CinemaRian Blog

Under discussion:

Nashville  (1975)

Nashville is Robert Altman’s best film.  That’s not a controversial claim, but its reputation is accurate.  This is one of the greatest American films of the 70’s, and certainly one of the most unique.

The tagline of the movie is “The damndest thing you ever saw” and few promotional lines are more accurate.  If the film were made today, I suppose it would be referred to as a hyperlink picture, but it doesn’t even have the required structure. There is either no plot, or about fifteen of them.  There is nothing approaching a main character, and in fact, all twenty four of its “lead” actors have equal billing (and, for that matter, two major characters are never seen onscreen at all). Altman shoots the film in a documentary style, and some of the characters are very real, but others and the situations they find themselves in are clearly satirical.  There is no other film like it, including others by its director.

The most basic storyline in the films involves an independent political candidate who is preparing for the Tennessee Presidential primary, but said candidate is only heard as a van travels around town, obnoxiously blaring one his speeches.  Among the many other intrigues is an undiagnosed illness of country superstar Barbara Jean (Ronee Blakley),  the struggling marriage between political operative Delbert Reese (Ned Beatty) and his wife, gospel singer Linnea (Lilly Tomlin), framed by observations of Opal (Geraldine Chaplin) a pretentious reporter for the BBC.  Unlike the modern films that Altman inspired, such as Babel, not everything fits together, but that’s not a criticism.  Not everything in life makes sense or is explained.  Too few movies understand that once in a while things are just plain random. 

Take the example of the Tricycle Man (Jeff Goldblum) who rides around town on giant, ugly motorcycle never saying a word and rarely interacting with other characters.  Or L.A. Joan (Shelley Duvall) a woman who seems to be everywhere in this conservative culture though she dresses like she’s a flamboyant male homosexual.  My favorite character is Sueleen Gay (Gwen Wells) a wonderfully endearing but naïve singer who (tragically) has no idea that she’s talentless and that audiences only appreciate her for her sex appeal.

The movie is kind of its own genre.  There is nothing else the film can be, for it is unlike any other film.  One entire of the movie (a third of its running time) is devoted to concert footage performed live by the actors, most of whom wrote their own songs (Keith Carradine won an Oscar for the best, “I’m Easy”.)  Few of the stories payoff, and the few that don’t have much of a setup. 

But that’s what makes film so endlessly fascinating.  It exists in an out of documentary, drama and comedy.  The characters are clearly constructs, but you end up caring about them.  I was tempted to say that climax says something about America, but I’m not sure even says anything about Nashville.  But its kind of like life. 

Under discussion:

The Horror of Frankenstein  (1970)

The Horror of Frankenstein(1970)

I’ve never responded to Frankenstein movies in the same way I have to Dracula films.  The reason is, I think, that there are near endless variations on the plot and themes to Dracula, whereas with Frankenstein you are pretty much stuck aquasi-mad doctor either bringing a dead creature to life or doing something else with one that he brought to life in the previous film.

There are many great Hammer Dracula pictures, but only one great Frankenstein film, the second, The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958) which took every ridiculous plot point and played as if it could actually happen, and in doing so made us feel a little sorry for the tragedy of the good doctor.

Perhaps sensing their Frankenstein series was not as strong as their Dracula films (or many of their standalone titles) Hammer in 1970 to reboot the pictures instead of doing another sequel.  They were eager for screenwriter the screenwriter
of the first film, Jimmy Sangster, to write the re-launch, so they offered him
both the producer’s reins and director’s chair as well.  Sangster probably had more control over this picture than any director ever did at Hammer (well, except for Michael Carreras on The Curse of the Mummy’s Tomb).

Although a lot of Hammer fans are not fond of this picture (perhaps due to the absence of Peter Cushing), I rather liked it, and I appreciated Sangster’s choice to make the film as a black comedy instead of another unsuccessful attempt at horror (was Frankenstein ever that scary, anyway?).  The picture follows the usual Frankenstein outline (boy dreams of monster, boy creates monster, monster kills people, boy tries to hide monster), but Sangster has fun with the usual cliché’s.

I was afraid that I would miss Cushing in the lead role, but Ralph Bates (who bears a stunning resemblance to The Kink’s Ray Daves) is really exceptional in the part and is quite funny.  He’s endearingly evil in the Richard III sense, and unlike Cushing’s interpretation, not the least bit mad.  At least this sociopath admits he’s one. The supporting cast (which also includes Graham James, who strangely looks just like The Moody Blue’s Justin Hayward) is mostly spot on, impressive for a first time director. 

The movie also looks good, but nearly all the Hammer films do, despite their budget.  If it can be said to have a flaw, it would be in the portrayal of the creature (David Prowse).  It’s not Prowse’s fault, but his character is given little motivation as to why he so loyal to Frankenstein when he otherwise so violent).  Perhaps it was supposed to parody why the doctor always fails at his attempts to create a good person, but wake-up-and-kill approach the character has doesn't work.

This is not a major cinematic landmark, but it is a fun movie that manages to present a couple compelling characters while still being mostly funny.  If there is one thing that all the Hammer director’s had in common, it was the fact that they
never played the material for laughs, which is usually suicide in speculative
fiction.  Here’s the only to my knowledge that Hammer did it, and amazingly, it worked.

Under discussion:

Film Name  Production Year

Sunshine Cleaning  (2009)

Sunshine Cleaning has all the signs of a movie that went into production too soon, with script that was either still being written or with one in serious need of revision.  The movie has the cast it needs and a setting that works, but lacks the crucial element of focus. 

As you’ve seen from the trailer, the movie is a light comedy about a two sisters who open up their own business cleaning up after bloody suicides or murders.  This is certainly an interesting idea for a movie, but the picture never bothers to consider most of the implications of this.  Instead it spends much of its time on a great many subplots, some of which are set up and never pay off.

The two sisters are Rose (Amy Adams) and Norah (Emily Blundt).  Rose works as a maid and has a young son named Oscar (Jason Spevack) and spends a great deal of time looking forward to her weekly rendezvous with a married police officer (Steve Zahn).  Norah lives with her father Joe (Alan Arkin), an unsuccessful businessesman who is trying to market a new kind of candy.  Oscar gets kicked out of school due to some troubling behavior (that the movie never resolves, nor mentions again) so Rose feels the needs to make more money to get him into a private school.  The cop advises that she can big bucks cleaning up after dead people, and she convinces Norah join her.

Among the nine million other subplots in the movie are Rose’s attempt to impress her former high school classmates at a baby shower, Norah’s quasi-voyeuristic interest in the daughter of one of the suicides (Mary Lynn Raskub) , Rose’s relationship with the cop, Rose’s potential relationship with the owner of a cleaning supplies shop (Eric Christian Olsen), the sister’s coming to terms with the death of their own mother, and Joe’s potential inability to deliver on a promise to Oscar.

Lost in all of this is any kind of analysis as to the implications of the cleaning company, the ostensible selling point of the movie.  At no point does director Christine Jeffs or screenwriter Megan Holley deal with any of the obvious questions.  Aside from the fact that the job would be disgusting, how would this effect a person psychologically?  Would this change someone’s opinion about death, or life or religion or whatever?  Is there much of a distance between cleaning up blood and tomato sauce if you clean up one enough after a while?

The screenplay is the central problem here, although the direction by Jeffs in uninspired.  Some plot points, such as Oscar’s trouble at school are introduced and never referred to again, while others, such as the death of the sister’s mother, are brought up too late and pay off too quickly.  The entire chronology of the movie seems off, with events that should be days apart apparently (and implausible) taking months to occur, while others seem to come along too fast.

Where the film works is in the acting, which is very impressive.  I really got the impression that Adams and Blundt were members of the same family, something that rarely happens in movies.  They share a sisterly bond that is utterly believable and silently real, more real that anything else in the picture.

I can’t flaw Sunshine Cleaning for a lack of ideas, or even a lack of good ones, but I can find fault in its inability to focus itself.  The whole is far less than the sum of its parts, though I have to say that the movie was not boring.  I think I might want to see a movie about a single mother with a troubled child, or a thirty something dealing with the emptiness of her life, or two sisters who start a weird business together, or two sisters dealing with death of their mother.  But not all at once.

Sunshine Cleaning(2009)

Under discussion:

Film Name  Production Year

I've Loved You So Long...  (2008)

The first thing we notice is the face of Kristen Scott Thomas.  She is a beautiful woman, and still is, but there is something in that face of extreme pain.  It is as if all of the life and happiness has been sucked out of it.  It is a face that not only lacks joy but seems to negate the possibility of it.

Her character is named Juliette, and she sits at an airport terminal waiting for someone to come. That someone is her sister, Lea, played by Elsa Zylberstien.  Lea hasn’t seen her sister for fifteen years, when she was a child, but there is only the most basic level of recognition at the reunion. For Juliette, there is no reason for anything anymore.

The movie works simultaneously as a drama and mystery, as we slowly find out what the characters know about what happened and what led to this reunion.  Most everyone walking into the picture will know that Juliette has spent the last fifteen years in prison, but the crime itself and that motive behind are revealed slowly. 

Because we do not know this information, we judge Juliette slowly.  It is not so much that she has no social skills as it is that she chooses not to use them.  There is no reason for her to do so, no society for her to believe in. She is intelligent, educated and articulate, but has nothing to say to anyone.

Lea, on the other hand seems to have everything- with kids and a loving husband, Luc (Serge Hazanavicius).  What makes the picture so interesting (and moving) is that Lea loves her sister unconditionally.  She believes that no matter what she did, she has not done anything beyond understanding or forgiveness.  This is the central conflict of the film.  One sister wants to recall the other to life, and the other has forgotten that there is any purpose in living.

The acting in this film is superb, but Scott Thomas is outstanding.  Setting aside the fact that nearly all of her dialogue is in a second language she manages to show us the utter darkness that her character lives in without ever becoming manipulative.  Zylberstien must also be complimented for playing a part that could have easily become maudlin without a trace of Robin Williams- like manipulation. 

Although an excellent movie, there are a few flaws.  There’s a rather ridiculous pastoral montage in the middle of the film that belong in another movie, and occasionally the screenplay (by director Phillipe Claudel) seems a bit contrived and lays on its points a bit obviously, especially in the subplot involving Juliette’s parole officer (Frederic Pierrot).  But overall, this is a moving picture about one person who knows, just knows, her sister is a person worthy of love and respect, and another who cannot conceive that anyone could feel that way.

I've Loved You So Long...(2008)

Under discussion:

Gran Torino  (2008)

Do you remember that guy on your street who people referred to as “Old Man Hastings” or what ever his last name was?  The kind of guy the kids in the neighborhood never played around, because he would get so scary if anyone touched a blade of grass on his lawn? 

The greatest strength of Gran Torino is Clint Eastwood’s sheer embodiment of that guy we all knew, the guy who seemed to be about 68 for the last thirty years.  Eastwood’s character has all of the attributes you would expect from That Guy- he’s tough, racially insensitive (if not a sheer racist), set in his ways and frequently uses the phrase “Get off my lawn!”

In the movie, The Guy’s name is Walt Kowalski, and the picture opens at the funeral of his wife.  Walt’s marriage was successful and one gets the sense that the departed was a bridge between him and his sons (Brian Haley and Brian Howe), who do not seem very close, or indeed, very able to communicate with each other very well.  Walt is the last white left in his Detroit neighborhood, which consists almost entirely of Hmong immigrants and their children.  A veteran of the Korean War, Walt does not like Asians (although he doesn’t have much nice to say about African Americans and Latinos, either).  Next door, teenager Thao Vang Lor (Bee Vang) is being pressured by a gang to join them, and eventually the harassment spills over onto Walt’s lawn.  Motivated more his love of his property than altruism, Walt uses his rifle to rescue Thao, and unintentionally becomes a hero to the neighborhood.

I am not giving anything away if I state the unsurprising character development that Walt slowly begins to lose his racism.  In fact, there is a lot in the movie that is not surprising.  If you have seen the trailer, Gran Torino is pretty much the movie you would expect it to be, except for the climax, which is unsuspected though not satisfying.

I have consistently argued that I have found Eastwood’s recent series of critically acclaimed films (Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima and Changeling) to be overrated, and I still feel that I way about Gran Torino.  Like Baby and Iwo Jima, it’s a good movie, but not a great one, and not a film that’s particularly deep, either.  Perhaps the greatest weakness of Eastwood’s film as a director has been the fact the films seem more serious or profound than the actually are (Unforgiven being an exception that actually is deep).  But Gran Torino is more entertaining than any of the films listed above, merely because Eastwood’s character is so much fun to watch.  Even as we see the screenplay’s manipulations, the actor is a great screen presence. 

I am not sure, however, that this is a “great” performance, though Eastwood is considered to be the front runner for the Best Actor Oscar.  It’s more like a version of a movie stars persona than an actual “actorly” role, which Eastwood is capable of doing (as in The Beguiled, for example).  Still, the lead performance is clearly the best thing about the movie.  It is occasionally ridiculous, and usually predictable, but Gran Torino gives you a sold night of entertainment at the movies. 

Under discussion:

Frost/Nixon  (2008)

Ron Howard’s achievement must be acknowledged- more than perhaps any other filmmaker, he has found the ultimate cinematic style to con people into thinking there watching an important movie.  His films are rarely boring, and are often very good, but are never really profound, or important, or even memorable.  He’s caused me to give Frost/Nixon a three and half star rating, pretty impressive for a film I have contempt for.  

This is a film that pretends to be important, that states that it is about a subject and then discusses the topic hardly all.  The subject in question is the role of the media in politics, specifically, the 1977 serious of interviews between British journalist Sir David Frost (Michael Sheen) and disgraced U.S. President Richard Nixon (Frank Langella).

The thin plot of the film regards Nixon and his aids believing that Frost will be an easy mark for the former President to rehabilitate his reputation as a statesmen.  Since the trailer gives away the climax of the movie, I don’t think I’m giving much away when I reveal that for the most part, Nixon failed.  

The movie, written by Peter Morgan, who adapted his own stage play, spends far too much time with Frost, who the picture makes out to be a somewhat hapless, Barbara Walters-like journalist, neglecting the fact that he had in fact interviewed several major political figures before Nixon.  Michael Sheen also chooses to play Frost as a lightweight who is in over his head.  Sheen’s performance is a major flaw of the movie- he doesn’t look or sound much like the real Frost and his character comes off as such a dimwit that it’s hard to care what happens to him.

Frank Langella’s Nixon, on the other hand, is another story.  This is one of the best performances of the year, perhaps the best.  Langella seems to become Nixon before our eyes.  He looks like Nixon, he speaks like Nixon, and for all intents and purposes he is Nixon.   Comparing him to Sir Anthony Hopkins performance in Oliver Stone’s 1995 film and the difference is like night and day.  Hopkins did a good job, but you were always aware that he was acting.  Here, you just believe that you are looking at the 37th President, who somehow wandered into a movie.

But all the insight comes from Langella, not Howard. Because the movie is supposedly historically accurate, Howard occasionally uses a documentary style in which characters speak as though they are being interviewed on 16mm.  Is this supposed to make us think the movie is "real"?

And besides, what is the point of any of this?  There are other and better films about politics and the media (Network and Good Night, and Good Luck come to mind).  Those films actually bother to take a position on their subject.  But Howard is so set on pleasing everyone, of offering no offense to only the most sycophantic Nixon supporter that the movie says very little at all.  It is not boring and technically flawless, but it lacks one element crucial to great art- daring.  If you want to see a well made, perfectly safe movie that appears to be about something but really isn’t, with one brilliant performance, Frost/Nixon is the movie for you.

Frost/Nixon (2008)

Under discussion:

The Mark of Zorro  (1920)

Irony of ironies- what was once a standard, big budget Hollywood blockbuster now seems a bit more like an art movie.  The Mark of Zorro was an action adventures spectacle, and was received as such, but today there’s no doubt that no many audiences would have a problem with the movie’s leisurely pace.  Aside from an impressive action sequence towards the end, no one seems to be in much of a hurry to get anywhere in this movie.  Show this to the average action movie audience today and its likely that there would be large numbers of snores, in addition to a few snickers when Zorro is introduced as “The Gay Blade”.

However, an audience of movie fans will probably find much to love in this picture.  The fact that the movie is slow means that the picture draws us into its world at its own pace, and the intent in a picture like this seems to be not as much to get us super excited as it is too look at the evocation of California in the 1840’s.

I sometimes think that silent films have there own type of beauty that was never seen since, perhaps because the intent is not a setting for actors to say their dialogue in but a painterly visual composition where the actors exist along the world the exist in.  So much information is conveyed by the costumes, art direction and cinematography that at times it’s hard to believe that this was a star vehicle for Douglas Fairbanks, except when he’s on the screen, and dominates everything.

Fairbanks produced and co-wrote the film, adapted from the first Zorro novella, The Curse of Capistrano , published only the year before.  With the exception of The Scarlet Pimpernel, audiences had never seen a character like Zorro- a Batman type character who performed his heroics while masked, with a secret identity.  There could not have been a better choice for the character, as Fairbanks is a hero to ten year old boys of all ages.  With an athletic physical presence and devil-may-care attitude, combined with an absolute knowledge of moral clarity, his Zorro is a hero for the ages, really, all superhero movies might in some owe something to this movie.

Despite the slow pace, the movie knows its audience well enough not to add too much unnecessary romance (isn’t kissing disgusting?) the film is pretty economical in its story telling.  If doesn’t say too much about the human condition, well, I should point out that I wasn’t interested that much in that type of thing when I was ten either.  The Mask of Zorro spoke the part of me that refuses to grow up, and so few movies acknowledge any kind of innocence that I kind of loved it for doing so.

Under discussion:

Staying Alive  (1983)

How can I begin to describe this movie?  A sequel to one of the greatest of hits of 70’s, made pointless by the fact that the disco craze it celebrated was long sense over?  One of the best bad movies of all time?  A perfect vehicle to gaze at John Travolta’s sweaty, muscular body?  All of these my friend, and more.

Staying Alive is so very, very bad that it’s very very good, given the right environment of course.  I would not reccamend you watching the picture by yourself, unless you wanted to freeze frame the images of Travolta and- well, I’ll leave that to you in your private affairs.

The movie is a sequel to John Badham’s 1978 Saturday Night Fever, but follows precious little of that films story and the main character, Tony Manero (Travolta) seems different- a lot more feminine and stupidier.  Manero was never a brainaiac to begin with, but that was part of his character’s charm- he knew that he was no Einstien and accepted that, but had a basic level of intelligence that most people without major brain damage seem to have.  In this picture, Manero is so dumb at times you expect him to see him drool, which makes you wonder how he was smart enough to put the rouge and eyeliner on his face.

The plot of the film involves Manero trying to make it as a professional dancer in a broadway show in Manhatten, and having to choose between two women, both his fellow dancers- his girl Friday, Jackie (Cyntha Rhodes) and Laura (Finola Hughes) a British bitch who sleeps around a lot and uses and abuses him.  Of course, Manero ends up making into a big show in which both Jackie and Laura appear in, along with Laura’s “guy Friday”, Jesse (Steve Inwood), who looks weird.  The name of the show is Satan Alley and it’s a piece of total garbage, set to hilarous 80’s synth pop.  The music in this film aside from a reprise of the title song at the end, is all ass-awful.  My favorite piece of music was “(We Dance) So Close the Fire” performed by Tommy Faragher, much of which seems to consists of the words “dance” and “fire” repeadited over and over again in the most melodramatic way possible. 

My friend Kristen pointed an important feature of Stallone’s films- Sly always seems to have the conviction of his actions, even when his pictures are totally stupid, which tends to make them entertaining, even while they lower your IQ points.  Staying Alive is so melodramatically directed while being totally hearfelt that at times the movie develops a kind of hypnotic quality, that you can understand why no one told Stallone his screenplay sucked- they were all caught up in his energy.

I can’t say that on any level Staying Alive is a good movie, but do I reccamend you see it? Hell yeah!

Staying Alive (1983)