ESSIE SPEAKS OF KATHRYN BIGELOW

Yes, I know, theme-wise I have completely missed Valentine's Day, Christmas, New Year and as far as I can predict Easter. I am bad at planning my themes according to dates; this whole blog evolves very much just how the films come to me. However, I occasionally try and fit in. Like now, for example. The day of our update, the 8th of March is International Women's Day. So when I found myself preparing a weekly theme on Kathryn Bigelow I decided I might as well schedule it for the 8th of March.

So here you have it folks, my first attempt at putting my little blog in step with everyone else's calender. Here are two films by the first woman to win the Academy Award for Best Director. Now to be fair she is not my favorite director of all times. What exactly do I think of her and why have I put her in the blog? You will have to read my next entry to find out!

happy viewing,
Essie

ARE YOU READY FOR THE RUSH ? "POINT BREAK"

I’m pretty sure I made my opinion concerning Kathryn Bigelow pretty clear earlier in this blog. Like a lot of women who are also cinephiles, I too did a little jig of victory when finally a woman walked off with the Oscar® for Best Director. I was a little disappointed with The Hurt Locker though. Not a bad film in my opinion but still, it could have been something else. My course demands (or demanded at some point) that I educate myself a bit more on Ms. Bigelow. This is how I have ended up sharing my impressions with you today. I have incredibly mixed feelings about Ms. Bigelow. This usually disqualifies whoever it is from actually making it to the blog. But in this case I’ve made an exception, not least because the good bits – the bits I liked – were actually very good. I mean credit where it’s due sort of thing. I mean I wish I could gush about it, I really do. But the best I can manage under the circs is “meh, well…”
Point Break is basically a cop drama. It has the large benefits of being able to keep the adrenaline pumping from beginning to end, and the looks of Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze (who, let’s face it ladies, was quite something back in the day). Keanu Reeves plays 25 year old brand-spanking-new FBI agent Johnny Utah. On his first day on the job he is paired up with veteran cop Angelo Pappas who is eccentric – to put it mildly. The division is bank robbery and Pappas can actually use all the help he can get because a gang calling themselves the “Ex-presidents” has robbed around 30 banks in three years without getting caught. Pappas has a hunch. He is pretty sure these men are surfers. Johnny, eager to earn his stripes on his first day, goes undercover in to the surfing community to try and see if he can root out who is behind these robberies. One of the people he meets undercover is Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) adrenaline junkie and surfer extraordinaire. Bodhi’s charisma, coupled with the charms of Tyler, Bodhi’s sexy ex-girlfriend with whom Johnny begins to grow quite close, after a while surfing becomes more than just an undercover mission for Johnny. On the other hand, the operation seems to be closing in on the gang… Will Johnny be able to choose the right side when the time comes?
Now let me tell you what this film is really about. It’s about the choice between a 9 to 5 job and a conventional life or doing something different. It’s all about that moment, about a month or so after you start your first job when you look back on your day - usually on a particularly bad day – and ask yourself with sincerity and openness whether or not you have made a terrible mistake. Now this may or may not be the case depending on your personal talents and abilities. Your vocation may actually be as a musician or a fire-eater and you may never know it. Alternatively, you may just be having a bad day, nothing a drink with mates after work can’t solve. Now, as I said this is very obviously what the film is really about; but I do wish Ms. Bigelow had made the choice a little more ambiguous. I get what she means by the surfer lifestyle - and Bodhi / Patrick Swayze puts the case very eloquently and with a lot of charisma but at the end of the day, there is no choice to be made, not really. There are some interesting plot-twists and some very solid, innovative camera-work. The story never loses momentum for a minute, if that is, you are willing to push the fact that it is chock-full of every single Hollywood cliché you can think of to the back of your mind. I won’t say it’s predictable from beginning to end, but it comes pretty damn close. I mean, I like this theme, it’s deep, and in the context of policing and crime something “heavier” could have been done with it – and it has been done too as a matter of fact – I honestly feel that this film was a missed opportunity… Enjoyable yes, but cannot go beyond the banale…

LOVE, FEAR AND "BLUE STEEL"

I am reliably informed that this is a bit of a historical little number too. It’s a shame that what it started – if this is indeed the case – turned out to be so solid that it was repeated ad nauseum. I mean Dexter – the popular TV series – ended up devoting an entire season to it. The film is admirable in many ways, but others did so much better with the theme that, even allowing for the fact that the film dates from the early ‘90s it loses some… Ok lots of its charm…
In the meanwhile, it is Meagan Taylor’s first night on the job. And on her very first night, she witnesses an armed robbery, intervenes and in the heat of the moment kills the robber. This is done in a justifiable manner but then a seemingly innocent – but actually quite disturbed witness to the robbery picks up the suspects gun, makes off with it, and starts committing murders all over town. With Meagan suspended pending an enquiry on use of excessive force, she is put squarely in the spotlight. But what is worse is, the murderer, Eugene (played by Andy Garcia, one of my personal favorites) who in normal life is a very personable trader on the stock-exchange has fallen for Meagan. Not only that, he also enters her life and they begin a relationship… Meagan now must piece together the pieces of the puzzle, accept that they lead to her new boyfriend, and then convince her superiors of the whole matter… The question is will she be able to do this before Eugene goes off the rails completely?
Fans of Dexter will quite see what I’m talking about. You remember that season when Debby turned out to be engaged to the “Ice Truck Killer”? Who was also Dexter’s biological brother? Yep, that’s it. The difference being that the producers had the common sense to eke the suspense out over a couple of months with a T.V. series instead of cutting it off in one movie. I mean true, we have to bear in mind that this film is a precursor more than anything else. Meagan is commendable in that she is a very believable, down to earth, normal heroine. She is not “overly” sexy; she is not

ESSIE SPEAKS OF THE OLDIES

OK be warned, when I say oldies I mean proper oldies. None of that '90s nonsense. The '90s was a respectable era and all that, but by no stretch of the imagination was it "oldies". No, I'm talking real old. Black and white stuff. Be warned if you don't like the genre. Incomprehensibly,to me, some people don't.

Our oldies oldie dates from the '30s in fact, we visit the Blue Angel to hear a performance by the famous Lola Lola. Then we pass through Frank Capra's world and gather a little Christmas cheer before moving on to sunny Italy, sitting back and contemplating the good life.

I do know most people have heard of these. A lot of people have actually watched them too. Thing is, maybe you didn't watch them. Maybe, like me, you heard of them a lot but just toon ages to actually getting round to watching them. Consider this week's update a push in their direction. They are classics for a reason you know...

happy viewing,
Essie

A FAMOUS AND SWEET LIFE : "LA DOLCE VITA"

The sleeve for the DVD for this one reliably informs us that the Vatican was shocked by this work by master director Frederico Fellini. If we bear in mind that we are talking about Italy in the 1960’s here, I can actually quite see why. Yet the public adored it and continue to adore it to this very day. La Doce Vita is an unblinking stare, a wide-open window on a slice of Italian society in the 1960’s. What we make of what we see however, is really another discussion altogether.
Marcello Mastroianni stars as Marcello. He is a young men living it up in Rome. He has his ambitions, notably dreams of becoming a serious writer but as time has gone by these have very much slid onto the back burner as his job has taken over his life and his dreams. Marcello is a paparazzi (Only, funnily enough, they weren’t called that then – Paparazzi is actually the name of one of the characters in this film, ??’s photographer, a name that has been immortalized as the name of the profession today). Marcello knows full well that he could be more than this, but is also equally sure that along as he gallivants with the rich and famous, having affairs and getting sucked up into their world and especially since his readers enjoy his work so much, he will never, ever leave this life. We follow him down the streets of Rome, from nightclubs to decadent parties as he lives and plays with the spoilt children of Rome and marvel at this slice of life so far away from life itself…
Now, the main difficulty about La Dolce Vita is that it is about three hours long. Yes. And there is, I kid you not, no real, actual plotline. Yet, it may surprise you to find out, you will watch the entire three hours with baited breath and applaud in the end. I kind of like the way, in old films, how the directors hid a little allegorical gem of a tableau right at the end of the film, like literally in the last seconds. But anyway. The point is, even though there is no “story” per se – I mean there is; we see Marcello, his life, his so-called very long suffering fiancée (that gets introduced as the maid behind her back when appropriate), his affairs and his dreams. I mean it does come together as a coherent whole. Yet there is no “beginning, middle and end” in the classic sense that we are used to. Rather, the film has a sentiment. A story, a happening you sense and feel rather than understand, and the whole film, all the tableaux, all the crazy characters and the rich kids of Rome sort of gravitate around this core to make this sentiment all the more clear. Naturally I won’t elaborate too much on what this sentiment is; it gives far greater pleasure to work it out for yourself. Just let Fellini, with all his skill and imagination guide you through the world of the rich and famous. Just like the paparazzi today in fact only with much greater art and taste. Then take a good hard look at Marcello in the middle of it all. Don’t be afraid you’ll miss the message because it’s too subtle or something. Oh no. You’ll know exactly what I’m talking about. This is precisely the quality that makes La Dolce Vita both original and a timeless classic; after all who said art should be understood with the head. Sometimes the heart does a far better job…

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.

AND LASTLY, SOME CHRISTMAS CHEER : "IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE"

Directed by Frank Capra, this film is often described as “Hollywood at it’s worst”. By this, I don’t mean it is generally considered a bad film. On the contrary, this is the height of “old”, classic Hollywood in every sense, with stars like James Stewart and Donna Reid it is a warm and fuzzy Christmas Tale, just right for Christmas Eve round the telly with the whole family. If you go for it for pure entertainment value, well and good. You will love it. If you try and analyze it with your “political” glasses on however, you may not like what you see that much. It really is up to you; but let’s get round to the story first, and then we can discuss what we want to do with it.
It is Christmas Eve. And Clarance the clockmaker is on a mission. This may seem odd at first as he has been dead for 200 years, but there is more to the story than you may think. He is due to be promoted as an angel; but to get his wings he must accomplish this one rather difficult task, and honestly, he hasn’t proved to be the brightest bulb in the box so far. His duty is to stop George Bailey (James Stewart) a man living, seemingly quite happily, in a small town from committing suicide. Now, George lives with his beloved wife and four children, he has lived in the same small town all his life. He is notorious for his good heart, generosity and helpfulness and the family’s loans and banking business is the town’s last bastion against the greedy banker ??? who would suck the town dry if he only could… However, ?? has dreamt of leaving the town, travelling, going to university and making something truly great with his life as long as he can remember, he is a good man with ethics, but deep down he hates his job and wishes he could have had a different job and different experiences in life. When crisis strikes his business, it is the last straw for him and the only way out he can think of is into the river off a high bridge. Can his rather unlikely – and seemingly rather unable – little guardian angel convince him that life is worth living after all?
This film was a Christmas gift to me from a well beloved friend. I know he checks the blog out from time to time, so allow me to thank him for it once again from here; I honestly and truly enjoyed every minute of it. However, I could quite understand if you watched and became slightly aggravated with it too. The thing to remember is that one of Hollywood’s principal roles, back in the day as well as today was the propagation of a certain life style; and this film is a walking, talking advertisement of a particular lifestyle, patriarchal – with the wife, clever and able of course, clearly positioned as “beta” to her husbands “alfa” and the general message that “one should be happy with what one has and not make ones dreams too lofty” almost shoved down one’s throat in unequivocally Christian terms (if the whole “don’t let your imagination fly away with you” line confuses you in today’s viciously capitalist society, do remember that this was 1947, not that long after the Great Depression and a mere two years after the Second World War, conservatism was the “mot du jour”). So, small town life, family and 2,4 children are in fact presented as the “ideal”. Now this may annoy you, and I don’t blame you. In places the film almost reads like a propaganda reel. However, as annoyed as I was with bits of it, there were other bits of it I simply loved. The film is sweet overall; there are some very funny little touches and well… I mean look back on all the black and white classics we know and love; which doesn’t have a streak we would consider “politically incorrect” today? Yet we still watch and love them. I say, be tolerant, don’t take it too too seriously and enjoy it of an evening with the kids. You can ease your conscious but ranting about it to friends later. And do you know what, you needn’t really tell them you quite enjoyed it =)