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

jjgittes Blog

  • Strangers on a Train on Reel 13

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

    While STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, which aired on Reel 13 this past Saturday, generally isn't considered amongst Hitchcock's upper echelon of films (VERTIGO, PSYCHO, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, THE BIRDS), it's still an effective and entertaining work of cinema with several sequences that remind us why Hitch is such a master of his craft.

    One only needs to watch the opening sequence, which we used to study in film school ad nauseum, to get a sense of what I mean. Hitchcock opens the movie by following the shoes of the two main characters as they arrive at the train station and make their way toward their inevitable meeting on the train. It's brilliant because of its simplicity and also how it affects multiple things at once. It offers mystery by not showing us faces, but through the design of the shoes and the nature of each character's stride, we immediately get a general sense of who each of them are without a word of dialogue spoken. It's truly visual storytelling at its best.

    Another example of Hitchcock at his best is the first carnival sequence in which Bruno stalks Miriam from ride to ride. In his interview with Francois Truffaut, Hitchcock explained that suspense happens when the audience knows something the character's don't. It seems so simple when you think about it, but his vocalization of it has stuck with me for a decade. This carnival scene is a prime example that he practiced what he preached and understood the concept thoroughly. The sequence is intense because you know that at some point, Bruno is going to pounce, but you don't know when, where or how. Hitchcock takes advantage of this and tortures you on ride after ride, carnival booth after carnival booth, until you have bitten your nails down to the nub. Also, the gaiety of the carnival of the background is a great counterpoint for the menace in the air. Hitchcock was always great at combining elements like this.

    Another staple of Hitchcock, however, even in his best work, is some moments of unfortunate implausibility that are usually forgiven given the high quality of the rest of the film. In STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, the weakest link is the casting, marked mostly by the casting of his own daughter in a major supporting role. The leads, who are least professionals, don't fare much better, though. Farley Granger is stiff and uninteresting as the two-dimensional Guy Haines while Robert Walker has the opposite issue as Bruno. He overplays his hand severely time and time again and never manages to scare anybody when he speaks. It's only when Hitchcock shuts him up does he ever seem threatening.

    Additionally, there are major contrivances within the plot that Hitchcock doesn't bother to try and soften. Even the very premise is a hard pill to swallow – given Bruno's behavior on the train, it's hard to believe that straight-laced Guy would have put up with him as much as he does. Also, the way that character that wear eyeglasses factor into the mystery is a bit of a reach. And the moment when Bruno becomes Elastic-Man to rescue a key piece of evidence is eyeroll-inducing.

    Despite all these hiccups, there's no question that STRANGERS ON A TRAIN delivers the goods. As a matter of fact, Hitchcock is a perfect match with Patricia Highsmith who penned the novel on which the film is based – the same way fellow countryman David Lean was a great match with Dickens in last week's GREAT EXPECTATIONS. And in both films, you see each master playing with ideas and techniques that they will utilize to much greater effect in subsequent films.


  • Jumping Off Bridges on Reel 13

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

    It stands to reason, I suppose, that a movie about depression is one of the most depressing movies I've ever seen. JUMPING OFF BRIDGES, which aired last night on Reel 13, adds insult to injury, however, by not even being a good movie about depression. It is slow, boring, quiet, sparse, ill-conceived and with one exception, poorly acted. I was counting the minutes until it was over (I suppose I could have turned it off, but something in my DNA insists that I watch movies all the way through).

    Overall, the downfall of JUMPING OFF BRIDGES is that it isn't very natural in any way. The unnaturally sparse production design can be forgiven in most indies – it's a byproduct of low budget cinema, but unnatural writing/performances are less justifiable. Chiefly, it is the quietness of the film that doesn't ring true. I've always suggested less is more, but director Kat Candler took that concept to an extreme and divorced the film from any energy or any sense of life surrounding the primary characters and hence left the film devoid of the verisimilitude that I believe she was aiming for.

    The film deals with four teenagers who cope with a series of tragic events, but the kids don't seem to have any acting training, which can work out fine (see THE 400 BLOWS or May 17th's RAISING VICTOR VARGAS). However, given the emotional territory that these kids were asked to explore, I wonder that it wouldn't have benefited the film to cast young actors with more experience. The film is anchored by the fine performance of Michael Emerson as the father of the main boy. He seems to be the only real actor in the film. While he is best known for his work on LOST, I personally still can't get his performance as Oscar Wilde in the 1997 off-Broadway play GROSS INDECENCY out of my head. As good as I know he is, I still see his Wilde in everything he does, which can be distracting.

    Of course, none of the actors are helped by the awfully simplistic writing – there's very little complexity or depth to the scenes. It seems to me that Ms. Candler, who also served as the screenwriter, had a mission or a point to make before she had a story to tell. In other words, I suspect that her life or family has been touched with issues of depression and suicide and she had something to say about it; something to tell the world and she shaped her story around that concept. One has to be careful when approaching a project that way because one can get so wrapped up in what they want to preach that they neglect the basics of strong storytelling. The result is what you get with JUMPING OFF BRIDGES – a glorified after-school special.


  • Swimming on Reel 13

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

    Swimming  (2000)

    Right off the bat, SWIMMING, the latest indie to air on Reel 13, earns points with some of its casting. Lauren Ambrose is one of our finest young actors and even though she was particularly young when she made this film, she provides the film with the grounded anchor it so desperately needs. Her large, deep eyes convey layers upon layers of emotion and character detail. If not for Ambrose and, to some degree, talented nebbish actor Josh Pais in a strong supporting role, SWIMMING wouldn't come close to saying afloat.

    To be simplistic about it, SWIMMING is mostly dull and meandering. Ambrose plays Franky, a plain, shy young woman, who is stuck in a rut and is dying to escape the resort town of Myrtle Beach, SC where she grew up. The film follows one particular summer when two different wanderers enter her life – the knockout blonde waitress Josee (Joelle Carter) and a stoner, tie-dye shirt salesman Heath (Jamie Harrold). She is drawn to both of them, both spiritually and sexually, as they appeal to her sense of adventure – the kind of excitement she lacks in her life. The problem, however, is that both characters are written two-dimensionally and despite being pleasing to the eye, aren't appealing enough to the audience for us to support Ambrose pursuing either relationship. One can't help but hope for her to escape into a different movie.

    From a stylistic point of view, SWIMMING isn't without merit. It's a very quiet, deliberate film, which is often nice, but it could have used the occasional injection of energy. Overall, I thought the editing was strong. Director Robert Siegel made the bold choice of cutting out of many scenes a beat or two early than you'd expect. This was never jarring, but instead, was effective and efficient. More often than not, directors linger in scenes past where they need to. Siegel shows you what he needs to and then moves on. I also thought that he handled Franky's sexual confusion with tact and restraint. Frequently, relationships between attractive lesbians in films can feel exploitive – formulated for shock value or titillation instead for truth of plot and character. SWIMMING thankfully avoided that pitfall.

    I want to be clear and point out that I didn't hate SWIMMING. However, it failed to capture my imagination in any way that left a lingering impact on me. In spite of Ambrose's presence, the film truthfully just wasn't very interesting. I found myself indifferent to the conflicts within the film and to the plights of the various characters. While I see that the director's intentions were to provide a slice-of-life, coming-of-age type tale that avoided melodrama and high concept storytelling, that doesn't relieve him of his duty to make us care.


  • Great Expectations on Reel 13

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

    Certainly, you can't go too wrong (as was the case on Reel 13 this past Saturday) when you've got two British masters in play – the ever-amazing David Lean (LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, DOCTOR ZHIVAGO) adapting Charles Dickens. This is early Lean, but you can already get a sense of his manipulation of powerful imagery (even in black and white) to achieve maximum impact. You can even see him start to experiment with scope and depth, though budget and technical limitations seem to prevent him from accomplishing the kind of iconic shots he would later become known for.

    Fortunately, GREAT EXPECTATIONS lacks the kind of stuffiness one might expect from a British literary adaptation. It is briskly paced, clever and well-crafted. I don't remember all that it cut from the very long novel (the film is only two hours long – short for a Dickensian adaptation), but it didn't seem to be missing anything, which is a testament to the outstanding screenplay, co-written by Lean. Oddly enough, some of the coincidences within the world of Dickens don't hold up like they used to. I suppose the contrivances didn't bother me as much as a student, but now I found myself thinking 'Really? All these strangers are actually connected?' The more I thought about it, the more I realized how much Dickens relied on the random and rather implausible interconnections between people across countries and counties. His novels were initially published in a serialized format and if you think about it, that aspect of it, combined with the style of the plot seems more connected to the modern soap opera than anything else.

    Before I seem like too much of a blasphemer, let me add that there are several elements that raise Dickens above mere melodrama. The oft-copied Miss Havisham character, for example, is a great and wonderful creation and Martita Hunt's trippy performance does the unique and iconic character due justice. It was also good to see one of my favorites - Jean Simmons - again, making her third appearance this year on Reel 13. She is as wonderfully appealing as the young version of the famous beauty Estella as she was as an adult in THE ROBE (1/19/08) and GUYS AND DOLLS (2/16/08). Unfortunately, Valerie Hobson, as the adult Estella, isn't half as attractive or engaging as her precocious counterpart, which is one of the few disappointments in the film. The rest of the supporting cast (including an unrecognizable, baby Alec Guinness) are all capable thespians who deliver nuanced, detailed character portraits. That leaves us with John Mills as the main character, Pip. I was actually impressed with Mills – he manages to infuse Pip with edge and spunk that was missing on the pages of the novel and he does so without losing the character's earnestness. Unfortunately (despite winning an Oscar in 1970), today John Mills is better known as the father of Disney's girl next door from the 60's, Hayley Mills (POLLYANNA, THE PARENT TRAP).

    I have to say that in a way, the mistakes/flaws of GREAT EXPECTATIONS were as exciting as the triumphs. There were a few times that Lean chose to employ long fades to black in between "chapters" that only accomplished interrupting the strong rhythm that they established. The film also could have used more cutaway reaction shots, instead of, for the most part, using primarily the master or cutting strictly to the person speaking. The other little nitpicky note I made was in regards to Lean and the cinematographer's artistic license with candlelight as a light source. If somebody lights a candle in GREAT EXPECTATIONS, someone turns on a huge 500K light or something, simulating the brightest candle EVER. It's the kind of sloppiness that is still an attribute amongst young filmmakers and Lean would go on to correct all these types of mistakes in his future masterpieces. But that's perhaps the most exciting/interesting thing about seeing GREAT EXPECTATIONS again. We got to see a young genius cutting his teeth and learning his craft, the results of which are amongst cinema's greatest achievements.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<June 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
25262728293031
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293012345


Categories
 


Advertisement