THEMED ESSIESPICS? WHY NOT?

I seem to have had a little brainwave about this weeks entries.

It's just that I honestly just spew whatever I have watched the previous week and I realised that I had watched alot of old black and white movies this week. So I decided to call them the Black and White soiree entries. I may do this "theme" thing every once in a while. It won't be a constant thing though. I mean, where 's the fun and spontaneity in that?

Oh and just incidentally, Merry belated Christmas and Happy New Year! ^_^
Essie

BLACK AND WHITE SOIREE 1 : A TRUE CLASSIC "CITIZEN KANE"

So, the first black and white classic I want to discuss with you is one I think every cinephile should have watched at least once. And it actually sits rather well after the previous weeks entries – you remember I was griping about directors who play the lead in their own films, right? Behold Orson Welles and / in Citizen Kane. Surely one of the best films ever made, Mr. Welles wrote, directed AND played the lead in it (talk about multitasking). But I need to stress one thing though, THAT was Orson Welles – a cinematic genius. Not all of us are or ever can be Orson Welles. Just so you all know that even though I think this film and The Town were good, I am NOT contradicting myself. I am not (just for clarification) comparing Ben Affleck to Orson Welles either. I have every respect for Mr. Affleck but there is a VAST difference between his directing and his new film and Mr. Welles and the film discussed here (there are FAR too many “and”s here and my Mom (who is an English teacher) will probably murder me when she reads this, just in case you were wondering). The similarity is of course that by the time he made his debut as a director (aged 25 to be fair), Mr. Welles was an acting SENSATION (imagine that spelled out in bulbs on Broadway) in the theatre. Which kinda, you know, gives you clout and artistic freedom. Oh and money. That, however, is another story.

Citizen Kane is a man in the US of A. He is a media tycoon, a grand public figure and he has just passed away. Now, the newspapers all agree that there are many things to say about Mr. Kane, and all are fixed on finding “a new angle” on the matter. One newspaper chief hits on a true mystery: Mr. Kane’s last words. Or rather word: Rosebud. No one can make head or tail of it; it is a bona fide mystery. “Talk to everyone who ever knew him!” orders the chief. “Find this Rosebud”. So off we go along with the reporter on the job. With him, we interview his ex-wife, school friend, business partner, legal guardian, household staff and many, many more… They all have truly fascinating stories about Mr. Kane but still no one knows who or what Rosebud is… Is there a way of discovering Rosebud? Or will Mr. Kane take his secret to the grave with him?

Ok, so it doesn’t take much to realize that this is actually a very VERY good detective story. But it isn’t just that. Yes we track clues, interview people and search for Rosebud, but there is a second story, delicately poised within the story of “Rosebud”; the life of Citizen Kane. Now, the film in its day caused a grand furor for many reasons. First, the technical inventions and innovations brought by Welles to the cinema. I will not go into those very technical details – it’s hardly the point of this blog but there is AMPLE material on the internet on this subject if you are interested. Secondly, there’s the genre. The film was actually a “film noir” which came as a bit of shock in 1941 seeing as the genre hadn’t been invented yet. Thirdly, the story of Kane’s life bears marked resemblances with the life story of real-life media tycoon of the 30’s William Randolph Hurst. The resemblances were so great that Hurst tried desperately to actually stop the film from being aired so sure he was that the film was about him. Honestly, the list of resemblances is rather staggering, but the point is that at the time the film gave the feeling of almost being a documentary a “true story” kind of effect. You should watch this film because it is brilliant, way ahead of it’s time and a damn good yarn. You will leave the proverbial table replete whether you are a scholar of the trade or just an attentive viewer in search of some good quality entertainment.

P.S. interesting footnote : I was struck when watching this film by Mr. Welles’s good looks. I was therefore rather amused to find out later that Mr. Welles complained bitterly about how much he had been “made up” to play the young Mr. Kane and that he had to “live down” the fact that he never looked that good for years to come… Such, my dears, is the acting trade for you!

BLACK AND WHITE SOIREE 2 : THERE'S NO BUSINESS LIKE SHOW BUSINESS! "ALL ABOUT EVE"

There really is no business like show business… Honestly. On stage, the PERFORMANCE is sheer magic. The stars truly shine. Then, they gracefully float out of sight, the grease paint comes off, the claws come out and production assistants and runners are thrown flying through the air like toys (I can personally vouch for the last part being true metaphorically true and wouldn’t swear that it didn’t occasionally happen physically as well). Now, it is almost exactly 10 years after Mr. Welles turned the world cinema stage upside down. We are now in the hands of quadruple (counting his win with this film) Oscar® winning director Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Ok, he was a bit before our time so what else might you have heard of that he did? The Barefooted Contessa? Yeah, come on, you’ve HEARD of it even if you haven’t actually watched it. Anyway, Mr. Mankiewicz takes us backstage. Not to the backstage of his own movie (DVD’s, Extras and “Behind The Scenes” wasn’t invented in 1950) but backstage in the theatre. Come, come, the real “drama” is just beginning…

Margo Channing (Bette Davis) is a diva. There is no other way to describe her and she would tear you to pieces if you tried. She lives in that rarified atmosphere – “the art circle darling” – populated with playwrights such Lloyd Richards and his wife Karen who is “theatre by marriage”, theatre critics such as Addison DeWitt, directors such as Bill, Margo’s long suffering boyfriend. Margo is so famous and such a success everyone puts up with her “ways”. She brings in such big crowds she’s allowed to play parts of 25 year-olds even though she’s pushing 40. And she has fans. Oh hundreds of fans but none so devoted as Eve Harrington. The mousy young woman attends ALL Margo’s performances, every single one, rain or shine. Karen is touched by the young girl’s attitude and devotion. And she is very old friends with Margo so she decides to do the poor little thing a favor and introduce them. Well Eve even melts Margo’s heart and soon she is living with Margo as her personal assistant. She has so many qualities, is so efficient… She’s just the perfect assistant for Margo… Or is she?

Now, I am a movie buff. I have worked in television, I am still heavily embroiled in the media and hope to become even more so. I love everything to do with showbiz and “behind the scenes”. I, therefore, watch one heck of a lot of this sort of thing. Rarely in my life have I seen a film where the intrigue was so cleverly constructed, Plot twists fall out of thin air, Bette Davis is brilliant, Anne Baxter who plays Eve is brilliant, everyone is brilliant. Everyone, incidentally, includes Marilyn Monroe who has a small part in it. Small, but brilliant. Like a diamond. The other thing is, of course, this movie is chiefly about acting – and I don’t just mean the topic. This was 1950 people, no special effects, no 3D, no HD, no adrenalin-pumped car chases or whatever. There is, however, acting. Bucket loads of the stuff in the best quality as well… Which is very fitting seeing as the topic is, basically, us. Even in your average office, all of you will know, there is intrigue, back stabbing, plots… Ok, put it in a theatre and showbiz, glam it up, it becomes more “dramatic”, but this is basically the kind of thing that happens all the time. You witness it and partake in it every single day. This is precisely why this film is a timeless classic. You’ll know what I mean when you watch it. And you will “recognize” the story. Immediately…

P.S. Ok, I love a bit of trivia. And I want to share this little morsel with you simply to show you how true to life this film is. When this film was shot, Bette Davis was a star, Anne Baxter was just starting out. And apparently Miss Baxter actually managed to influence the authorities into nominating her as “Best Actress” along with Bette Davis. The word is, this move divided the votes and definitively prevented Bette Davis from winning an Oscar ®. So there you are. I told you the film was realistic ;)

BLACK AND WHITE SOIREE 3 : "BICYCLE THIEVES"

Ok, I may not exactly be an esteemed critic, but I am a movie buff. An “amateur academic” as it were, a student of the trade. This is why I try and vary the type of film I watch as much as I can. This is also what has prompted my new “themed week” – black and white classics. Well, to understand a story fully, you must start at its beginning and persevere to its end. Naturally, watching every single thing is impossible but I am trying to broaden the spectrum as much as possible and you all seem to have tagged along with me. (For which, incidentally, I am eternally grateful.) Anyhow, this film I watched mainly as part of an educational process. I liked it a lot and I quite see how and why it became – and is – a classic. It also is, however, tough viewing in one sense. I enjoyed it and found it fascinating for instance but it isn’t your average Saturday night entertainment. You should watch it however. I mean there is more to movies than just “entertainment”, right?
Our last film of the week is not so much the work of a great artist (well it is of course but there’s another side to it) it is an excellent showcase for Italian neorealism. This was an almost extreme form of realism, aiming at portraying life as it was and finding the beauty therein as opposed to the escapism provided by Hollywood. The storyline itself is a good example of the genre. Antonio Ricci is a poor father of two. He lives in post WW2 Italy, he is not an educated man and he has been out of work for almost a year. Just when both his hope and his meager resources are about to run out, his luck turns: He gets a job. It is not “great” but the pay is good. He must take his bicycle around town putting up posters. He must provide the bicycle himself and he simply cannot work without it. On his very first day however, his bicycle is stolen. Antonio is in the depths of despair – the police aren’t helpful; neither are his new employers. He is, basically, on his own (apart from Bruno his young son) in his quest to get his bike back. He is hungry and desperate. And he is ready to do anything, simply ANYTHING to get the bicycle back…
This is a story of economic hardship and desperation. It’s especially pertinent in modern times, the market crash, people losing jobs… And I mean the story of how poverty and desperation can push men to extremes is as old as the hills, think of Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. Same difference. Here Antonio literally puts everything on the line for a bicycle. But this is not just a bicycle of course; it is hope for his young family… Anyone who has reached the point in their lives where they must budget for themselves cannot fail to sympathize fully with the film and be moved to the roots of their boots.
Technically speaking however, the neorealists are a tough bunch to deal with. Crude filming, natural light and real locations being used... All well and good and all integral parts of most of the realist movements (from the Dogme 95 group in Denmark for instance) and I’m fine with that. I mean I like the idea that films should be similar to real life – though I personally would throw a “sometimes” in there. I LIVE a real life I don’t necessarily need to see it on TV the whole time as well. Anyway, that is not my gripe, my gripe is the actors. You see the other “signature” of the movement – and most movements like it - is the use of amateur actors. Such is the case with this cast, a reporter who stopped by the set to talk to the director, a kid who was lolling around to watch the filming… All thrown in willy nilly to form a cast. To be fair, Lamberto Maggiorani who thus made his acting debut as Antonio Ricci and went on to star in no small number of films does “warm up” as the film goes along. I knew very little about the film when I started watching it though and it took me all of five minutes to realize it was an amateur cast. Now I have boundless respect for amateur actors. I don’t even have the talent to act even as an amateur – who am I kidding ? However, even just being at your ease in front of the camera requires a certain knack, never mind actually acting. I am not saying Mr. Maggiorani didn’t posses that knack nor have I seen him in anything else he starred in, however… I don’t know… I missed watching the “acting” if that makes sense. There were a lot of times I frankly found him awkward not just him the whole cast had “their moments” and that decidedly pulls you away from the film. Which is just as well really; because the aim of the film is to make you think about poverty and inequality and the desperate situation of those who are more unfortunate than us… It certainly succeeds but see, it isn’t a “movie” either in one sense. In another sense, it’s an absolute classic. I don’t know it’s a strange experience, watch it and decide for yourselves…
P.S. I mean, I know I sound kinda lukewarm about this one but please don’t let me put you off, the film was nominated for an Oscar ® for Best Foreign film and won a BARREL LOAD of prestigious awards, it’s not that weird…

THIS COULD ACTUALLY BE “THE” FUTURE : “SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD”

I love “feel good” movies. Come on, admit it, we all do. Sometimes, you just need it – you don’t have the mental energy or the enthusiasm to take on something heavy and / or depressing. But the trouble I find with feel good movies is that they tend to be a little too… You know… Light. I mean, finding an actual good quality film that will give you a barrel of laughs and make you feel brilliant is in fact no mean feat. Just think about it, you’ll see what I mean… This is why I say that Scott Pilgrim might JUST be the future on that count alone. Excellent quality, brilliant actors and a hilarious movie that doesn’t take itself too seriously. You’ll feel light and warm and bubbly at the end – plus the stomach cramps from laughing. No kidding folks, I am in LOVE with this movie! I mean, I loved Michael Cera anyway – you probably had that one figured. Kieran Culkin I was curious about – like a lot of people of my generation I was crazy about Macauly his older brother (shame he burnt himself out eh? I reckon he could have been great… Oh well he might do a comeback I suppose but we’ll probably never know…). Mary Elisabeth Winstead, our female lead, I had never heard of but oh well… The director? Edgar Wright, director of such British classics as Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the dead (and if you’ve never heard of them fear not; reviews are coming your way VERY soon). I should now get on to what I’m actually raving about, right? Right. Here’s the story.

Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is a normal 22 year-old living in Canada. He is in a band, he lives with his gay roommate (and landlord)Wallace has a pretty average life. His love life,however, is complicated (does that sound familiar or what?). Ever since his BIG ex dumped him, he has been unable to get his love life back in gear. There is progress though; he can just about get himself to date 17 year-olds. But then Ramona breezes into his life. She is mysterious, charismatic and beautiful; Scott doesn’t stand a chance so to speak. Even better, his feelings seem to be mutual. There is, however, one problem. To get to date Ramona, Scott must defeat her seven evil exes in battle. For the quiet and mild mannered Pilgrim, this is going to be interesting…

Ok, I will not go into great detail and give the “game” away. But you may have gathered from that short summary that the film has quite a few “fantastic” elements. First, there are the special effects. Dear God, the film has some of the best / cutest special effects you EVER saw. Then there is the editing. Very quick, very funny, VERY witty. It was pretty much the same story in Hot Fuzz if you saw that one. I mean, it’s fast but not like Magnolia where your head starts to churn after a while. Still, the editing is so damn clever it has an actual presence in the film along with the special effects. You’ll get what I mean when you watch it. (Yes, even if you’re not sure what editing is….)
This film has two very obvious aims, to amuse and entertain; boy do they succeed – down to the smallest touches and details (AGAIN for those of us who saw Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz). And naturally, no opportunity at getting a laugh is missed as far as the characters are concerned either; these are some of the funniest characters I have ever seen on the big screen. The straight faced and sarcastic Wallace as portrayed by Kieran Culkin was by far my favorite. (I seem to have a “thing” for side characters this week). Scott’s 17 year-old girlfriend Knives Chau – priceless. One might of course (quite rightly) say that Michael Cera is getting slightly typecast. This part is almost identical to Nick in Nick and Nora’s infinite playlist. The two films, however, could not be further apart stylistically. And besides, Cera is so damn good at the part anyway; it won’t do anyone any harm to see him do it a second time… This film is worth it…

(P.S. You may need basic knowledge of video games to “get” one of the plot twists, have someone like that handy if you don’t. It’s not rocket science either however, I mean even I figured it out without help and I’m computer-game illiterate… )

EVERYONE IS TRYING TO GET OUT OF "THE TOWN"

Have you noticed everyone’s a director these days…? Actors, producers, screenwriters, film critics… I find that slightly annoying because sometimes it works but quite often it doesn’t. I don’t mean people shouldn’t write and direct like Tarantino or someone, no, what I mean people who have acted – for instance – for years, and who suddenly decide to make a go of directing. And guess who will be playing the title role? Themselves of course! Polanski or Tarantino in side roles of their own movies, Alfred Hitchcock and his obsession about being in the film, OK, I can take that. Not the TITLE role though. It comes across as if they wrote the bloody thing for themselves personally. And that annoys me – most of the time. It was with this particular prejudice I sat down to The Town by (written – collaboratively – and directed and acted in by) Ben Affleck. I was actually getting ready to sit down and tear it apart but I actually have to hand it to the guy. OK, he may not be (and in fact isn’t) my favorite actor in Hollywood, but he CAN direct…
“The Town” is Charlestown, an area in Boston. It is infamous in the U.S.A. because it has single handedly produced the largest number of bank robbers and car thieves in the entire country. The focus of our film is one such gang. Doug MacRay (Ben Affleck) and James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner) are childhood friends. Their current area of expertise is bank robbery though they have been in and out of trouble their whole lives, especially Jim. They work for a big boss, Fergie the florist and lead pretty routine, albeit pretty unlawful lives. Until one bank job, where James insists on taking Claire Keesey, a young pretty bank manager, hostage. They let her go, but then become rather afraid she might be able to identify them when it turns out she actually lives pretty close to where they do. Doug decides to follow her and “finish her off”. Instead however, he falls in love with her. They start a relationship – Claire of course doesn’t know she’s dating one of her captors – and Doug is so deeply affected by the whole thing, he decides to change. He likes his new life and his new persona. The thing is he has to get rid of the old one first…
Now, when you look at the subject matter you can see why I didn’t have much hope… It isn’t the most original story in the world. But there are true gems in there, James for instance. He’s just a side character, true. He is violent, he is a thug. But in his own way he loves Doug as if he was his real brother, and is doggedly loyal to the bitter end, I adored the entire story line never mind the acting. FYI, I am not the only one who is impressed with James – Jeremy Renner has just been nominated for a Golden Globe for this performance. The other thing is, Mr. Affleck has learnt well from all his action movies; the robbery sequences, the chases… Phew, talk about adrenalin! Well planned, full of just the right kind of surprises… And then there’s Doug and Claire’s blossoming relationship it’s just sweet… I mean yes, it is basically the story of a “bad man” finding the “right path” and searching for “love, acceptance and redemption”. Yawn? No. There are A LOT of bad films that are made following those lines but this ain’t one of ‘em. Yes, we have to admit it is not so “deep” but exciting. Gripping, even. Perfect to kick back to on a Friday night – I really wouldn’t miss it if I were you…
By the way I forgot to mention, all you Mad Men fans - check out Mad Men’s Don Draper John Hamm as the F.B.I. agent who is hunting the gang down! Oh, oh and check out Oscar® winner Chris Cooper as Doug’s ne’r do well father.

CAUTION - NOT FOR EVERYONE'S TASTE! "MY SON, MY SON WHAT HAVE YE DONE?"

Ok, let me come clean, I am not all that familiar with the works of Werner Herzog. I saw one film of his – Rescue Dawn and“Grizzly Man”, a documentary on the life of grizzly bear activist Timothy Treadwell. This was an excellent and fascinating documentary, and all this gave me very little to go on as far as Mr. Herzog artistically is concerned. I heard that he is into “dark” films and that he is a director you either love or hate. You may have guessed by now that I was full of curiosity and enthusiasm when I read this. And that I was TRULY excited to get my grubby paws on “My Son, My Son What have ye done”. Not only did I love it (even though I was half asleep when I started watching I woke up pretty fast!) it also qualifies as the “true story” of the week (Ok, I haven’t actually been keeping tabs but they do pop up quite often). So here we are.
Now, this is based on a true crime. A young man from San Diego who was “heavily” influenced by his part as Orestus in a play murdered his mother with a sword. This is the basic story of the film. This young man (Brad) then proceeds to barricade himself into his house, claiming he has two hostages with him and demanding things such as pizza and a getaway car. We watch the proceedings and listen to the police interviewing the young man’s loved ones who try to explain how things got to this point and how, well, ever since he came back from Peru he was… Different…
I honestly don’t know how much of the rest of the film is based on actual fact. The story the film tells however, is hilarious in a very dark way, if you like that kind of thing. Brad is, from the start, a psychologically underdeveloped young man whose relationship with his mother is complicated enough within itself without the added influence of Orestus. There is then the addition of his fiancé Ingrid who is understandably baffled by the same relationship, and as time goes by, their own. Plus there is the events of Peru of course, the real place the whole thing begins. Then there are the flamingos. And God, who has taken up residence in Brad’s mother’s kitchen. When you add a samurai sword and a Greek chorus to all this, tell me honestly, how can a person not be driven to murder? And how can two cops or even a whole swat team make head or tail of it?
It sounds like absurd comedy right ? No. Dead pan. And not “in your face” either, there are so many minute details and hilarious characters, I agree with other comments I have heard / seen that it warrants a second viewing at least. I have discovered, I feel, “something” (albeit rather dark) in Werner Herzog’s style and look forward to exploring it further. Stay tuned to hear my progress ;)