OF DEMONS AND MONSTERS - OF (TECHNO) GODS AND MEN... "THE SARAGOSA MANUSCRIPT"

I was warned when I got given this DVD. I was told that it contained stories within stories, within stories and that soon I would have no idea what the f.ck I was watching. That stark (ehm) warning and the fact that Bunuel declared it one of his favorite films meant that I went in for it prepared. I often stopped in my head and retraced my steps in the plot to make sure I wasn’t completely lost. I strongly advise you do the same because yes, in places the story does get as convoluted as you currently imagine it does. I mean come on. Bunuel liked it. That has to tell you something (if you have seen any of Bunuel’s works that is. If not, he is one of the surrealist masters of the 20^th century).

The story starts off simply enough. We start with two enemy soldiers fighting in Saragosa finding an old manuscript. The presence of the manuscript seems to enchant them, political and military divides are put to one side and they begin to read. The manuscript seems to be the story of a Walloon Captain during the Napoleonic wars, Alfonse van Worden (coincidentally one of the ancestors of our two initial narrators but little is made of this plot turn. Well, the number of loose threads that DO get tied up, I reckon I can allow them one). He passes through Saragosa and, crucially, a little place called Venta Quemada on his way to Madrid on an important mission. His local guides beg and plead with him against going through Venta Quemada. Ever since two prominent bandits were hung there, ghosts and demons have been regulars there every night. Alfonse, however, is a soldier with no time for this nonsense, so he just ploughs on through. This, he quickly finds, may have been a serious mistake.

We are plunged into a surrealist adventure populated with mystics, ghosts  and demons. We meet fellow travelers on the way and exchange stories, we exchange stories of stories and dart down little paths that seem to lead into darkness or nowhere in particular until… Oh yes. The Saragosa Manuscript is not quite like anything you have witnesses.

Now before you get further please be warned. This is a 3 hour long film, with a convoluted surrealist plot, in Polish. As you can see, it truly presents a plethora of potential problems for the casual viewer. This little film (well, I say little but actually… ) does, however, present a true treasure trove for those who brave it. I personally was prepared and pre-warned so, like I pointed out, I was keeping good track of who was telling who, what. But even so, the film does offer the occasional moment to recap, where the very confused van Worden simply has to stop and retrace his own steps. Van Worden (Zbgniew Cybulski) is the typical everyman. He starts off as a typical young soldier, brave and ambitious and with an eye for beautiful women. All these, however, turn on their heads and become his downfall. For, as we all know, the ambition and hotheadedness of youth are among the things most easily used and abused by the wily. Especially if the wily happen to be demons and evil spirits. I mean not that I would personally know this but yeah. Ok. Moving on.

I love the way the delicate way the storytelling is organized in this film. And I mean, this is a film made in 1965 with all the technological means of the time; it fills me with inspiration as to how you could, with more advanced special effects and such like, make a so much more intricate pattern than that drawn out in the Saragosa Manuscripts. But then again, we don’t have films like that anymore. Because, quite honestly, who these days has the time to watch a three hour film in the first place much less one with intricate multiple stories within a story that you actually have to make a considerable personal effort to follow (at one point the story is 5 levels down. As in the manuscript tells the story told by Alfonse who heard it from a third, who heard it from a fourth who heard it from a fifth and we change locations to watch the story “live” at every single change of narrator)?  I mean, I’m not going on about the fact that this structure is rare in the first place, it naturally is. The problem is that you couldn’t get that kind of project even the vague hope of a green light these days. Then we have things like the “short shorts” offered by a popular tv network in the UK. Four – five minute versions of daytime TV programs for “those with limited time”. Err… What? I mean, only a decade ago we were lamenting that TV was limiting attention spans and killing old fashioned story telling. Now TV is suffering lethal blows from its very own machination. And I mean, can we blame JUST TV? It’s the way we live today. Smartphones are a big one. We are constantly “turned on” to the goings on online, constantly in the firing line from our bosses or the “pushy” social media networks. Even if we have the resolve to turn off the phones or put them on silent we can’t really concentrate. We know there are “things” happening whether we are looking or not. And FOMO (fear of missing out) slowly invades our concentration and our daily life. We no longer “naturally” have the time to meander through the labyrinths of the Saragosa Manuscript, we need to get out our GPS and find the quickest way out because we have urgent emails to reply to, and cat pictures to “like”.  

I don’t own a smartphone. But I am finding I spend more and more time glued to my laptop. Wifi is becoming a serious “need” – my mother’s house does not have wifi and sufficet to say that my three week visit here is turning out to be… well interesting from that perspective. No doubt, when I finally join the smartphone bandwagon, I will be as glued to it as everyone else. But as someone who has a genuine old fashioned slice of “life offline” still in their hands, all I can say is that something is really and truly changing. It is inexorable and like most change, it is not necessarily bad, it is just the way things are now. But still… I think we’re going to miss old fashioned storytelling if it actually vanishes completely. If we actually notice it’s gone, that is. 

BEHOLD, THE MISSING LINK... " THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON"

You know I always go on about “visiting our cinematic elders”. You know, checking out those films that were the “firsts”. Learning about our cinematic history. If you’re a movie buff, this is positively fun. If you’re a bit of a geek like me, you can rattle off whole lists of films that carry the same traits down the “family line”. The Creature from the Black Lagoon is definitely one of the main precursors to the “monster movie” that “spawned” films ranging from Cloverfield (2008) to The Host (2006). And I’ll tell you something else – don’t knock it until you actually try it. Because since it was made in 1954 it may well lack the kind of special effects we are used to today. The “creature” may look a little “off” by today’s standards. But get past that. If you manage to actually get past it – you have a cracking movie experience waiting for you. There is a reason why its director John Arnold was pretty much considered the king of sci-fi back in his day... 

This is the story of a scientific expedition that uncovered a lot more than the scientists on it bargained for… A find in an unexplored place in the Amazonian jungle spurs on what could be one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time. The missing link in the human ancestry between life in the water and life on land no less! But little do the scientists know that what they are about to encounter is not just ancient history – the creature lives! Hidden for years, undisturbed in the Amazonian Black Lagoon, the creature awaits… And he does not take all too kindly to being disturbed…

Yes, this film has all the traits of the “monster abducts beautiful female lead” films that followed it. It is almost what one might call a perfect classic example complete with love triangle. The female scientist on the trip is romantically engaged with one of the other scientists there (I say romantically engaged purely because the film makes a “thing” of how modern it is by underlining the fact that they are dating but not engaged to be married. The couple – more pointedly the man of course – fend off chides concerning “when they are getting married”. But they are not all that “modern” because David, the male lead is very much the “good guy”, the ethical scientist who wants the good of the creature and science. His boss, Mark, the other leg of the love triangle, is the ambitious one, out for fame and glory, “almost akin to a big game hunter”. I like the fact that the film tries to make a more “ethical” point about science, although it may seem a little clumsy by today’s standards. We have become a tad more used to “subtle” arguments, this is true, but the 50s were relatively new as far as the “talkies” went. In the eras after silent cinema, where the lack of sound meant everything else had to be incredible exaggerated and subtlety took a while to master. Well, that and the fact that the films were a good deal shorter than they are today – and with only just under an hour and half to play with you don’t have time for long drawn out subtle arguments.

The other point is that the film makes a legitimate effort to be scientifically accurate, describing the potential dangers of “the bends” (i.e. decompression sickness) although very little is made of this point – I suspect it was supposed to be a plot twist but then at some point got axed for reasons unknown. Also detailed explanations are given to any “every man” type character that can realistically be found – so the film is doing its level best to be scientifically accurate and believable. And this, despite the “gill man” character, shows the film is trying to be realistic on a different level – representing a step away from the “fairy tale” quality of a lot of films and trying to ground the story in reality and science with as little suspension of disbelief involved as possible. This of course sets it up as one of the precursors of modern science fiction as opposed to fantasy  - making it all the more important in cinematic history.

I am well aware that “old” films are not to everyone’s taste. But this is an important one. Much like the gill man himself, it bridges a gap between an older tradition in cinema and what we recognise as “modern cinema” today. If you are a geek you will definitely enjoy it. And shall I tell you something, even if you’re not, between its close parentage to modern films you’ll still probably enjoy it. Not just because you’ll giggle at its “oldy-worldy”ness either. Although, credit where it is due, you will probably enjoy doing that too J  

"THE LETTER" FROM A LONG LOST AGE...

Aah Film noir. One of the oldest genres around. To be sure it has changed a lot since it’s heyday in the ‘40s and ‘50s so much so that it has spurned a new genre called “neo-noir” that differentiates the modern versions from those good old Hollywood classics. It’s like a roast dinner, fish and chips, your favourite drink (please note that I am writing this post just before dinner LOL), in short something you know like the back of your hand and come back to knowing what to expect. If it is an American Classic like The Letter, you will get a beautiful woman, seductive but dangerous (Bette Davis), a man of the law (often a private eye or a police officer but in this particular case the family lawyer, played by James Stephenson), a crime, a cover-up and the impending sense of doom despite the best efforts of the characters, be they sympathetic or not… Adapted from W. Somerset Maugham’s best-seller, The Letter is cited as an example for “classic American noir” – and there’s a good reason for it…

Leslie (Bette Davis) and Robert ( Herbert Marshall) lead a charmed life, living on plantation in Singapore. Servants to tend to their every need and enough money to make %100 sure these needs are tended to mean that Leslie has little to do apart from relaxing and enjoying life while her adoring husband makes sure the plantation is ticking over. She is adored by one and all in the area and part of the very cream of high society, so everyone is shocked when she admits to killing one of her neighbours, a man both her and her husband had known for some time, in her own home in the middle of the night. However, as she is a trusted and well-loved member of society people are also more than ready to believe her word on what happened. The man was drunk, had showed up unannounced, was making unwanted advances and she was alone in the house. She defended herself. She is of course put on trial – but it really seems to be little more than a formality – everyone fully expects life to return to normal very, very shortly. Except… There is talk of this letter… A letter written in Lesley’s own hand and that could turn this idyllic world upside down… Her lawyer seems to be the only one who can help her… Stuck between his loyalty to his client and his loyalty to his vocation, Howard is in a very tight spot indeed… But he must choose carefully, for no matter which way he turns, his actions will have grave consequences…

It’s an interesting combo, the film noir. Becoming popular, and holding a lot of its roots in the Depression era the genre takes a step away from “classic” Hollywood. You can definitely sense the general disillusionment with the establishment and the “system” (whatever that may be) as criminals who get away with murder (among other crimes), officers of the law who fully believe that “everyone has their price” but who have lost all faith in justice they are meant to uphold are prominent along with the dark and striking photography that owes a not a little to German Expressionism but doubtless also contributes to the atmosphere of the film and the constant sense of “something bad being about to happen”.

The Letter is a textbook example of all of the above, but don’t think for a minute it is a hard tale of doom and gloom that you will find difficult to “get into”. In fact this film, as do a lot of its genre, relies a lot on emotions and feelings. In fact I couldn’t help but smile as I watched Bette Davis; as an actress she is as brilliant as always, however there are times when you note a gesture or a pose that is so exaggerated you can very clearly see the lingering effects of the pre-sound era of cinema. It is literally the kind of stuff I do today when I’m clowning around and want to give a sense of an “overly exaggerated” whatever it is… Oh you’ll recognise it. You really, really will. But you have to remember that cinema is an art form like any other, and it grows, changes and develops. Find it funny or not, The Letter is one of the great-grandparents of the crime dramas we watch today. And visiting your grandparents (or indeed your great grandparents) can be both fascinating and great fun… If you can find time in your “modern existence” to actually do it that is… ;) 

ON HOW TIME AND LIFE CHANGES US... "WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?"

Ok, so I know that it’s literally Halloween tomorrow. You’ll be thinking I have missed a trick or two. I mean, why in the world am I not reviewing horror films, right? Well, I know my schedule is a little skew-wiff this week but I would argue that this film is not exactly out of context. I mean, there are many real-life scary things in this world of ours. One is the human mind and it’s capabilities for creating suffering – for ourselves and the people around us. The second, is using this capability within the context of your own family – and as a lot of us probably know this happens more often than we like to admit in public. But anyway, whatever happened to baby jane is specifically this kind of thriller. And I don’t care how used you are to big special effects and CGI, if you have even half a heart, I can guarantee that this little black and white number from the ‘60s will get the hairs on the back of your neck standing right on end…

We start off in 1917, and child star Baby Jane Hudson is taking America by storm. An all-singing, all-dancing American sweetheart  that toured the music halls, Baby Jane has shot to celebrity very young, and it shows. Adored by all, she is spoiled and treats her sister Blanche and her family little better than staff. Fast forward some years however and the tables have taken a very drastic turn. Blanche has shot to fame as a star of the big screen while Jane (Bette Davis) has been forgotten – partly due to her drinking problem. But if the bitterness of being forgotten while her sister is celebrated is not enough, Jane has another slight problem. A car accident has left Blanche (Joan Crawford) paralysed from the waist down, so it falls to Jane to wait on her hand and foot and take care of her every need. But Jane is bitter about this situation. She is very bitter indeed. And she doesn’t miss a single opportunity to remind her sister of it. Question is, when will the torture Jane inflicts on her sister end, if ever? How much more can Blanche take, and has she any way of stopping her, despite being completely dependent on her?

Ok. I don’t even know where to begin with this. But the cast alone should tell you something. Come on, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. I mean, the acting is just… Just superb… I can’t think of many actresses that could successfully pull off the “bad guy” so well and give such a sense of the pathetic at the same time. But even though you feel at times desperately sorry for Jane, you cannot help but watch in horror at what she puts poor Blanche through. It’s funny , really… Family ties are complicated at the best of times without the added complications of lost fame, resentment and crippling accidents, besides let’s face it, who knows our weak spots better than them? The dynamic between the two sisters is simply timeless, and I defy anyone to watch this without their skin crawling on some level or another, despite it being made 50 odd years ago… Just goes to show, some fears never change or grow old…

Speaking of 50 years ago though, technophobe that I am, I couldn’t help smiling at the fact that this film could not be made in the 21^st century. A lot of the plot revolves around the fact that Blanche cannot contact the outside world or call help because she is trapped on the second floor of the mansion – completely dependent on her sister to get to the first floor – and unable to reach the telephone and call help. Blanche would probably have a mobile and a laptop or tablet if she were alive today; and even assuming her sister removed all these things, she would sooner or later be able to get hold of something, e-mail, call , text, skype, whatsapp or viber the authorities and that would be the end of that… I’m not even getting started on how “possible” the skeleton in the family closet would be in this day and age (mainly because the skeleton constitutes a very fine sting in the story’s tail that I want you to discover for yourselves) but suffice it to say that in a lot of ways the film is a museum piece. But the way it takes such a universal theme as sibling rivalry and turns into a thriller we can relate to today despite the antiquated settings makes the film a real masterpiece and a true classic.

A RATHER BELATED (EHM) REVIEW OF A TRULY ORIGINAL WORK : "THE ARTIST"

I know. You noticed. I’m really, really late with this one. Don’t get mad at me though, I WANTED to see it, it’s just… Circumstances. You know what I mean, right? Life happens. I was overjoyed when I finally got round to watching it though. I hope you’re not too mad at me. I’m a little mad at me to be honest, but come on. Admit it. I have been better about “keeping up to date” with the big films of the year so far. One little delay from oh so long ago… Not worth talking about, right?

Well, it’s funny you should agree with that, as The Artist doesn’t think anything is “worth talking about” (haha, see what I did there? You know, it’s a black and white silent film, no talking and… Oh never mind…). But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have anything to say. It is about that historical time in the life of cinema, when “movies” became “talkies”.  And everything changed. Careers were made and destroyed. But we, the public, loved it – and there has been no turning back ever since. In Hollywood – and all around the world – it was adapt or die for the actors. In The Artist, we follow the story of George Valentin (Jean DuJardin – Do you know something, I almost admire the man more every time I see him in something. Remember 99 cents? Amazing stuff…). The year is 1927, it is the heyday of the silent movie, and George Valentin is king. Until, that is, he is asked to speak. A true old-school star, George refuses to adapt. He is adamant this is just a passing craze and sticks to his old ways. In the meanwhile however, the ones who choose to adapt, like the beautiful Peppy Miller ( Berence Bejo) soar past him to the spotlight… Will George be able to regain his place in the sun – possibly alongside Peppy, to whom he is secretly attracted? Or will his pride mean that ultimately, George Valentin loses everything…

There, you see, I do like romantic films. And just on the level of the romantic – comedy side of it, the film is adorable. Bojo and Dujardin make a lovely couple. Plus, their love story rings quite true for modern times as George Valentin is actually married. So first up, it ticks an important box for me. The one thing I cannot abide in a film is the heroes being too perfect. I am not, of course, in anyway advocating that people go out and cheat on their partners and spouses, but you have to agree it’s more realistic this way. Sometimes, relationships end while you are still in them; you just have trouble accepting it. Then new ones begin. And rest assured, Peppy and George are the real deal – if George can overcome his pride of course.  Both George and Peppy are very real, very realistic and very likable and you get genuinely invested in their futures. I mean, I did anyway – and judging by the film’s success, so did millions of other people.

But then of course, there is the film’s signature move – the fact that it is “silent”. To be fair, I have not watched enough silent films to be able to compare it to the originals. I personally liked it a lot though. You may find that you need a bit more imagination than usually required to follow what is going on, as although the major dialogue is, of course, intertitled, the minor stuff is not. You just have to rely on your ability to follow what is going on. The ever- present music and the lack of sound effects (even minor things like doors closing etc.) may also prove disconcerting at the beginning, but honestly, I didn’t have trouble adapting at all – in fact it sucked me right in. It may have been the reason the film is relatively short at 90 minutes. I mean, I say that because these days all the “majors” seem to be over 2 hours long. I am beginning to wonder why to be honest, I mean, I’m not complaining but it’s a strange phenomenon… Anyhow, mustn’t get side-tracked. The Artist. Darn good film. Watch it J

LOVE STARTS AT HOME "ANGEL – A"

Ok, finally my conscience is at rest. I have finally, after such a long time, watched a “serious” movie. I do admit that going from animation straight to Luc Besson, the most serious of French art cinema may have been a bit of a leap. However as you probably know by now, this is the way my mind works. And I mean, come on. It isn’t likely to shock your system or give you brain freeze or something. I mean it might but only if you watch it in close succession with How To Train Your Dragon, for example. Don’t do that. I mean, even I don’t do that. Seriously.

That being said, just because Luc Besson directed it, it’s French and in black and white, please don’t let Angel-a scare you off. I know all that screams absolutely unwatchable in most cases, but this film is just so… Well in a word adorable. I laughed out loud. I even shed a few tears. And I marvelled at Besson’s wonderful black and white photography, framing the beauty of Paris. Seriously guys, this is not one you want to miss.

This is the story of André Moussah. André is a small time wheeler-dealer. He usually survives thanks to his gift of the gab and his ability wriggle out of shady deals relatively unscathed. However, as is often the case with this kind of life, he finally talks himself into a corner he cannot talk his way back out of. He is basically broke, with no prospects of getting any money and two very dangerous men to whom he owes a total of around 50 thousand euros. Seeing that his chances of surviving beyond midnight are getting rather slim, he decides to make everyone’s job a tad easier for them and kill himself. And just as he has climbed onto a bridge over the Seine, contemplating his last seconds on earth what should he see right on the balustrade beside him, except a beautiful woman, also preparing to kill herself. In fact, the young woman turns out to be a good deal more determined than André as she actually jumps. André however, being a good man at heart, jumps straight in after her and rescues her. However, it soon transpires that this young woman, or Angela as she calls herself, is not just a random passerby. In fact she is not even human. And her mission on earth is to change Andrés life for ever.

Ok, so maybe I shouldn’t have told you she isn’t human. Then again, Besson peppers the film with clues and honestly, this is not exactly the point of the film. I mean, unless you are really not watching the film properly, you will understand pretty quickly what Angela is. I’ll give you a hint – the name is a dead giveaway. So is the way Rie Rasmussen pronounces it. This film is about serious stuff. And I don’t mean random “arty” stuff. I mean stuff like learning to love yourself before you can learn to love another. Stuff like how that love can change you and change your life. The film is brilliant in that it doesn’t let up on the comedy. And Jamel Debbouze (whose name you do not know but whose face you are bound to recognise if you have watched a French film in the last 10 – 15 years. He is slowly becoming an “institution” like Reno or Depardieu, and for a good reason) is an excellent choice as a comic actor. The sharp contrast with tall blonde (VERY Swedish) Rie Rasmussen makes it just that little bit funnier. Honestly, you can’t get people to think about something so serious and so important without a bit of comedy though. Think about it, anything else would be just too much. A little  too cloying. And a bit like a cheesy greeting card. However mixing up the funny with the serious, the smiles with the tears, Besson puts a very important message into the context of real life, thus forcing us to really think about it. Note how hard André ultimately finds it to come to peace with himself. And ask yourself if, deep down, you have a similar problem as well…

 This is a beautiful movie on so many levels. Please don’t let the French or the black and white scare you off…

A TIMELESS PIECE OF HISTORY : "THE JAZZ SINGER"

Now,  the reason I took this film up in the first place was the fact that it has historical significance. This film, ladies and gents, is the first feature-length film with synchronised sound sequences in it. The year was 1927 and this was not the first attempt at sound film, in fact many shorts already exited, but the whole “talkies” thing didn’t catch on. I know, very hard to believe, but true. When the Warner brothers first agreed to take on this film in their studio, everyone was pretty sure they were heading for rack and ruin. Instead, they went down in history as some of the great innovators. Because The Jazz Singer (a film that has, incidentally, spawned many remakes) did not flop and vanish. It went down in history.

The story is that of Jack Robin (portrayed by Al Jolson) , a young man with a passion for jazz who was born to a very conservative Jewish family. Our hero is given a choice between his home and his passion for jazz by his stern father – the cantor for his local community and thus thoroughly disapproving of Jack’s taste in music. Jack chooses jazz. And his career takes a meteoric rise. However, just as he is about to reach the pinnacle of his career, the fork in the road presents itself again. With a chance to redeem himself and patch things up with his father on one hand and the “big break” he has been working so hard towards on the other, what will Jack choose? You will have to watch and find out…

Now, the particular version of the film I watched was the 80^th year anniversary version that includes a lot of documentaries, extras and comments on the film and generally sound and film. As a side note, find this version if you can, because the extras are so good –and there are SO many – that if you have the choice, it would be a shame to miss them. One of the comments in the documentary was the fact that it was amazing that Al Jolson, from all that time ago, was right there, on stage, entertaining people from the 21^st century. Now, you may be prejudiced by the fact that the film is quite old fashioned in many ways. Not least in that it is still, mostly a silent film. The musical numbers and snippets of dialogue are in synchronised sound but the rest is silent. And then you might think, well, the topic is all very quaint and nice. You might think it’s going to be old fashioned. And boring. And then you might just leave it on the shelf. That would be a mistake in my view. I mean, the musical numbers alone are just so brilliant, despite the almost 90 years time difference you cannot help but enjoy Jolson singing numbers like Blue Skies and, on the other end of the spectrum, Kol Nidre is a sight to be seen. And when we watch him on the scene, he truly entertains us. I mean honestly, I love it. If he had a live show somewhere I would go see it. True, there are some slightly racist quips in there in the shape as a performance as a black and white minstrel. But I think this should be taken in the spirit of the time and as pure entertainment value with nothing too serious attached.

In short, I personally think, as a movie  buff, you should watch it. It’s film history. It’s one of those films you simply have to have seen. And do you know something? I can almost guarantee you will be pleasantly surprised at how much you enjoy it…

NOTHING CAN BEAT ITS LURE : "SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS"

The other night, one of my flatmates decided we should see a nostalgic film, film noir more specifically. The film, I have to admit was selected pretty much at random but turned out to be a classic funnily enough. So there you have it, you can trust the internet in your quest for knowledge – sometimes  This blog however, as you may already know, is more about opinions and less about knowledge and my opinion of the film was so high that I reckoned I should share it with the rest of you all. You know, in case any of you guys were in the mood for a good, old-fashioned classic. This is the dark and twisted tale of JJ. Hunsecker (played by veteran actor Burt Lancaster). He is a successful columnist in LA, which makes him a popular man among those of the industry. It also means he has an immense amount of power should he choose to wield it. It is this power specifically that he uses when he finds out that his sister has “got involved” with a jazz musician. Deciding that a penniless musician is no suitable match for his beloved sister, he uses the greed and hunger of unscrupulous press agent Sidney Falco(Tony Curtis) to break the couple up once and for all. The plan is dark and convoluted but Sydney doesn’t mind getting his hands a bit dirty as long as he gets his reward at the end. The only problem is, what seems to start off as something relatively simple slowly begins to backfire… Those who try dirty deeds as means to the ends they crave, should in all fairness be ready to suffer the consequences… I loved this film because it was completely and utterly everything you expect and want a film noir to be. It has beautiful innocent dames, handsome beaus trying to overcome circumstances and dastardly bad guys getting up to unthinkable tricks to achieve their dastardly ends. It is, in short, a complete and utter classic. Now, there is always the argument that this has something we have seen before. And as you know I am very, very far from averse to original and artistic work in the cinema. Heck, I’m a Terrance Malik fan. That should say it all. But then again, if cinema is art, it is also entertainment. I think quite frankly that most art forms, if not all, have this dual side to them. They are artistic, creative but must also at some level appeal to the public, entertain or force people to think. This is why being an artist is so tough really, striking a balance between the two – if indeed a balance is what you’re going for - is so difficult. Then again, it ain’t so easy if you’re going for one extreme or the other. If you’re going for entertainment value – as most film noirs tend to – you have to either “perform” exquisitely and fulfil all the conventions of your genre with quality and class or risk looking very cheesy and done a hundred times before. Like I said in my review of Alien3 , there is nothing wrong with doing stuff we’ve seen before. The Sweet Smell of Success is a very classy example of its genre, successfully combining the classic with the original. And it goes very well with pizza. Just saying.

AND LAST OF ALL, THE HUMAN MIND : "KNIFE IN THE WATER"

You will have noticed I have a bit of a soft spot for Roman Polanski. As a director I mean. He is one of the most successful directors I know in portraying human psychology. Well, the common wisdom goes that there is nothing as queer as folk, and this is undoubtedly true. In fact, why venture into fantasy lands (don’t get me wrong I am absolutely hooked on fantasy as a genre) when some of the most unbelievable things are going on right inside our own heads? This first film by Polanski returns to a theme he takes up in Carnage (reviewed a couple of weeks back), his latest film. Power struggles. Andrzrej and Kristina are a couple. He is a sports reporter, a rather vain man who needs to be right at absolutely everything. She is his pretty young wife. They are headed out for a day’s sailing on their boat one Sunday morning when they run into (almost literally) a hitchhiker. One thing leads to another and although Andrzej is clearly rather annoyed with the young man, they decide to take him along, not only in the car, but also in the boat, to sail. With the three people crammed in this rather limited space a power struggle begins between the two men. At first it is purely psychological but more and more it begins to border on the physical. The young hitchhiker is seemingly obsessed with his knife but the older man has some tricks up his sleeve too. How will the struggle end? Who will get the upper hand and more to the point, what will become of the looser? I have small criticism of the DVD I watched. It is the school copy so there is really very little I could do about the choice but still. The subtitles. There were holes. Many holes. Which is a problem if you don’t speak Polish. Which I don’t. However the good thing is that, from what I was able to grasp, the bits missing weren’t exactly the vital bits. And you could, from the context, guess what’s going on. I mean, it didn’t affect my grasp of the story but you know what I mean. As to the story, it is another exercise in suspense and subtlety by Polanski. At first you might find the film a bit boring. Mundane. No big action, not much dramatic dialogue. But if you continue watching it, you see the tension building between the two men. You slowly become involved. Without realising how, you’re taking sides, getting annoyed with one character or the other. And then of course, the film’s climax. Again, Polanski is a master of surprise endings and he seems to have started off as he meant to continue, if you feel a bit confused and mind blown at the end of it, trust me, the characters feel much worse. Plus, add to all this, the fact that the film has a total cast of three. Shot mostly on an actual boat. That is a whole barrage of technical difficulties if there ever was one and yet out of it emerges an Oscar ®nominated masterpiece. I know, it is an acquired taste. But do give it a whirl. Or a paddle.

A TIMELESS SUPERSTAR - I GIVE YOU LOLA LOLA AND "THE BLUE ANGEL"

I am pretty sure that even the least film-savy one in our number has at least heard of this one… Oh come on, surely… Marlene Dietrich? “Falling in love again / Never wanted to/ What am I to do/ I can’t help it….” Surely it rings a bell? Yes, it’s parodied, we have heard it in voiceovers and such like more than once or twice, but nothing, I promise you, nothing beats the real thing… If you call yourself even a partial, marginal movie buff, I reckon you should see this. Like, really.
Meet Professor Immanual Rath. He is the teacher at the local high school and very, very prim and proper is he. That is why, when he discovers his pupils looking at risqué postcards in his class he is absolutely infuriated. He is informed that the lady in the postcards is the famous artist Lola Lola, and she can be seen in the local bar, The Blue Angel every night for a limited period. Naturally the professor does not at all approve of his pupils being corrupted in such places so he goes over to the bar the same night to investigate. There, the unthinkable will happen… Lola (Marlene Dietrich) will steal the professor’s heart away in one fell swoop. But this is the first step among many the professor will take into a life he could never have dreamt he would have…
This film has to be put into context. Lola (Dietrich) is unabashed, she flirts she is sexy, she is not ashamed of it, heck she uses it. Her open sexuality must have come as quite a shock for the audiences of the ‘30s. You may be tempted to scoff and say “Oh the ‘30s. They have nothing on us.” No. Trust me; Marlene Dietrich is sexy by any standards in any century. It is also interesting to note the specific way in which she was sexy. Hers was an unpretentious, completely natural and down to earth femininity, much in the same vein of Bridget Bardot a couple of decades later, in her earlier films especially. I mean, true, the film is very typical of turn of the century fare in its way, the “goodies” and the “baddies” are quite clearly marked (although possibly not as clearly as it could be, credit where its due Lola isn’t all bad) but still. Like a lot of early films, it depends a lot on typecasting as opposed to well-developed characters, I mean when all is said and done Lola is “the whore with the heart of gold”, a typical trope of a lot of films – even today. Naturally, at the end, following the “bad” path is punished; so in a sense I would have to retract my last comment and say that Lola is bad, at least as far as the values from those days go… And yet, you must watch this one. Lola is the first time so many things were openly portrayed on the big screen that you have to witness that historical moment… And when you do, you will see quite clearly that, that infamous song is a much-repeated classic for a very, very good reason.

A REAL CLASSIC FOR THE CLASSICALLY MINDED : "THE BIG SLEEP"

Confession time. I have a major soft spot for the classics. You know what I’m talking about, black and white film, old world Hollywood glamour… I mean as you may have gathered by now I enjoy a lot of things cinematically speaking but nothing really beats settling down with an old favorite – preferably with a hot drink, something sweet to go with it and your other half or good friends nearby to share the experience – of an evening and just getting lost in the experience. This is what I did with The Big Sleep last night. I mean ok, technically I was alone in my dorm room but green tea was involved so I reckon that counts…
Those of you a little more involved in the history of films may know that The Big Sleep directed by Howard Hawks is pointed out in textbooks as one of the best examples of classic Hollywood cinema. And starring Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, really, how could the film be anything except brilliant? The good thing about these movies is that even if you have, technically, seen it a million times before, they’re still good. This one is no exception to that rule; Philip Marlowe (Humphrey Bogart) is a private eye based in L.A. He’s an ex-cop, kicked off the force for insubordination but brilliant at his work. One day a wealthy General hires him to get to the bottom of a blackmail case. But the deeper into the case he gets the more dead bodies seem to pile up. Plus, it seems that the General’s lovely daughter Vivian (Lauren Bacall) is also mixed up in this whole dastardly affair, making the whole affair deadlier and more dangerous than ever…
I must say, the film can’t be faulted on tension or acting. Bacall and Bogart are absolutely electric, and if you let your sympathies and your love of the genre get in the way of artistic temperament for a second you will see that the cuts that don’t quite match, the (by our standards) incredibly unrealistic backdrops and even the slightly stilted acting style that pervades the whole film (it was 1946 don’t forget) don’t matter at all. No sir, not one little bit. And to be fair, the film has quite a few redeeming features. For starters the story. Not only is it absolutely and mind-blowingly exciting, it is also sophisticated. And in places complicated. To the point that Bogart’s “in case you didn’t get that” explanations to random characters in the film actually come very welcome indeed. So if nothing else you will put some serious effort into following it. Then there is Bogart’s character who is charismatic (well when isn’t he), witty and always ready with a snappy answer, will undoubtedly regale you (and make you a might weak at the knees). As for the legendary Bacall – Bogart chemistry, all I can say children is that it is legendary for a reason. Yep, this is definitely good quality Saturday night entertainment. Keep for a rainy night; and enjoy!

DOCUMENTARY ON A LEGEND : "DON’T LOOK BACK"

Ok, honestly, I am not quite sure what you guys will make of this one. I mean I don’t blame anyone for it; I’m not quite sure what to make of it either. Or rather I wasn’t at first. Its style is a little unconventional but to be fair I personally fell in with it very quickly. I mean, you might ask yourself what the heck could be unconventional about a documentary; it’s a pretty simple format after all… Pertinent clips and footage is shown as a narrator explains and what is going on. My point exactly. What if there is no narrator?
This seems to be exactly what the director D.A. Pennebaker asked himself before he made this documentary, for this is exactly what happens here. The documentary is about music legend, philosopher and poet Bob Dylan. In 1965 he spent three weeks touring the U.K. with Joan Baez. D.A. Pennebaker’s camera (in the singular. No fancy multiple camera angles, close-ups and so forth here) followed wherever he went. Then the footage was edited, the most striking moments selected and edited together – with no fancy or frills you understand, just one segment on the back of another – and presented for our delectation. I personally thought this was NOT the brightest idea a director could have at the start; I stand corrected. When you think about it, it’s rather an ingenious idea…
In the age of the internet and the DVD, we have all seen quite a lot of backstage – behind the scenes clips, right? We almost inevitably have a guide, telling us who is who, what is what; we are the privileged guest being shown around the studio / backstage. But of course, even though these are basically documentaries they still reek of performance. And these days they are performances of course. I mean let’s face it – every film accounts for the “behind the scenes” footage in the production stage. With Don’t Look Back however, we are just spirited backstage and left there. We are not even told who is who and what is going on. Not even a sentence or two on the screen. So in the first place, this is no performance. Mr. Dylan has kindly allowed us to hang around that’s all, he has no time to stop and explain stuff to us, and so he just gets on with his life as if we weren’t there. This whole feeling is exacerbated by the use of a single camera – no continuity type editing and definitely no real concern with “painting pretty pictures”. But this in itself doesn’t really matter because the subject matter is just so interesting; it’s a historical moment, it’s Bob Dylan and there we are, face to face with the man himself – or the closest we’ll ever get to him at any rate.
In this footage Dylan is 23. But even back then, as he gives snappy answers to well-meaning reporters and tries to explain his unique point of view and message to the world the poet and philosopher side of him shines through. I was taken aback by the lack of guidance but by the time we reached the end I was staring absolutely mesmerized… It’s a proper oldie this one, so it may be a tad hard to find; but make the effort to get your paws on a copy. It’s an experience not to be missed in my view…

AND LASTLY A CLASSIC : "A FAREWELL TO ARMS"

I wondered for a while what I should do with this film. I mean watch it, obviously, but where to put the review? Adaptation? War Film? Although Hemmingway’s classic is by no means to be sneezed at, the presence of the First World War in the film is, well… Great. On the other hand, it is basically a love story. It doesn’t handle the war itself that much. I mean it does, but sort of, as a backdrop. There are clear mentions of the horrors of war (being in a field hospital and all) but they are not our “main concerns”. Then there is the autobiography side of things, Hemmingway, like the hero of the book / film was an ambulance driver in the First World War and thus the book is assumed to be quite autobiographical – wait, should it be under “true story” then? But then again how autobiographical is it really? Are you beginning to see my dilemma? Then I finally reached a solution. Would this great love story be possible without the presence of war? No. Then the war is a major catalyst of the film. War film it is.
So, having got over that little quandary, on with the story. Frederic (Gary Cooper) is an ambulance driver in Italy during the First World War. He arrives at a small hospital in Italy to find two things. First, a very old friend of his as the doctor in charge, secondly, one of the most beautiful women he has ever seen (Helen Hayes) as one of the nurses. Frederic is bowled over by her, and his feelings are by no means unreciprocated. But there are complications… Quite apart from the dangers inherent to their jobs and the war, there is a third party also interested in ?? and who cannot “give her up” to Frederic… Will true love triumph? Or will the war consume the star-crossed lovers as well?
Mom and I watched the film together. As the film ended and we both dabbed our eyes and blew our noses Mom turned round to me and said “Of course, it’s so romantic you can’t really take it seriously.” Yeah, right Mom. But, the emotional nature of the film apart, she is right in a way. I mean, of course you get caught up in the whole thing and get weepy, especially if you’re in the right mood. But the film is, you have to remember, made in 1933. That is a LONG time ago by filmic standards. Thus there are many “problems” to the film as well. Starting from the basics (the film is so old that you can virtually see NOTHING in bits that are underexposed) to thematic (there is one sequence that is supposed to symbolize the horrors of war that in our modern times look absolutely comical – and it goes on for far too long for my liking). But then again, love, no matter how it is filmed is still love. And the emotion is definitely there with Hayes and Cooper, two brilliant actors of their time of course… It is not your average war film. It is, however, a true blue classic that any cinema lover should NOT miss…

LIFE IS NOT SERIOUS THE WHOLE TIME : "THE MARX BROTHERS AT THE CIRCUS"

Ok, I’m looking back on this week’s fare and I think it’s turning out a little too serious and sad. Well, that’s the funny thing about cinema, when you say “classic” or “artistic” or “important film” one somehow thinks of something rather serious and sad – ideally a little hard to understand. But no, there are such things as classic comedies as well; these are guys that you really should have seen if you’re really into cinema. Sometimes they are a little older than what you are used to – Charlie Chaplin for instance or Laurel and Hardy – but, even if they date from the silent era like those guys, they are still able to glide onto your screen and cause you to split your sides… Now if anyone and I mean ANYONE deserves a place up there with the comedy greats of cinema, it is the Marx Brothers. Their classic movie “Duck Soup” is still considered by and large one of the funniest films ever made. Personally, just seeing Groucho Marx on a screen brings a smile to my face (so you could say that I am rather prejudiced!). This little gem is another one of my bargain basement discoveries. It is an absolute side-splitter and has the pronounced advantage of being just 83 minutes long, a bite sized classic that is guaranteed to wash away all your cares.
Welcome to Wilson’s Wonder Circus! One of the best three-ringed circuses in the world! And although it seems to be filled with everything you could desire from a circus, there are black clouds circling above the tents. Mr. Wilson is young, good looking and has followed his heart in more senses than one as his rich widowed aunt has disinherited him because of his love of the circus, but also because the love of his life is one of the circus performers, Julie. The only problem is that Wilson owes the manager Mr. Carter 10 000$ - by the end of the week! If he cannot come up with the money, he will lose the circus and become completely destitute. Mr. Carter however, is determined not to play nice. He doesn’t want to hand the circus over to Wilson, so he comes up with a cunning plan. The night Wilson finally gets together to pay the debt – the money is stolen! Wilson is distraught, but luckily he is not alone. The circus dogs body Tony (Chico) and the slightly eccentric and mute circus mascot Punchy (Harpo – as if he needed an introduction) are on the case. And in their arsenal they have another big weapon: Mr. Loophole, Legal Eagle (Groucho of course). Will Mr. Wilson be saved? Or in the well-meant efforts will our three friends destroy the circus entirely?
This is a typical, old fashioned Marx Brothers comedy. Good, old-fashioned entertainment, broken up with songs (I am still humming “Lydia the tattooed Lady” to myself as I write the review the next day) and classic, old-fashioned sketches… As always, Groucho’s appearance on scene heralds a steady stream of one-liners and jokes that come pouring out at a rate and in a style that will make the most stony-faced of you split their sides… The brothers will do everything from walking on walls to leading blues quires for your amusement, and all you have to do is to cut all logic adrift kick back and enjoy. I will not go on talking about it for too long, I mean it’s the Marx brothers we’re talking about here, they don’t need an introduction, you on the other hand, need to stop reading about it but sit down and enjoy the sensation that is the Marx brothers… You know you’re taking no risk here… Step right in…

GREAT DIRECTORS MEDLY : ROMAN POLANSKI - "LE LOCATAIRE / THE TENANT"

Now, we have been trudging along together for a while now. This is why I assume you know some of my pet hates when it comes to film. And the pettest of my pet hates, as you well know, is the director and the leading actor/actress of a film being one and the same. It seems to me the absolute height of conceit; I also feel it rarely works out. Humans will be humans and once you are the director, the temptation to give yourself a favorable light thus tipping the balance is rather too great. Usually. But of course to every rule there are exceptions. Roman Polanski appears to be one of them. This is not the first film I have seen by mister Polanski; it’s just that I am very sadly behind on my write-ups. I am glad however, that this is the one I start talking about Mr. Polanski in. The first one I watched was impressive – it will make the blog as soon as I catch up with my writing! – but this is… Well… In a word, superb.
Mr. Trelkovsky (Roman Polanski) is a French citizen. He lives in Paris – but this, as you may know, is easier said than done. I am talking on a purely practical level; rents and house prices there were at the time (and still are as a matter of fact) exorbitant to say the very least. But he feels he has finally found a suitable place when he views a little attic room at the top of an old apartment. There is one snag though. The previous tenant has thrown herself out of the window and is now agonizing in hospital. The owner of the flat is understandably reticent to let the flat until she actually passes away. The young woman will pass away by the by, but in the meanwhile Trelkovsky will get to know a bit more about her from her lover, her friends and when she actually passes away her things. However as Trelkovsky settles in to the apartment he appears to be filling the previous tenants shoes in more senses than one… Either he is just being over sensitive… Or there is an actual plot going on, aiming to drive him insane…
The Tenant is, and this is purely my personal opinion, what might be called an “old master”. Now, you know what an old master is as far as pictures are concerned, right? It’s when a painter uses one of his old paintings as a canvass and paints over them. Thus when you x-ray the second painting (or apply another similar method) you are actually able to discover the second picture underneath. Now, on the surface (and ladies and gentlemen, what a surface!) The Tenant is a superb psychological thriller. Polanski establishes the general sense of unease and mystery within ten minutes of the opening. It’s really brilliant, when you think back, there is nothing that has actually happened and yet you are on pins and needles. If nothing else you will be gripping the arms of your seat (unless you have eaten all your fingernails away by this point) until the end.
But underneath all that, I can’t help but feel Mr. Polanski is giving French society a not so gentle poke. Well, maybe not French society in general but the right wing side of it. The people who bung “foreigners”, homosexuals, single parents, the disabled all into one big mass. “The others”. They are expected to act in a certain way, the pressure is turned on from the first minute, pushing the poor object of the negative attention, no matter their strength or character, into a state of abject paranoia and breaking down communication entirely.
The Tenant is the second film of a trilogy – lose trilogy - by Roman Polanski. The third is the famous /infamous “Rosemary’s Baby” and the first is Répulsion starring Catherine Deneuve. The trilogy is that of three films based around flats and houses that makes the tenants… Well… Uneasy… Mr. Polanski, no matter what you think of him as a person, proves in this film that he is not only a master of suspense but also a damn shrewd director… Check out this blog in the coming weeks for my opinions on Répulsion… =)

GREAT DIRECTORS MEDLY : AKIRA KUROSAWA - "RED BEARD"

Ok, last Kurosawa for a while, I promise. This, I have to observe, is for the more discerning viewer. Point one, it is three hours long – and that in itself puts off some people. Point two; this three hour film is rather slow moving. But as with most Kurosawa films, it provides us with an unexpected and informative view of Medieval Japan, delicate emotions and simply wonderful photography. You just have to be prepared to patiently watch the film, look for and be delighted by the little gems you find scattered around in it. If you feel you’re able to do this, you’re definitely on to the right film.
A young doctor arrives at a out of the way clinic in Medieval Japan. The young doctor is an ambitious young man, full of hopes of becoming the Shogun’s personal doctor one day. He is versed in the latest western developments in medicine. The clinic on the other hand, is desperately under-funded. It relies chiefly on Japanese medicine, is understaffed and the patients themselves are often desperately poor. Thus the young doctor feels, and in fact is, most exceedingly out of place there. Upon arrival the young man thinks he is just paying a courtesy visit for his father. Red Beard, the surly head doctor of the clinic quickly puts him right. He is there to work, indefinitely. The young doctor revolts. He first is sure there is some kind of mistake, but he is quickly set right. Then he has another idea, he will make himself such a nuisance that Red Beard will fire him. He sets about this, but after a while, his doctors’ instincts get the better of him. Little by little, and almost despite himself he gets immersed in day to day life in the clinic. Who knows, maybe Red Beard has more to teach him than he initially thought.
This is, of course, a typical “maturing youngster” movie. But don’t sneer at it because it is typical. You see the way I see it, a film is a classic mainly if its topic is still relevant today. And although Medieval Japan is quite far away from my personal here and now, the main topic is actually pretty damn relevant. Think about when you first started work. You were fresh out of school, young, arrogant… You reckoned you knew it all, you reckoned you deserved to run the bleeping company. You hated your “first rung of the ladder” job, it was under you. Heck, I even know people who went down the “fine, I’ll get myself fired” route. But then? You saw the value of experience. You learnt. Important things happened to you, you developed… The sky’s the limit as to how the story continues, but you know what I mean… You see the parallelisms, right? Of course, the beauty of staging this in a hospital is (apart from it being a very original setting) is the profusion of people there. It is a clinic for poor people, so the stories are sad, striking, laced with death sometimes, recovery and happiness other times, the possibilities are endless. In short a very striking and intelligent film that you may well find something you sympathize with in… And of course brilliant photography, so beautiful and so clever. If you do watch the film, please note the sequence where the mad woman approaches the intern reclining in the hospital… My personal favorite…

A WORD TO BRING FEAR INTO ALL YOUR HEARTS: "NOSFERATU"

Ok, update on the personal front. I have started working even further back into film history. Having got my hands on some truly historic (from a cinematic point of view) works, I have been watching them eagerly and with fascination. Now, by historic I mean the firsts in cinema. And old. As in 1920’s silent films that constituted the various firsts of their kind. Now, these, I must warn you, are not the kind of films you would watch for ordinary cinematic entertainment – don’t expect to be swept up in the storyline or anything. Our generation, whose expectations from a film have become very much the same as those we have of a theme park, will be sorely disappointed by Nosferatu. You may even find F.W. Murnau’s film dating from 1922 comical. In which case, I strongly recommend you go watch a Mr. Bean film or an American Pie film (in my very humble opinion one of the silliest franchises invented by the way, but there you go), it will serve the same purpose and you won’t be being disrespectful. If, however, you are curious as to how we got to Avatar… If, for example you are a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer – or indeed any sort of horror film and are curious to see their great great grandfather… I strongly recommend you watch Nosferatu, which is a true work of art and piece of history, as it is the first horror film ever to be made…
The story is easily told, it is adapted from Braham Stoker’s Dracula. In the small town of Wisburg, lives Thomas Hutter and his beloved wife Ellen. One day, a letter arrives from Transylvania. Count Orlok has decided to buy a house in their small village and Mr. Knock the real-estate agent wants Hutter to go to his castle and get the count to sign the papers… Hutter, eager at the prospect of a windfall money-wise, sets off at once. But the small village close to Orlok’s castle is dark and trembling with fear and the castle is dark and foreboding… I wonder what adventures await Hutter within?
Now, needless to say, from many points of view, the film is very, VERY primitive… Number one, this is a silent, black and white film, so the acting is accordingly over-done in a way nothing our modern experiences have prepared us for. The characters and the storyline are simplistic (and sometimes hard to follow because of the deterioration in the quality of film!) and they openly show the prejudices of the day. For example, a book Thomas Hutter finds in the inn near the castle and takes with him, the “book of vampires”, states that “beasts sometime feel dangers men do not”. This is coupled by scenes of skittish looking animals, horses etc Hutter sees from his window but later,by his wife back in Wisburg hallucinating and feeling Hutter is in danger… Please remember that these were the days (or just after them anyway) when women were considered only a little better than animals in some quarters and very openly “inferior” to men… At the most optimistic, this can be interpreted as women being “emotional as opposed to intellectual, thus more open to feelings than thoughts” but still… As a woman, I didn’t find it pleasant. In the day though, it appears to have been considered normal…
Then, there is the technical side of it. First of all, camera movements had not been invented yet. The camera neither tracks, nor pans, nor rolls. It stands. We cut from one scene to the next. Closeups were also not invented yet. The closest we get to the actors is from the shoulders up, with the slight exception where Hutter discovers a bite on his neck (and assumes it’s mosquitoes – although the film had deteriorated so much I only figured this out later as he wrote a letter to his wife) and even that is not very close. Framing? Yes well, there is a bit of that but the angles and composition are so odd… One example – I couldn’t help giggling – was when Nosferatu (a vampire as you probably gathered) rises from his coffin. He is tall and imposing and… Half his head doesn’t fit into the frame… Yep, the frame cuts half his head off, something that would NEVER pass today but it possibly made the vampire seem more gigantic and scary in the 20’s… Not to mention shots seemingly from miles away with the character running from one weird point to another of the screen. What else? Well, you will have heard of filming a subject from a lower point to make it look imposing but there are bits this is taken to a fault (the camera, for all intents and purposes seems to be filming from the bottom of a well). The editing is positively sluggish in places with tons of footage we would consider completely superfluous today. ..
However, it is also a fascinating film. It is the starting point, what films started off as. Just watch the film and try and spot what is different from films today on a technical level and you will have greatly advanced your technical knowledge of films and editing. It puts everything into perspective. And, despite all of this, Max Shreck’s performance of Nosferatu is terrifying (for all that was lacking they knew a thing or two about costumes and make-up back then, he looks “positively evil !” as Mom put it) and for all their naïveté while in character Gustave von Wangenheim and Greta Schröder (Thomas Hutter and Ellen) along with the direction of Herr Murnau seem to be doing something right because you can’t help but get excited as you watch the film (not scared though). All you need is a little imagination, don’t expect to be spoon-fed the way we are today; back in those days people read a good deal more and could use their imaginations to get “into” movies with a good deal less then what we’re used to… Just as long as you read books as a kid, you should be ok…

DEATH, INTRIGUE AND A "TOUCH OF EVIL"

A TOUCH OF EVIL
Well, we have spoken of Orson Wells acting; let’s get into his directing as well, while we’re about it. In fact, with A Touch Of Evil, I can go one better for you folks. Not only did he direct this film but he acted one of the leading parts no less. So there you go. If only I had another film of his close to hand, I could make it an Orson Wells week * sigh *… Anyway, moving on…
Now, this little gem of a film noir is the story of two policeman on two different sides of the border – in more senses than one. Vargas (Charlton Heston) is Mexican. He is in the Narcotics Bureau in Mexico and very well known for his tough stance on gangs. He has made many enemies among these gangs too, but this doesn’t stop him honeymooning in a small border town with his young and beautiful wife ( Janet Leigh). On the other side of the border, there is Quinlan. (Orson Wells). In charge of the border territory, Quinlan has a great reputation as one of the finest and most upstanding policemen that side of the border. But when Vargas witnesses a crime on the border and gets better acquainted with Quinlan’s methods of dealing with things, he begins to have his suspicions and decides to investigate the matter a bit further. However, finding proof and exposing this “veteran” policeman is no easy task. Vargas is out of his jurisdiction and Quinlan has a lot of friends in both high and low places…
There is a short “acknowledgement” at the beginning of the DVD I own. It appears that after Wells finished the film and handed it over to the studio, the studio decided the film needed “clarification”. So they set to work, cutting out certain bits, re-shooting and adding scenes. Re-making the film “in their own vision” as it were. Wells, quite rightly, was incensed by this and wrote the studio a 58 page memo detailing what they had to “change back”. The studio conceded to some things but still released the film with 30 minutes cut. The edition I have is “re-mastered”, attempting to create the film in the way Orson Wells envisioned it. I don’t know if this is the prominent version on the market now or if, in fact, there are two versions knocking around but if there are two, try and get the Orson Wells version. The film is a masterpiece in itself and if this was the version the studio wanted to “alter” I would like to know what they were drinking at the time. It’s like “jazzing up” the Mona Lisa. Well, maybe not quite, but similar spirit of things, anyway…
And as for the film, well… The level of tension spikes from the start and stays up all through the film right to the end. Wells, who put on a good deal of weight in his later years (a shame considering his dapper look in Citizen Kane) is brilliant as the overbearing Quinlan, who we often see in close-up low angle shots, making him look larger and more foreboding than any nightmare the imagination could conjure up. One needs a “bad guy” like that for our dashing good guy Vargas (Charlton Heston – who I had never actually seen in a movie before) to come up against. The problem is, this isn’t actually a classic Hollywood flick but an Orson Wells film noir so you can never be sure how it will end… And of course, with Wells’s clever play on sharp contrasts – sharper still because the film is in black and white – and the haunting score by Henry Mancini makes for anything but a “comfortable evening” when you watch this one, and yet time will fly, I promise you.
A little surprise is that we get to see both Zsa Zsa Gabor and Marlene Dietrich in small parts in the film (thanks to Wells’s wide connections of course). If you ever wanted a dark but star-studded film, well… It doesn’t get better than this…

TAKE ON THE WORLD WITH THE "RAGING BULL"

Ok, let’s go on star-gazing, and why not… Next in line, another classic. Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro with an Oscar ® winning performance and a heart-hitting true story in more senses than one. This is the true story of one-time middleweight champion of the world and controversial character Jake La Motta.
Jake La Motta (Robert De Niro) knows and cares for one thing in life. Boxing. Luckily he’s good at it too. Along with his brother Joey (Joe Pesci) who is his manager they have just embarked on a boxing career. Jake rises meteorically in his chosen field, there is nothing wrong with his boxing but his character… That’s a different matter. Stubborn and determined to do things (everything) his way and his way alone, La Motta is no good at politics of any kind and it is all Joey can do to keep his unruly older brother on the good side of the various “powers that be” that are interested in his career. But Jake will not be content with just being “a bit difficult”. Especially after divorcing his wife and marrying Vickie who is about 5 years his junior and very beautiful, what starts with slight insecurity about his young and beautiful wife will turn to obsession and violence. Despite the tumult going on around him, he gets his “title shot” and wins it too, becoming middleweight champion of the world. But with Jake’s already crumbling self-confidence fading fast and with Jake alienating contacts around him on a seemingly daily basis how long can he defend the title? In fact, how long can he survive at all?
I do realize that’s kind of a rhetorical question for anyone who knows the man’s actual life story but if you don’t (I didn’t) it is a question that springs to mind as you watch the film. Boxing is, of course, a destructive sport but La Motta carries the trend right through into his own life. And this makes the film – that is brilliantly made in all aspects – very, VERY difficult to watch… The actual boxing scenes may well send those faint of heart running from the room and as to the “Raging Bull” s antics outside of the ring, well, some of them may send you running too. Now, a note on the actual boxing is that Robert De Niro actually trained with Jake La Motta until La Motta deemed him fit to fight professionally. The fact that he has been able to observe La Motta for such a time and doing what he is best shows clearly in his performance – no wonder the guy won an Oscar®…
And as you can tell from the paragraph above – yes, La Motta does survive, if by the skin of his teeth. He quits professional boxing (I’ll let what he does take up remain a surprise) and gets over quite a few of his more “anti social” thought patterns. Though the film makes absolutely no bones about this being touch. There is an especially touching scene towards the end of the film (you can’t miss it) where Jake is questioning why things always seem to end up the way they do; for all his faults you can’t help feeling sorry for him as you watch… Reading up on his life I see that as of 2007 he has been married quite a few times ( I believe it was four in total) and seems to be living in New York to this day, aged 80 years of age.
Well, the film is a tough film about a very tough guy. And it’s quite possible that you will not find this film easy to watch. But I reckon it’s worth a spin, if not for De Niro’s stunning performance, because it’s the true story of one of the most intriguing “tough guys” in boxing…

FAMILIAR FILM, ORIGINAL SETTING: SANJURO

Some might point out at this point that, if we are talking about Akira Kurosawa, Sanjuro isn’t exactly his most famous work, even as far as samurai films are concerned. I will answer, I know. I was lucky enough to acquire a goodly number of the master’s works and I will be scattering them in my reviews of the coming weeks (so as not to inundated you in samurais. Mom and I seem to be OK with doing that, you may not be though… =)) I think we need to review this film here, at this point because it actually went on to influence a lot of spaghetti westerns in its day. And western lovers will find the theme eerily familiar. It is definately a slightly more “light hearted” side to Akira Kurosawa’s work. We will be reviewing “Throne Of Blood” (Kurosawa’s adaptation of Macbeth) and “Ikuru” that has become a modern classic among other things in the weeks to come. For now though, let us concentrate on the further adventures of Sanjuro.
After his first adventure, Sanjuro (again the quite brilliant Toshiro Mifune) goes on travelling. And on his travels he comes across 10 young samurais. Now, these young men are greatly distressed. There is much corruption in the area they live in, especially in the police department, and they want the governor – the uncle of one of the young samurai – to put a stop to it. The governor however, seems to be sitting on his hands, telling them to be patient. But then, partly as a result of their meddling, the governor is kidnapped by the corrupt officials. Sanjuro, who gets embroiled in the proceedings greatly by mistake doesn’t have the heart to leave the 10, well intentioned but very inexperienced young men to their own devices. He will take on the role of older brother and leader to the band. The “band” will not always be content of this, but Sanjuro being the only natural leader among them they can’t really refuse either. So, will they be able to find the governor and save him? Or will the corrupt police chief be able to frame the poor man for his own dastardly crimes?
This film is a completely different kind of film from Yojimbo, despite the many common themes in them. First of all, there are the samurai. The 10 young men mirror the two rival gangs in the previous film in many ways. They do not know how to act, they make often foolish mistakes. This, like the previous film, elicits a lot of laughs (it did from us anyway). But this is attributed largely to the youth of the samurai, not their stupidity or lack of capability like the gangs in Yojimbo. Then of course, there is the fighting. And you can hardly have a samurai film without fighting. But the circumstances are greatly different here. Tactics have to be in the foreground, they are 10 people against the entire police force. Sanjuro must use his wits to the end to help them free the governor. So, even more so than Yojimbo, suspense as to whether the tactic will work enters the play. And I must say some bits of it are nail-biting. And then of course, there is another psychological factor. We know that Sanjuro is a very, VERY good guy beneath his rather rough and ready exterior, but our “gang” don’t know him from Adam, so to speak. Thus the issue of trust and the lack thereof also comes into play.
But of course, there are spectacular fighting scenes, as usual. And as usual it is laced with that sophisticated humor – almost character comedy – I tend to associate with Asian films. Great fun to watch. So much so that I am going to research whether Sanjuro has any more adventures. I’ll let you know if I come up with anything…