Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

civex Blog

  • The Blue Angel (also Der Blaue Engel)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Pandora's Box  (1929)

    The Blue Angel  (1930)

     

    This is a film that gets great word of mouth but isn't really all that great. The plot is that Professor Rath (Emil Jannings) gets all stirred up when he discovers his students are going to a local pub to drink, carouse, and get corrupted by the girls. He goes there to have the students thrown out and ends up corrupted himself by Lola (Marlene Dietrich).

    Jannings is superb in this movie. His succumbing to flattery is endearing, and his fall from esteem to complete degradation is totally credible. And I think this is the only film I've seen where Dietrich acted. In her American films, she played Dietrich instead of her role. 

    But Dietrich's role as Lola is truly iconic. _Everyone_ knows the photo of her in her silver top hat, shorts, and garter belt and stockings, looking over her bare shoulder. It's copied everywhere. It's not a major theme in the movie (directed by Josef von Sternberg) - it's just one scene.

    The film was supposed to be about Professor Rath, and Emil Jennings was the star. But somehow Dietrich stole the show. Well, not really "somehow" - we know how she did it. Her sex appeal is real, and it makes Rath's humiliating downfall believable. On the whole, the film is a minor German movie supposed to showcase Emil Jannings, and it would have no life at all beyond the early 30s, when it was made. But for Lola Lola.

    For an interesting comparison, watch the incomparably beautiful Louise Brooks play Lulu in "Pandora's Box" (Die Buchse der Pandora), a silent film with a similar theme.

    (NOTE: Classic Greek tragedy had a hero whose flaw was a character trait that was good, but he took it too far. Oedipus, for example, was curious. He was warned several times to stop asking questions, but he went too far and learned too much. Hubris was one of the favorite flaws; Antigone, for example, challenged the gods to his great loss. After the Greek hero got his comeuppance, the play would wind down pretty quickly. The audience was supposed to feel pity for the hero's tragedy and to feel fear lest we come to the same end ourelves: catharsis.

    "The Blue Angel" has some of the characteristics of ancient Greek tragedy, but with interesting twists. Our hero, Professor Rath thinks he has morals, but he's wrong. Instead of going too far with a good trait, Herr Professor fails to go at all. He meets Lola Lola and falls for her right off the bat of an eye. We spend rather more time with our failed hero after his fall than was the custom in Greek antiquity. Von Sternberg dwells on Rath's depths as Lola ceases to be amused by her formerly highbrow husband. She eventually loses all interest and starts an affair with another, younger, stronger man. Rath finds that the depths of hell have no bottom. "The Blue Angel" should have been great, but something failed. My current thinking is that Rath was not heroic; his fatal flaw is not too much of a good thing but rather his lack of real morals behind his facade of righteousness. Perhaps he got what he deserved, leaving me with some pity but no emotional release. Professor Rath does not go down with the honor necessary for a Greek tragic hero, and I think this takes away from the film.)

     


  • Secretary

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Secretary  (2002)

    We open the movie seeing Lee Holloway being released from a mental hospital into the care of her mother. Maggie Gyllenhaal shines in the role of Lee. Lee eventually gets a job as a secretary for lawyer E. Edward Grey, and it turns out they share a fetish for mild sado-masochism. Lee is transformed from a mouse to a near-dominatrix masochist, and their employer- employee relationship blossoms into love and marriage.

    This is a great film almost entirely because of Gyllenhaal. Lee Holloway's blossoming is the main driving force of the film, and Gyllenhaal inhabits the role beautifully. There are many scenes involving water that are magical, and Gyllenhaal's face shines as she floats in the tub or the pool (director Stephen Shainberg does an admirable job in these scenes and others). Although the film's plot revolves around a sado-masochistic relationship, sado-masochism never takes over -- the film remains about the relationship between Lee and Grey and Lee's blossoming under his tutelage.

    This is a film which benefits from Spader's affectless acting style but which would fail completely were the actress portraying Lee to have the same flat style. Because the movie is about Lee's growth from her mousy girl to full sexual womanhood, having an actress who could show the full range of Lee's person is an absolute requirement. The viewer has to care about Lee for the movie to work. Caring about Grey would have been nice, but it turns out not to be necessary.

    The set of the film is an integral part of the movie. There is a long hall between Lee's desk and Grey's office. There are no other people in the office, and there is no architectural reason for that long hall. But it is absolutely necessary for the plot. There are scenes in the movie which show Lee crawling down the hall to Grey's office or walking along the hall with her arms chained to a bar across her shoulders, and Gyllenhaal exploits every inch of that hall, exuding sexuality. Although Spader is nominally the sadist in the relationship, Lee may have ultimate control -- indeed, it is at her demand that they marry. And you know it will be a fulfilling marriage.


  • Solaris

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Solaris  (2002)

    This film, directed by Steven Soderbergh, is based on a novel by cult favorite Stanislaw Lem. I read the novel after I saw the movie, and Soderbergh made a film that is different from the novel, not unexpected but perhaps unhappily for Lem's fans. George Clooney plays Dr. Kelvin, a psychologist, who is called out to deep space to find out what's gone horribly wrong on a space station. People are killing themselves on the station, and the survivors are clearly insane. Kelvin soon finds out why.

    The movie unfolds like a flower blooming, but we're still left confused, I'm sorry to say. Lem's point in his novel (at least as I understand it) is that aliens and humans will have absolutely no way to establish communications. Zero chance. None. Totally alien creatures have no basis for understanding, no way to grasp what is intended, and no way to communicate effectively.

    Soderbergh takes a part of the novel and makes his Solaris a love story of longing and loss. Although his does this quite well, he still has hung his story on the frame of Lem's novel, and there's no fit. The alien novel can't support the human film.

    As a love story, Soderbergh's Solaris is compelling and heartbreaking as the story of Kelvin and his dead wife Rheya (played by Natascha McElhone) unfolds in bits and pieces finally becoming fully developed, and we learn what Kelvin's problem is.

    But the ship is staffed by the remaining crew of lunatics. Jeremy Davies is particularly good as the totally insane Snow, and Viola Davis does a competent job as Gordon, the only one with a scrap of sanity left. Whatever damage has been wrought by the alien presence is left unexplored and unexplained, and the ending is terribly unsatisfying, despite the tinkling music by Cliff Martinez, which I enjoyed.

    Overall, I like the movie, but it can't quite carry the weight of Stanislaw Lem's complex novel.


  • Pan's Labyrinth (also El Laberinto del fauno)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Pan's Labyrinth  (2006)

    This is an interesting movie. I believe it is of the magical realism genre: the director (Guillermo del Toro) has, in my opinion, left wiggle room for two views. 

    In this film, Ivana Baquero plays Ofelia, the daughter of Carmen (played by Ariadna Gil). Carmen is recently widowed and has been wed by the influential Captain Vidal (Sergi Lopez) at the depth of the Spanish Civil War. Carmen is pregnant with Vidal's son (he knows it's his male heir and will brook no dispute).

    Vidal is a heartless murderer, stamping out the revolutionaries to keep Spain safe for Franco and the Catholic church, and much of what del Toro puts in the film is a denunciation of both. Del Toro is excellent in his drawing of Vidal's character - we see Vidal in his dressing room and on the battlefield, compelled to heroics by his father's heroic death in battle. Vidal is a monster: sadistic and heartless. He is reality in the Spanish civil war.

    Ofelia spends time reading fairy tales and believing them to be true. Her mother chides her gently; Vidal takes her to task more strenuously. Del Toro shows us Ofelia's fantasy land, and we are left with enough vagueness that some can say her fantasies are real and some can say her fantasies are her escape from the hell of the war. And given the monster in her life, who can fault her for her escapism?

    If the fantasy is correct, Ofelia is the daughter of the king and queen of the underworld, and she strayed above ground for too long and lost her memory. She needs only to find her way back to assume her rightful position as heir to the crown. She finds a faun in an old maze who proposes to test her to see if she really is the princess, and she accepts the challenge. In the fantasies she faces monsters and monstrosities, sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding. If the story is the fantasy, she passes the ultimate test and goes to her mother the queen and her  father the king of the underworld, takes the throne and lives happily ever after, beloved by all her subjects.

    We are, however, given an alternate universe. A heartbreaking world where the monster is her mother's husband, where life has no value, and where no one can pass the ultimate test. If the story is reality, she fails and does not live happily ever after.

    You choose which version to believe is true, and then you can think about what your choice says about you. Pay attention to all the details, fairy tales, rules, and books. There is a rich story in this movie, and your attention is well-rewarded.


  • Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    This is a great shallow movie. No pretensions, great action, great jokes, pretty good actors. Directed by the well-known Gore Verbinski (no? not well-known? C'est la vie) and starring Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Geoffrey Rush, and some woman I forget.

    Like Tommy Lee Jones, Johnny Depp has pretty much stopped acting and started playing the same role in all his films. (Tommy Lee Jones is now acting like Richard Crenna in Hot Shots! Part Deux or Wrongfully Accused or maybe Rambo IV, I forget.) But I digress. Depp here plays Jack Sparrow beautifully (and famously as Keith Richards), and the film kept me laughing from the opening scene to somewhere near the end.

    It's a great buddy film, although lacking the ensemble acting of The Princess Bride. The bad guys are not really bad, the good guys are really, really good, and our hero gets the girl. The special effects are excellent and used to good, uh, effect: creepy when they should be creepy and hilarious when they should be funny. I was sorry when it was over.


  • Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    This is the best piece of ensemble acting I've seen. This was a mini-series in the early 80s, directed by John Irvin and starring Alec Guiness. The cast works together as the characters did, and they make the mini-series rise above the genre.

    It's based on the novel by John le Carre, and we find George Smiley (played by Sir Alec) called back from retirement to ferret out a mole in the British Secret Service. It would be the usual spy-vs-spy stuff but for the camaraderie shown by the cast (a camaraderie I was disappointed to find missing in the sequel Smiley's People).

    The material is top-notch, the screenplay is excellent, and the story moves along crisply and with intrigue, lots of subtle things going on that add depth to the characters, but it's a real winner because of the perfromance of the cast.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<October 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
2829301234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930311
2345678


Categories
 


Advertisement