jjgittes Blog

Spider on Reel 13

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

Under discussion:

Spider (2002)

In the last few years, between A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE and EASTERN PROMISES, maverick filmmaker David Cronenberg seems to be a at a creative zenith in his career. Just preceding this apex, however, was this week's Reel 13 Indie, SPIDER, which, in spite of its top shelf cast (Ralph Fiennes, Gabriel Byrne and Miranda Richardson in a gimmicky triple role), is too slow and oblique for its own good.

I can see why Cronenberg was drawn to the material – the story is told from the point of view of a recently released mental patient, which gives the creative team the opportunity to play with the idea of the unreliable narrator/protagonist. Like last week's indie, CQ, the lines between fantasy and reality are blurred – here in the case of the flashbacks. The film then becomes a jigsaw puzzle for the viewer (an image that Cronenberg uses in a pivotal scene), but one that is unfortunately, all too easily solved. As the film goes on and the narrative takes shape, one can see where it's headed and hopes that it will take a turn somewhere along the way, but it never does and that is a major disappointment.

The other issue we're left with at the end of the film is that if Spider was as delusional as a boy as he is grown (as the film suggests), then what was it that sparked his mental problems to begin with? Throughout the film, we are left to assume that the events of his childhood led to his difficulties, but if not all of the events that the adult character "remembers" were true, then that is a false assumption. And therefore, the film fails to get underneath the psychosis of the main character and leaves too many open-ended questions. (I realize that since story is told from Spider's point-of-view, it would be hard to explain his issues, but there are solutions to that issue – he does occasionally remember things properly and there was a doctor character that could have filled in a few blanks for us).

One thing I'll say for SPIDER is that it's very visual. There was very little dialogue as Cronenberg used the pictures to tell the story, which made the film very cinematic. They were pretty pictures too – the cinematography by Peter Suschitzky is darkly lush and moody. However, the quiet nature of the film I think wound up doing more harm than good. Cronenberg effectively uses a deliberate pace throughout large sections of both A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE and EASTERN PROMISES, before eventually letting the dogs out in both films, increasing the impact of both of those climaxes. Here, there is no equivalent payoff and for a film that begins at 11:00pm on a Saturday, it becomes awfully hard to stay interested.

Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:59 PM by jjgittes | with 0 comments

Go for Broke! on Reel 13

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

Under discussion:

Go for Broke! (1951)

I had my skepticism about GO FOR BROKE! when I first read that it was going to be one of the June Reel 13 Classics. Not only had I not heard of the film (a rarity for me, at least amongst the classics), but the synopsis wasn't even very promising. The thought of Van Johnson in the lead was the first strike and then the whole bit about training Japanese-American soldiers for WWII just reeked of governmental influence, which more often than not, is a recipe for disaster. However, after seeing it last night on Reel 13, I was surprised to discover that while it did occasionally teeter on the verge of propaganda, it was exciting and interesting in spite of its overt patriotism.

Van Johnson was no surprise, however. He flat out stunk, as expected. The actors that carry the film, amazingly enough, were the Japanese actors. I say amazing because in late 40's and early 50's Hollywood, these actors probably weren't getting many opportunities and often were relegated to poorly written, two-dimensional supporting roles. Additionally, minority actors generally didn't have access to the kind of training others did. In GO FOR BROKE!, while some of their accents are thick, the Japanese-American actors are consistently more interesting and natural than the European-Americans. Also, their scenes are better written – more honest and detailed. Particularly good was Lane Nakano as Sam (Nakano apparently actually served in the 442nd Regiment that the film is based on). His on-screen charisma is a wonder to behold and yet the remainder of his career consisted of walk-on roles and occasional television guest appearances.

I think they other key element that makes GO FOR BROKE! work is how detailed it was in regards to war strategy and planning. Director Robert Pirosh does a very good job of laying out the geography for each battle situation and then explaining how the Americans are going to structure their attack. The screenplay manages to accomplish this without being condescending or over-explanatory. The battles themselves then take on a greater impact because you are able to understand how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together and are therefore more involved in each moment of the skirmishes.

Overall, GO FOR BROKE! is a tightly-structured, well-paced and efficient film. Thematically, it would be a good double bill with Edward Zwick's GLORY in that both films not only tell the story of soldiers and unlikely heroes, but also of a nation maturing and getting over its on racial prejudices to truly be the all-welcoming melting pot that it set out to be at its inception.

Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:58 PM by jjgittes | with 0 comments

CQ on Reel 13

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

Under discussion:

CQ (2001)

Despite the pedigree of being made by the latest Coppola clan member to enter the feature film directorial ranks, CQ came and went from theaters when it was released a few years go. Seeing it for the first time on Reel 13 on Saturday, I'm a little stunned as to why. Roman Coppola proves to be a promising, thoughtful filmmaker and as adept a student of cinema history as his Uncle Francis. CQ is an engaging, if loosely structured movie, managing to be simultaneously inventive and derivative, borrowing from and paying homage to everything from LA DOLCE VITA to the Marx Brothers.

Its primary source of influence is, of course, 1968's BARBARELLA, here thinly veiled as the fictional "Dragonfly", as the film within the film. CQ is about how Paul, a young editor (Jeremy Davies), working on said "Dragonfly" deals with balancing his career and his relationship as he works on both the big-budget sci-fi epic and directing his own personal documentary film. This set-up provides Coppola with three different planes of action going on – real life, the black and white documentary and the colorful, sexy, futuristic world of "Dragonfly". The fun really begins when Coppola deftly uses these formats to blur the lines of fantasy and reality when Paul, in his search for himself, begins to lose sight of where the boundaries for each of these worlds lie – or if they even exist.

In addition to Coppola's stellar usage of mixed media, the other key to CQ's success is Jeremy Davies, an extremely talented and severely underused young actor who quite possibly should have won an Oscar for his work in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and at least should have been nominated for last year's RESCUE DAWN. I think there are less roles for him because he seems to insist on making quirky, out-of-the-box choices. However, when a director with vision is willing to roll the dice on him, he almost always delivers an inspired performance. CQ is no exception as Davies brings a believable, uncomfortable edge to Paul. He is a character who is lost and confused, but most actors would play him with a modicum of swagger. Davies makes him neurotic without being nebbish – as if still a boy in the body a man who isn't quite sure that he wants to grow up. At the heart of Davies' performance, however, still is that extra element of quirkiness that is all his own. It's that extra layer of thought he puts in to his performance and those unusual choices he makes that allows the character to feel fresh – different than what we're used to while at the same time, wholly plausible.

After all is said and done, with all its layers of meaning and different milieus represented within it, CQ ultimately becomes a dissertation on film and the nature of filmmaking as an artform. It depicts the tendency of the artist to lose himself in his work and how said artist can learn to manipulate the art to find his way again (it's no wonder I liked it so much). In that sense, it's a beautifully realized film and another highly auspicious debut from an almost unfairly talented family.

Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:53 PM by jjgittes | with 0 comments

The Thomas Crown Affair on Reel 13

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

Under discussion:

The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)

Oddly enough, I had only seen the John McTiernan remake of THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR and while I realize it wasn't a masterpiece, I found it an entertaining and enjoyable caper. I just assumed that the original would be superior in every way and was excited about its airing on Reel 13 last night. After all, Norman Jewison, Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway seem like a late sixties dream team (Jewison was coming off of directing the Best Picture Oscar-winner the year before – IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT). Instead, the film had absolutely no emotional impact on me at all and left me surprised, bewildered and severely disappointed.

At first, I couldn't figure out where it went awry. I kept wanting to like it, expecting it to turn a corner and pique my interest, but then, before I knew what hit me, it was over. It starts promisingly enough with a clever bank heist, but Crown isn't physically involved in the robbery and we never really see him planning it in any way, so he's sort of passive, as heroes go, especially given it's essentially the only heist in the film (the second one at the end is a quickly cut carbon copy of the first). Then, Faye Dunaway, as insurance investigator Vicki Anderson, solves the mystery of the robbery WAY too easily. She walks in, looking young and stunning in several ridiculous overly fashionable outfits, bats her eyes and more or less decides that Crown is the guilty party. So, the two major elements of any crime - the crime and the investigation – are rushed through and devoid of any suspense whatsoever.

It's almost as if Jewison was in a rush to get to the longest scene in the film – the sexy chess match, which Norman clearly was setting up as the not-so-subtle metaphor of the movie (Did Dunaway really need to suggestively stroke one of the phallic-looking chess pieces? Cheeee-sy). It was around this time that it occurred to me that it's not supposed to be a cops and robbers movie as much as it was supposed to be a love story. That's fine, in theory, but even their relationship scenes are rushed. He gives her a dune buggy ride on the beach and suddenly, they're soulmates? Sorry, I don't buy it.

I'm most disappointed in Jewison, who normally is such a stickler for detail and is so careful in his storytelling. Here, he seems more interested in the natural beauty of both his lead actors than in the plot. Even the device he employs early in the film of dividing the screen into boxes falls flat or rather, he doesn't use it to advance the story (like the current television show "24" does a great job of). While he does have several things going on at once – the robbery comes at the bank from five different angles – he would instead chooses to use his four of his blocks to show Steve McQueen and the rest are out of focus. Then, when all of Crown's pawns are at different places in the bank, Jewison returns to full frame shooting at a time where the blocks might have really been useful/effective. Stylistic choices like that need to serve the story, not to show off the director's ability to do tricks.

I can almost see why McTiernan felt like it was a necessary film to remake. The plot has a lot of potential – extremely wealthy man plots bank robberies (or in the case of the remake – art heists) and then meets his match when an attractive, intelligent insurance investigator becomes the first to suspect him. Sounds great, doesn't it? But this original version barely scratches the surface of that juicy plot and invests more time in Michel Legrand's bizarre rhthymless song "Windmills in My Mind" (connecting Crown to Don Quixote). If you want a fun caper movie (I never thought I would say this), rent the remake. Norman Jewison has made a lot of great films, but he really bungled this one.

Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:51 PM by jjgittes | with 0 comments

Camp on Reel 13

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

Under discussion:

Camp (2003)

I first saw CAMP at the Film Society of Lincoln Center's annual New Directors/New Films series in the spring of 2003. The audience responded to the film with such gleeful laughter and riotous applause throughout the film that one couldn't help walk away from the experience entertained. Even watching it alone in the comfort of my own home this past Saturday on Reel 13, the movie managed to illicit consistent smiles. In spite of its contrivances and amateurishness, CAMP remains an extremely pleasant experience.

CAMP is less a story about teens coming-of-age and coming to terms with their extreme talent and how that can make them outcasts in the world of high school than it is a paean to musical theater, though not so much in the general sense. The film eschews more classical musical theater in favor of the genre's more recent history – 60's and 70's fare like "Company", "Promises, Promises", et al. The film actually seems to prioritize the musical numbers over the character development, especially given that the cast of kids are more singers than they are actors. Only Anna Kendrick in a supporting role is able to accomplish both deftly, creating an extremely memorable character and also belting out one of the highlight songs (Fittingly, she is the only one of the cast members to have had any sort of movie career post-CAMP, earning a Spirit Award nomination last year for her work in the high-school debating comedy ROCKET SCIENCE). In CAMP, one seems to look forward to the musical numbers, more so than in most musicals, as the scenes and story don't have nearly as much to offer.

This is not really a criticism because the film really doesn't make you wait long in between numbers. It moves crisply from song to song, usually with only a brief character scene or two in between. Somewhere along the line, actor-turned-director Todd Graff wisely recognized what the strength of the film was and shifted gears towards it. CAMP may not be deep, but it is a helluva lot of fun, offering magic for anyone who's ever been an artist and possibly even for everyone else too.

Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:50 PM by jjgittes | with 0 comments

Some Like it Hot on Reel 13

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

Under discussion:

Some Like It Hot (1959)

It's interesting to me that, for a movie that is essentially silly and contrived at heart, SOME LIKE IT HOT works so well and holds up even today. I mean, as I'm sure you've heard if you've watched Thirteen at all this week, AFI recently named SOME LIKE IT HOT as the greatest American comedy of all-time. If the same movie were made today, I'm not sure it would fly. In today's more liberated society, men dressing up as women isn't that much of a novelty and it is my opinion that modern audiences would reject the coincidences that the plot hinges on (Lemmon and Curtis actually witness the St. Valentine's Day Massacre AND the mob chasing them just happens to show up at the same hotel in Florida!). However, because it is from the fifties and in black and white, today's audiences tend to be a little more accepting, as if to assume that's they way things were done back then.

While I don't agree that plot contrivance was a staple of 1950's cinema (though it is pre-eminent in a lot of Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond screenplays), I do agree that SOME LIKE IT HOT is a fabulous comedy. The key question is what makes it overcome those more absurd moments. It's not the performances. In spite of her iconic stature, Marilyn Monroe was never a very good actor and that remains true here. Tony Curtis is better imitating Cary Grant than he is at playing the Joe/Josephine character. Jack Lemmon doesn't disappoint and has many strong moments, even though when he is his Daphne make-up, his uncanny resemblance to The Joker from the BATMAN movies is very disconcerting.

No, I think what makes SOME LIKE IT HOT work is outstanding, precise direction. Billy Wilder writes some great dialogue, but I think his most underrated contribution to cinema comedy is his sense of pace and comic timing. The way some of his stronger films move and seem to breathe give them an energy that keeps the audience involved in the story, but also, to some degree, hides the less plausible elements of the plot. Even some of his lesser work like ONE, TWO, THREE (the Reel 13 Classic from March 29th) relies heavily on alternating between freneticism and stoicism and knowing just when to employ each (Soderbergh calls it "rhythm and release"). The staging of scenes borrow equally from Ernst Lubitsch (dialogue-driven) and Mack Sennett (physical comedy) to create this hybrid style that became all Wilder – a sort of modern farce that, in the case of SOME LIKE IT HOT, had particular resonance because of how it innocuously played with sexual conventions at a time when attitudes toward sex and sexuality were starting to shift.

Most importantly, however, is that SOME LIKE IT HOT is just great fun. Smart dialogue, sharp direction, disguises, mistaken identity – the works, all executed with great deftness and care. While I disagree that SOME LIKE IT HOT is the greatest comedy of all time (haven't they seen AIRPLANE?) or that it is Billy Wilder's best film (see last week's blog for THE APARTMENT), it's still a fabulous, memorable movie that in spite of its penchant for silliness, will probably live forever.

Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:48 PM by jjgittes | with 0 comments