch died, his magical touch died with him. No matter how many people tried, they couldn't duplicate his movies. They were a perfect balance of taboo subject matter, and popular entertainment, and I suppose another word for that would be class. But Lubitsch never thought a joke was too cheap to use, you could tell he found anything funny. Did I mention the toymaker's name was Hilarious?

Late Autumn

There is a serenity that comes over me when I watch a film like "Late Autumn", it's a film directed by Yasujiro Ozu so in that sense it already holds a special place in my heart. Ozu was a master filmmaker who made wonderful masterpieces almost all the time. His films were rarely seen outside of Japan for the longest time, but now over the years he's been rediscovered and can now be seen as one of cinema's masters.

What you should know about "Late Autumn" is it's a reworking of the ongoing theme which was prominent in many of Ozu's films, the disillusionment of the family. In this film the relationship between a daughter and her widowed mother is interrupted by the insistence that the daughter should be married. Both woman seem content with the fact they they live together, but society has made it necessary that the daughter should marry.

The mother in this film is played by one of the great beauties of cinema, Setsuko Hara. In earlier incarnations of the same plot, Ozu had Hara play the daughter, but now she is middle aged. Hara seems older, slower, but her beauty and her quiet sadness seems to be even more prominent. Hara wasn't in movies much, she soon retired after Ozu passed away, and in her late career she mostly worked almost exclusively with him. Seeing her in this film is like seeing a history between an actress and her director, it isn't only a character she's playing, but it's an embodiment of an idea instilled in her by a filmmaker.

But "Late Autumn" also has its playful side, it's a modern tragedy but with some wise human comedy in the mix. The trouble makers of the film happen to be three middle aged men who were friends of Hara's dead husband. They plan to play matchmakers for the daughter, it's almost as if the idea came to them on a whim. The tragedy here is how the mother and daughter become pawns in the games of these foolish men. No one asked them to interfere with their perfectly content life, but they have it in their mind it's for the best of both parties that the daughter be married off.

But we don't see anyone judged in "Late Autumn", there are no villains, the tragedy is mostly done organically by typical human error, we understand everyone does things with the best intentions, but change must be accepted, and we mourn for the way of life that will be lost.

"Late Autumn" is a patient film, it asks you to pay attention, for with all Ozu films, he's fascinated with the behaviours and the relationships of his characters. It's brilliant how Ozu can bring out character relationships in a cinematic way. Sometimes he emphasizes a close connection between two people by having them mirror each others movements, or sometimes it's used to show off a comedic situation.

But Ozu is also a master at showing the sadness of life, and also the joys. He shows life as a passage of time full of hope and heartaches. Perhaps no one has been able to show the beauty of loneliness better than Ozu. This is done in the final moments with Setsuko Hara where she is left alone in her room, and Ozu gives us her little moment to reflect that her daughter will no longer be there to greet her home, she is left to continue her life alone. Hara is perfect in this scene, every little movement shows volumes of what she is feeling, that's the secret of Ozu cinema, he was fascinated with the little habits people did, the slight mundane things that filled up their lives, it's what his cinema is all about, it's what make us care for these people, they seem all the more real to us. There are moments in "Late Autumn" where a touch of the wrist or a tilt of the head had more behind it than any emotional monologue could ever tell us, that's the signature of a master.

JFK

In the film "JFK", Kevin Costner plays Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who so far is the only man ever to bring a case of the JFK Assassination to trial, however perhaps a more accurate account would be Costner plays the mouthpiece for the people who believe there was a conspiracy.

When "JFK" was released in 1991, it was a controversial potboiler. Many critics denounced the film for being outlandish and for skewering the truth behind the JFK assassination. Time has now simmered the once notorious film, and while revisiting it I found it to be extremely entertaining and engrossing.

In the film, Costner's Jim Garrison begins his search for the truth behind the assassination of JFK. After the apprehension of lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald (Played here uncannily by Gary Oldman), Garrison becomes convinced Oswald couldn't have acted alone. His investigation leads to Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones), a legitimate businessman in New Orleans who has been linked to Oswald. Garrison has gathered enough evidence to at least bring Shaw to trial, although one might say that it's mostly circumstantial or here say. Most of his witnesses are not reliable, and it becomes clear, Garrison's case doesn't have a leg to stand on, but it wasn't really a case to convict Clay Shaw, but a case to show there was indeed a conspiracy and for that it was a success.

"JFK" is a film about conspiracies, but it's also about the injustice of feeling lied to by the government. The film was directed by Oliver Stone, a man who is at his best when he seems to be dealing with his own lost generation. With "JFK", Stone seems to be trying to get a few things off his chest not just about the cover up, but about how America in general became shaken by the assassination. There are many times when Garrison says he's in over his head and he can't believe how far the conspiracy goes. The thought of governments lying to the country was nothing new to Oliver Stone, he seems to revel in corruption, it sparks something inside of him that makes him inspired. He has rallied against Vietnam, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush to name a few.

With "JFK", Stone is unloading on his audience a certain injustice, the conspiracies act as sort of a collage throughout the film, they all meld together. Sometimes it's difficult to remember all the events or all the people connected with the assassination, but it all doesn't seem to matter in the end. This is just Stone's way of creating some sort of dialogue, he's trying to show that sometimes atrocious was covered up in America's history and his angry about it.

But "JFK" works as just a wonderfully entertaining piece of filmmaking, it's a potboiler, sort of like a more sensationalistic approach to "All the President's Men". It gets to the point where Garrison gets in too deep where he fears for his own safety and is paranoid about who's watching him. The investigation itself just seems fascinating, and Stone seems so passionate about his subject, the film can probably be accused with feeling over stuffed, and with a running time of nearly three and half hours, it's not hard to think that way.

There are moments where Stone's sincerity gets in the way of his story telling, Garrison's impassioned speech to the jury at the end of the film is overlong and wrought with sentimental cliches it doesn't ring true. There is also the half-hearted subplot of Garrison's home life, where we get too many obligatory scenes with him arguing with his wife about how he hasn't spent enough time with his family.

But despite those set back, the big picture works beautifully, Stone keeps things moving, and he gets some great performances from his all star cast. Tommy Lee Jones in particular is effective as Shaw, the main villain of the piece, as is Joe Pesci who play Dave Ferrie a man who is connected with both Shaw and Oswald. Then there is Donald Sutherland as the mysterious man only known as X. Sutherland has a long winded scene with Costner where he seems to spew out every government conspiracy in the record books. Sutherland has that sort of voice you listen to, even if you can't fully comprehend what exactly he's saying, in a way there's an undertow of humour in his performance I appreciated.

For his part, Costner is ideally cast as Garrison, where his role is mostly to listen and react to the information. Costner is a stand in for the audience, he takes it all in, and must make a moral choice to stand up for the truth. In the end, "JFK" is about the righteous search for the truth, I respected its sincere convictions even though they seemed rather naive. It has as much to do about John F. Kennedy as it does about the feelings of Oliver Stone; he wanted to make clear how he felt about being lied to. In my opinion, Stone does seem to have simplistic political views, he is a man with an agenda. He seems to succeed when he's able to get you on his side, "JFK" does so by shear passion and style.

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a great tragedy for America, I'm not sure there has been a film yet to be made that has actually dealt with it in a true and honest nature. "JFK" is still a work of fiction, it's a collage of "what ifs", it's cathartic for people who have been searching for the truth, and haven't been given any straight answers. It's one man's obsession taken to the extreme in hopes of at least communicating his frustrations with trying to solve a puzzle that can't seem to be solved.

Cat People

"Cat People" works like a fever dream, it's a film that draws you in by the power of suggestion, by making you think you saw or heard something on the screen, but perhaps you didn't. It is technically a horror film, yet unlike what the title might suggest it's not a freak show, it is in fact mostly psychological, it remains a metaphor for a failed marriage, a fear of intimacy, and a fear of oneself.

When it was released, no one really thought much of "Cat People", it was a film which was given a small budget and a b-movie title. It was created by the people at RKO as a quick cash answer to Universal's horror movie lexicon which contained titles such as "Frankenstein" and "The Wolf Man". But what the head honchos underestimated was the talent behind the film.

The history of "Cat People" is the history of Val Lewton, a Producer who started out as a protege of David O Selznik. Lewton was given a chance to produce a series of horror films for RKO, only he wanted them to be something special. He was a student of classic literature and stories, he even used to write pulp fiction novels before becoming a producer. With "Cat People" he was given a crummy title and a small budget, but that meant basic free creative control.

Through the guidance of Lewton and director Jaques Tournier, "Cat People" became the story of Irena (Simone Simon) a young woman from Serbia living in New York. She meets a man Oliver Reed (Kent Smith) and the two fall in love and get married. But something is haunting Irena, a story from her homeland has her convinced she comes from an ancestry of people who worshipped the devil and being intimate with her husband will cause her to turn into a fabled cat person and killing him.

Because of Irena's superstitions, their wedding night is spent apart, time goes by and they grow more and more isolated in eachother. Oliver takes solice in his co-worker Alice (Jane Randolph) who loves him. This sparks jealousy in Irena and she begins to act even more dark and brooding. Later Oliver advises Irena to visit a psychiatrist (Tom Conway) to help her cope with her feelings. The doctor however only tries to seduce Irena causing her to become more repressed and aggressive.

This is really Irena's story, she is the loner of the film, the outcast, she doesn't seem to fit in, it's about her fears of becoming isolated from the man she loves and losing him to another women. It's also about her sexual repression, re-watching it, the film reminded me much of Roman Polanski's own horror masterpiece "Repulsion" which was also about a woman dealing with her own repression. The tragedy of "Cat People" is seeing all of Irena's horrors come true, she does lose he husband, and she does unleash the animal within her, but the beauty of this film is how it is left ambiguous.

"Cat People" could've become silly very quickly if they chose to show a woman turn into a cat, but it's much too smart for that. The horror is done by not showing, but only implying. This is done through the isolation of sound, the use of silence, and images which seem to be hidden in shadow. There aren't many scare moments in "Cat People" but when they do happen it's to great effect. Take the moment where Alice believes she is being stalked. We the audience see her being followed by the footsteps of Irena, but soon those footsteps disappear, but we still feel Alice is being followed, the climax of this sequence is one of the most famous of its kind.

Then there is the moment where Alice again feels like she is being stalked, this time in a swimming pool. There are faint echoes of sound surrounding her, and images against the shadowy wall, but again we aren't sure what if anything is there.

These little pieces of creative filmmaking is what makes "Cat People" endure as a classic of subtle horror, but it's Irena's story that still interests me the most. Her horrors are real and they manifest into something super natural, it touches on our own fears of loneliness, isolation, even death. Irena seems to be in a waking dream, on one level it doesn't seem to make much sense, we don't quite see everything, yet we feel like we have. It's a film of the subconscious, that primal level of the mind that is able to connect with these feelings on some level.

"Cat People" isn't so much a monster movie in the same way "Frankenstein" or "Dracula" are. It's more ambiguous where you're not sure who, what, or where the monster is. The story of Irena teaches us that even though we can resist it for as long as we can, the monster will appear, and the horror is knowing it could be inside us.

Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule Seasonal Quiz

) Favorite Vincent Price/American International Pictures release.
Of what I've seen "The Fly"

2) What horror classic (or non-classic) that has not yet been remade would you like to see upgraded for modern audiences?
"The Return of Dr. X"

3) Jonathan Frid or Thayer David?
Don't know of them.

4) Name the one horror movie you need to see that has so far eluded you.
"The Haunting"

5) Favorite film director most closely associated with the horror genre.
James Whale

6) Ingrid Pitt or Barbara Steele?
Barbara Steele

7) Favorite 50’s sci-fi/horror creature.
The Martians from "War of the Worlds"

8) Favorite/best sequel to an established horror classic.
"Bride of Frankenstein"

9) Name a sequel in a horror series which clearly signaled that the once-vital franchise had run out of gas.
"Alien Vs. Predator"

10) John Carradine or Lon Chaney Jr.?
John Carradine

11) What was the last horror movie you saw in a theater? On DVD or Blu-ray?
In Theatres: "Let Me In" On DVD: "The Horror of Dracula"

12) Best foreign-language fiend/monster.
Klaus Kinski's Nosferatu

13) Favorite Mario Bava movie.
Haven't seen one

14) Favorite horror actor and actress.
Actor: Boris Karloff Actress: Vivian Leigh

15) Name a great horror director’s least effective movie.
Sam Raimi "Drag Me to Hell"

16) Grayson Hall or Joan Bennett?
Joan Bennett

17) When did you realize that you were a fan of the horror genre? And if you’re not, when did you realize you weren’t?
I think I just recently realized I was a fan of horror, thanks mostly in part to early Roman Polanski movies. his "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby" are two films I've seen only for the first time over the past few years and I found them totally engrossing. Since then I've come to appreciate more horror films even though they aren't my favorite genre.

18) Favorite Bert I. Gordon (B.I.G.) movie.
HAven't seen one.

19) Name an obscure horror favorite that you wish more people knew about.
"Mad Love"

20) The Human Centipede-- yes or no?
Never.

21) And while we’re in the neighborhood, is there a horror film you can think of that you felt “went too far”?
Not one I've seen, but I have heard of films who's very concepts turn me off.

22) Name a film that is technically outside the horror genre that you might still feel comfortable describing as a horror film.
"Apocalypse Now", "Taxi Driver"

23) Lara Parker or Kathryn Leigh Scott?
Don't know them

24) If you’re a horror fan, at some point in your past your dad, grandmother, teacher or some other disgusted figure of authority probably wagged her/his finger at you and said, “Why do you insist on reading/watching all this morbid monster/horror junk?” How did you reply? And if that reply fell short somehow, how would you have liked to have replied?
My reply was a grunt to that person and I continued watching it. I would've liked to have replied by going into great detail that what I was watching was art, and it was effectively made, and I would've gotten on my pretensious highhorse to defend it.

25) Name the critic or Web site you most enjoy reading on the subject of the horror genre. Kim Morgan, mostly for pointing me in the direction of "Repulsion" among others.

26) Most frightening image you’ve ever taken away from a horror movie.
As a boy it was probably seeing Vera Miles finding the remains of Mrs. Bates in "Psycho", or Quint squirting up blood as he's being eaten in "Jaws". Lately it's the hands grabbing out from the walls in "Repulsion", and the naked old woman kissing Jack Nicholson in "The Shining".

27) Your favorite memory associated with watching a horror movie.
It was my first viewings of "King Kong" and "Frankenstein". They brought the fun out in horror for me the first time.

28) What would you say is the most important/significant horror movie of the past 20 years (1992-2012)? Why?
"The Descent" which is probably the one horror film I've seen that actually felt like an experience, and didn't rely on gimmicks or hoky slaughter. It was a frightening story that got under my skin.

29) Favorite Dr. Phibes curse (from either film).
Can't say I've seen one.

30) You are programming an all-night Halloween horror-thon for your favorite old movie palace. What five movies make up your schedule?
For my first festival it would be more of an outing from the classic period involving

"Frankenstein/Bride of Frankenstein"
"The Invisible Man"
"The Mummy"
"Nosferatu" (1922)
"Mad Love"

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

I remember "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" from childhood. I remember feeling like I was watching a foreign film, it seemed so mysterious and weird, and I was astonished to see one of the main characters speaking mostly french. I thought of how little dialogue there was in the film, yet I always knew what was going on. I remember the lights in the film, not just the ones caused by the UFOs, but the whole motif of the it all; the flashlights, the car headlights, and the helicopters flying towards the people who thought they were seeing the UFOs. I remembered the music, that little five note piece performed by the humans in order to contact and communicate with the aliens. That piece always felt like the start of a children's lullaby to me.

Today "Close Encounters" is still a wonderful film, I have seen it over and over again, I'm amazed at how simple the story structure is, yet how brilliantly a piece of film it really is. It pulls you in at the very beginning as we hear an ominous sound of music at the beginning during the opening credits. We hear it growing louder and louder until it crescendos into the first shot of a dessert windstorm, and we see the first lights of the film coming from a jeep pulling up towards the frame. We are introduced to a group of scientists or government officials headed by a Frenchman named Lacombe. They are investigating the mysterious re- appearance of a group of fighter planes thought lost from the 1940s.

Elsewhere we see Barry (Cary Guffey) a little boy who awakes to find his toys going berserk in his room. Barry isn't frightened by these happenings, he's more inquisitive. He runs off into the night as if following something, while his frantic mother (Melinda Dillion) goes after him.

Then there's Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) a family who goes out the same night to investigate unexplained power outages. It's with Roy we get the first glimpse of a UFO as it hovers over him with a big bright light which cause him to get a sunburn. Later Barry and his mother see UFOs too, which Roy tries to follow as best as he can until they escape into the night sky.

After this encounter we see Roy becoming obsessed with what he saw, his wife Ronnie (Teri Garr) thinks he has gone nuts. He begins seeing strange mountainous shapes all over. He meets up with Barry and his mother later on, and we learn that they are seeing the same shapes. This all leads to a quest for Roy, he doesn't know what it all means, but he knows it's important, and he has to figure it out at all costs. This causes him to alienate his family, virtually abandoning them in order to discover this truth.

So what is "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" really about? In a way it's a little science fiction story about this first communication with benevolent aliens from another planet. On another level it's about one man's obsession which causes him to completely leave his family. It's also about this search for some greater truth, almost a religious experience one might feel towards something, it remains unexplained but we know it's important.

But "Close Encounters" is also a film about music and light, and using those elements in telling a compelling story. There isn't much plot in the film, it's all leading to a very simple conclusion, but it's shrouded in mystery, and the way we are drawn into the story is what's so unique about it. The spaceships in the film aren't really shown in their full glory till the climax, what we get leading up to their appearance are moments containing brilliant light. Sometimes the light can fill up the screen, sometimes there are shreds of it coming through cracks in the door or through a kitchen window.

The music plays an important part as well, it breaks the language barrier between the aliens and the humans. Nothing is ever spoken between the two different beings, but an understanding is met. The ending of the film comes with the beautiful melding of music and light as the alien mother ship comes down, and the language becomes symphonic, we don't know what is being said, but we don't have to, it's all there on screen.

This film was directed by Steven Spielberg, it was his follow-up to his hugely successful "Jaws", but with "Close Encounters" he takes his story telling skills leaps and bounds forward. Spielberg is often mistaken as only a talented craftsmen, but you can sense a young boy genius becoming an auteur with this film. It's with "Close Encounters of the Third" where we first become aware of what is Spielberg cinema. It's a film he made when he was still young and ambitious, he had his own theories about film, and was able to make them both personal and popular.

"Close Encounters of the Third Kind" came out in the summer of 1977, it was a blockbuster, but it could still be thought of as an artistic achievement. By comparison with today's nonsensical blockbusters, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is quiet, ominous, it doesn't show its cards till the end, but it keeps you intrigued, emotionally invested, and touched. Most blockbusters have given up on giving us an experience as joyful, and innovative as "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", they rely on loud explosions and special effects rather than sublime story telling. These films move like muddled sounds all mixed together that hurt the senses, where as "Close Encounters" moves like an orchestra of music and vision which fit perfectly for the movie screen.