Username Password Remember me Forgot password?

Wanna join? Sign up

Find movies you'll love

Reel Thoughts

Oscar Flashback: Monster (2003)

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

Under discussion:

Monster (2003)

What's an Oscar Flashback (tm)? Read here:

Next on my Netflix queue was Monster, for which Charlize Theron won the Best Actress Oscar (film year, 2003; awarding year, 2004). The other nominees for Best Actress in this category were:

21 Grams - Naomi Watts

In America - Samantha Morton

Something's Gotta Give - Diane Keaton

Whale Rider - Keisha Castle-Hughes

This movie also represents the second of five LGBT-themed Oscar movies at the top of my Netflix queue (thanks to my stream of consciousness queuing). Just in case you were keeping track.

Monster tells the true story of serial killer Aileen Wuornos (Theron), a hooker who had been abused as a child and resorted to prostitution when she ran away from home in Michigan and went to Florida at the age of 13. One night in the late 80s, when her car broke down (or she was stranded by her latest john, I wasn't quite clear on that point), she ends up in a local gay bar where she meets Selby (Christina Ricci), who is immediately attracted to "Lee." While Lee recoils at first, the two form a fast friendship that later evolves into a romantic and then physical relationship. Selby leaves the shelter of her father's friends, with whom she was staying to "clear her head" after her father found out she was gay, for a life of cheap hotel rooms and apartments and relative starvation with Lee. To pay the bills, Lee keeps hooking, but one night, when a potential john rapes her and tries to kill her, Lee manages to get free and kill him in self defense. The action is understandable and sympathetic, but the incident incites Lee's inner levee to break, and she begins to attack and kill other clients as if in vengeance for her lot in life and previous abuse. In so doing, she slowly loses her mind. All the while, Selby watches helplessly as her lover seems to lose all connection to reality and as law enforcement officials pick up on the trail of murders and bear down on Lee and Selby.

Apparently, there were documentaries about Wuornos that partially informed this film version. Wuornos was ultimately sentenced to death, a sentence that was completed in 2002. The footnote to the film provides this fact, and it's not really a spoiler – information is widely available about this woman and her actions – but it's important to know when considering what the filmmakers might have been trying to say by making this film to begin with.

All in all, I found this film to be another mixed bag of good points and bad points. To start with the good, much talk was had about how Theron might have won her Oscar because she was de-glamorized for the film to play this woman beaten down by life and poverty, but attributing this performance to make-up only is to do it an injustice. Theron clearly threw herself into the role so much that her facial expressions did not even seem to be hers anymore. Actually, at times, she kind of looked like Katherine Heigl, but that's a digression. My disbelief was completely suspended because Theron played this disturbed, traumatized woman so well, I actually forgot it was her by the end of the film. If she didn't deserve the award, I don't know who did. Of the five nominees, however, I've only seen Something's Gotta Give (and in that film, Diane Keaton was acting like, well, Diane Keaton).

By the same token, I felt Christina Ricci was completely miscast. Maybe it's the fact that she still looks like a child, or maybe it was the fact that Selby was painted to be insecure and immature, but the whole performance felt off to me. Selby elicited some sympathy when her life became a nightmare in the wake of Lee's deteriorating sanity, and it's not Ricci's skill that left something to be desired; I think she did well. I just don't think she was right for the part. Maybe I don't know enough about Wuornos' real-life lover, but I couldn't suspend disbelief for Ricci as Selby, and it left me feeling extreme disjointedness and a sense of surreal about the entire film.

It didn't help that the film actually devoted some focus to Selby's particular story. If the film was supposed to be an examination of Wuornos in an effort to challenge the viewer to sympathize (or at least understand) the motives of this particular serial killer, it didn't make sense to show Selby's familial and other struggles for acceptance of her sexuality. This lack of focus is probably why I had such a hard time buying Ricci in the part. The film had enough to deal with in trying to paint a picture of a troubled woman's descent into madness and violence without adding this other dynamic into the mix. This lack of focus also served to undermine any appreciation or enjoyment I might have had of the film.

While the director of the film, Patty Jenkins, handled what could only be classified as controversial subject matter with deference and balance, the question still remains whether the film achieved what it was aiming to do. For the most part, I think it did, if the point was to dissect Wuornos' motivations and to give her an aspect of humanity in a situation for which she could easily, and possibly rightfully, be vilified without redemption. After all, her life and times were hard, and the first murder could at least be understandable even as all of the subsequent murders were neither understandable nor defensible. The problem is, the film was trying to divide its focus between Wuornos as a killer and Wuornos as a lover, and neither aspect was given a sufficient flush to correlate and to ultimately connect the viewer to her story. Also, by "connect," I don't mean "relate," but if the subject is important enough in this director's eye to film, then there is obviously a message or a stand to make here, and I think the film was trying to take too many stands at once. With focus on Wuornos' life, there should have been a bit more narrative to further explain her childhood, other than hints at the beginning and a hysterical monologue more than halfway through the film as the guilt of Lee's actions begins to overwhelm her. Plus, it was difficult to understand why Theron as Wuornos narrated the piece if some focus was going to be given to the Selby character too. All in all, the movie was just not filmed in a very tight or concentrated manner, and Theron's performance notwithstanding, lacked or at least undermined the emotional punch for which the film seemed so desperately to strive.

As another small gripe, while I quite enjoy Journey's "Don't Stop Believin'," and maybe the lyrics fit some of the sentiments of the film, the use of the song for this film furthered its surreal quality, and surreal does not fit with a story that is supposed to be based on and in reality. Yes, the song was period (the late 80s), but the use of this song struck me as kind of hokey when the subject matter of this film was anything but.

All in all, I did not really care for Monster the film, even if Theron's performance was, in fact, Oscar-caliber. The lack of narrative focus and other elements made Theron's contribution to the film that much more heroic even as the film itself lost me to its mire of related but under serviced themes and/or messages. After some consideration, I believe this film merits a 6.5 between cute/mediocre and shaky/entertaining, and it doesn't pass the test. This film undertook a monster of a topic but ultimately lost its teeth by its finish.

Posted Sunday, April 26, 2009 4:40 PM by pippin06 | with 0 comments

Viewing From Here to Eternity for the AFI Project

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

Under discussion:

Film Name Production Year

From Here to Eternity (1953)

What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx

From Here to Eternity is on the following AFI lists:

The Original Top 100 (#52)
100 Years...100 Passions (#20)

I watched this next AFI entry instantly on Netflix. The only impression I had about this film going in was the vague feeling that I had seen it before. Now, having seen it for certain, I can't say I had previously watched it, at least not in its entirety. I might have seen parts, but it was so long ago, the entire film felt fresh, despite the slight twinge déjà vu clouding the proceedings.

Apparently, the film is based on a novel that was very popular in the years preceding its release. It has a very melodramatic novel-esque sort of title, I think. I've never read the book. The factoid I found most curious prior to starting the film is that, though this film is ranked somewhat highly on the Original AFI list, it was not ranked at all on the Revised/Anniversary list. I was curious as to why that might be. After seeing it, I think the answer isn't as mysterious as the question.

From Here to Eternity tells the story of an army barracks in Honolulu, a few miles from Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, just prior to the bombing of that port and the involvement of the United States in World War II. Private Robert E. Lee "Prew" Prewitt (Montgomery Clift) arrives at the barracks as a transplant after getting into some trouble at his previous post, and the presiding captain, Holmes, who is something of a corrupt and ambitious officer, immediately informs Prew that he was given special treatment in hopes that he will compete for the barracks' boxing team as the middleweight superstar he is reputed to be. Prew, who quit boxing because he sent his last opponent into a coma, refuses, and Captain Holmes and his boxing squad see fit to never let Prew forget it, giving him the worst details and generally bullying him, even despite intervention from his buddy Maggio (Frank Sinatra, in an Oscar-winning supporting role). In the background, silently watching over him as much as getting his own needling in, is Lieutenant Milt Warden (Burt Lancaster), a no-nonsense unit supervisor who likes Prew against his better judgment. He also likes the captain's wife Karen (Deborah Kerr) against his better judgment. Karen and the captain, meanwhile, have spent the best part of their married years cheating on each other, and when she notices the spark between her and Warden, she obliges, replete with the famous make-out scene on the beach. While they are carrying on, Prew is surviving through his superb mastery of the bugle, by keeping to himself, and by happily accepting the tutelage of Maggio in taking in the sights and liquid delights at the New Congress Club, a members-only gentleman's club, where Prew finds Loreen, also known as Alma, (Donna Reed, in an Oscar-winning supporting role), a high-class hooker with a soft spot for his dewy eyes. While they clearly grow to love each other, and while Karen and Warden have a sincere love as well, neither man can abandon their love for the army nor for the country they have sworn to protect.

This film has its good points and its bad points. On the good side, the film is well acted, even if not well written or well directed. The most impressive performance belonged to Donna Reed, who was not at all Donna Reed-like in this against-type role. There were times when she portrayed an ugly and cynical worldview, and her fears and passions for Prew were decidedly sultry and sincere. It was probably the best performance of her career. Similarly, "ol' blue eyes" was a treat to watch as the funny and touching Maggio, who becomes involved in an ongoing fight for his life with the sadistic stockade sergeant, Fatso Judson (Ernest Borgnine), though his final scenes rang a bit over the top.

Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr were also good, and I guess their implied sexual and overtly adulterous love affair was quite the taboo-scoffer in the year of this film's release (1953). Bold as it was, however, the sex and passion of the picture was undermined by stunted and melodramatic dialogue.

In fact, that is my biggest complaint about this whole film: the entire story is portrayed in a cringingly melodramatic way. There's a primary plot point centered on the army and its inner workings, but the secondary plot points, notably the love affairs, were a touch histrionic, almost like soap operas (and, for the record, I don't really enjoy soap operas). They were indicative of the period, to be sure, but they also felt forced and unnatural and, in many ways, not relatable. There was a sweetness about Prew and Loreen and a sexy-ness about Warden and Karen, but, in the end, these love affairs are designed to be tragic, and the writing and dialogue, whether it originated from the novel or can be attributed to the adapting screenwriter's design, played more like dime-store romance novel than epic love story. In fact, some of the dialogue was simply downright cheesy.

As for technical achievements, the only scene that wowed me with its filmmaking acuity was when the bombing of Pearl Harbor began. The way it was filmed, with swooping planes crisscrossing the skies over the barracks, and the shots of running bodies on the ground meeting grisly ends like dominoes toppled by automatic airborne gunfire was actually quite exciting and gave me goose bumps, in a way that the film "Pearl Harbor" never did. The sound and sound effects in this portion of the film were quite impressive for the year in which it was released. Fred Zinnemann's direction in this particular part of the film was also extremely poignant, as the focus seemed to shift toward patriotism, honor, and duty, which is why the film resonates more like a war movie than a romance drama. Of course, the pacing for the entire rest of the film belied the direction toward the exciting bombing scenes by being methodical and slow (and, yes, I experienced some sleepiness).

Is it one of America's 100 greatest films in history? I would argue no. It's really the makings of an early summer blockbuster but doesn't have the solid foundation and building blocks, such as good writing, to give it that "greatness" sheen. Incidentally, the movie that replaced it at this rank was Taxi Driver, so all in all, the idea that the Revised list is more reflective of timelessness and greatness – and the need to make a Revised list to begin with - is believable. I'm not exactly sure what attracted the AFI to this film in the first place, so, perhaps, someone who enjoyed it better than me might like to comment.

Ultimately, though, I enjoyed parts of From Here to Eternity, though I did not necessarily enjoy the film as a whole. It's not a film that engaged me consistently, and though it might have been a successful movie upon its release, it has not held up well as a film that merits a "greatest" rank or a film that transcends its era in timelessness or even as a film I might be inclined to pull out to watch or to recommend. There are other, better-written war romances and better war films in general. There are also better films about life in the army. As such, I'm inclined to rate this film a 6.5 for being between cute/mediocre and shaky/entertaining. I wouldn't call the film mediocre, but it's not necessarily good either. From Here to Eternity also does not pass the test, for the reasons I stated above, and I would only recommend the film if one indiscriminately enjoys films of this type or is a fan of any of the actors in this ensemble cast; in fact, I think it would be a good late night old-movie-channel popcorn flick if not a worthwhile destination movie.

Posted Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:36 PM by pippin06 | with 0 comments

Oscar Flashback: Boys Don't Cry (1999)

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

Under discussion:

Film Name Production Year

Boys Don't Cry (1999)

Welcome to a new feature on Reel Thoughts – and, perhaps, something I should have begun a long time ago. In light of a recent discussion that heated up (in a good way) in the Oscars group (request membership!), I have decided, since my Netflix queue is pockmarked with contenders and winners of Oscars past and semi-present, that I would call attention to and/or highlight this status, since I frequently, if not always, am inspired to watch such films because the Academy saw fit to recognize them at least through nominations. Now, some may call that a narrow or limited worldview, but the fact of the matter is that I, personally, watch many types of films, not just Oscar films, and, just like for the AFI Project, this feature will be associated merely with what's up on the queue, not to the exclusion of viewing those other films (and will apply to only those films I haven't blogged about before--though I may go back and edit the others--and to those that are not on an AFI list). Notably, I am drawn to the Oscar contenders, though, because I love the broadcast with all of its overwrought pageantry, and sometimes, just sometimes, I think the Academy gets it right.

So, for a film deemed an "Oscar Flashback," you'll see these new elements in addition to the format to which I, and perhaps you, have sort of grown accustomed in this blog (if you're paying attention at all, thank you): a mention of the Oscar for which the film was nominated or won and a list of the other nominees. It's important to have context, see. There will also be a comparison discussion, if at all possible – as in, did the film deserve to win or lose, not only in my humble estimation but also in the grand context of the awards themselves. After all, the most convolutedly celebrated and despised aspect of the Oscars is the political and populist propensity of the Academy to award some films and not others, deservingly or no. Of course, there are those who just don't like the concept of an Oscars, but, to those readers, I would submit that this portion of my blog is probably not your cup of tea anyway.

So, the first Oscar entry flashback is Boys Don't Cry (which is also the first of the quintet of LGBT-themed Oscar films I alluded to previously), for which Hilary Swank won the Best Actress Oscar and for which Chloe Sevigny was nominated for Best Supporting Actress (film year 1999; awarding year 2000). The other nominees in both categories were:

Boys Don't Cry - Hilary Swank

American Beauty - Annette Bening

The End of the Affair - Julianne Moore

Music of the Heart - Meryl Streep

Tumbleweeds - Janet McTeer

Girl, Interrupted - Angelina Jolie

The Sixth Sense - Toni Collette

Being John Malkovich - Catherine Keener

Boys Don't Cry - Chloë Sevigny

Sweet and Lowdown - Samantha Morton

Boys Don't Cry is a biopic about Teena Brandon aka Brandon Teena, a transsexual man who was ultimately raped and murdered in rural Nebraska in 1993. Swank plays Brandon, and as the film opens, Brandon is establishing his male identity in appearance while fleeing his hometown of Lincoln, Nebraska, for nearby Falls City due to some petty thefts and other misdemeanors for which a warrant for his arrest has been distributed. While in Falls City, Brandon becomes associated with a rough crowd, including John (Peter Saarsgard), Tom (Brendan Sexton III), and Lana (Sevigny), for whom Brandon falls and who used to date John. While Brandon lives with another member of the group, Candace (Alecia Goranson - Becky from Roseanne!), he also gets a reputation for being a bit of a ladies' man. The film explores the growing relationship, sexual and romantic, between Lana and Brandon that begins almost immediately, but when the warrant for his arrest catches up with Brandon, he is jailed in the women's section of the prison, and the local paper publishes the arrest. Lana visits him and is accepting of the truth, but when John, Tom, and John's family learn that Brandon is biologically female, they visit their bigotry upon Brandon with the worst ultimate consequences.

This film is actually very well put together, thanks to the direction of Kimberly Peirce, in her debut outing. She clearly thoroughly researched her subject and put together the building blocks of this film in an engaging way. Between creative uses of lighting and camera and a well-chosen soundtrack, she heightened the emotional intensity of an already emotionally intense subject and made it hard to look away even as it was hard to watch. As an independent picture, there weren't many flashy technical elements, but Peirce strategically and artistically painted Brandon's chaotic life with washes of light and dark that upped the emotional ante of the picture.

Of course, the true trademark of this film is the no less than gutsy and riveting performance of Swank. Of the five Best Actress films nominated from 1999, I've only seen two now: American Beauty and this one. While Annette Bening was truly nutty and interesting in the former, which is one of my favorite films, I can't imagine how Swank would lose this award at the time she was given it. She took on a difficult character - difficult not only because Brandon was a transman but also because the emotional context was so powerfully confused and gut-skewering by the time Brandon's physical gender is discovered - and she did it in such a way that disbelief was completely suspended.

Of the supporting actress nominees for 1999, I have seen three: this film, The Sixth Sense, and Being John Malkovich. I have not seen the winner, Girl, Interrupted, so I can't comment as to whether Angelina Jolie deserved to win that particular award. I can surmise that this was also a tough role for Sevigny, playing a woman confused but ultimately accepting of her relationship with someone having a sexual identity crisis, who is left behind when John and Tom commit their heinous actions. She also played Lana extremely convincingly. It's Swank's and Sevigny's performances that define the film and make it as good as it is.

Aside from these two actresses, however, the film isn't perfect. The performances from the rest of the ensemble, most of which are relatively unknown B-actors, are not quite as skillfully rendered, with the exception of Saarsgard, who put a fresh spin of evil on the consequences of old prejudices. Also, apparently some license was taken with the story, which is to be expected in a transition to film but can also serve to undermine the point of making the film to begin with. Apparently, the real Lana sued the filmmakers because of how her character was portrayed in addition to inaccurately showing some of the details and chronology of events, and since she's a sympathetic character (even if she is shown to be young and spun out on drugs), there is a problem with taking license in what is a biopic meant to highlight certain themes, such as bigotry against transgendered individuals. Also, I like the title of the film, but if you're going to use the title of a fairly well known Cure song, why use a remakeof the song in the film? Perhaps, Peirce couldn't get the rights, but the remaking artists could? I feel like both versions should have been included because I was personally expecting the Cure's version. It's a small gripe, but, again, it's the title of the film, and that's a fairly well known song.

It was hard for me to love this picture because of its subject matter and minor flaws as stated above, but it's still a powerful and emotional movie that can inspire true anger and sadness at the state of the world today (or even just ten years ago). Transsexuality is still largely misunderstood if understood at all, but resorting to violence when confronted with what one does not understand is not right or appropriate, which is the underscoring theme of this piece. In ratings land, I think this film deserves an 8 for being very good but with minor flaws. In the test's land, I don't see it passing, simply because I could never watch this film more than once. It's hard to watch, and it should be - but because of that, it doesn't merit repeat viewings and, therefore, a place in my collection. Still, it's a good film, deserving of its Oscar, and recommendable to those interested in Brandon Teena's story.

Posted Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:47 PM by pippin06 | with 0 comments

Revisiting The Philadelphia Story for the AFI Project

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

Under discussion:

The Philadelphia Story (1940)

What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx

The Philadelphia Story is on the following AFI lists:

The Original Top 100 (#51)
100 Funniest Films (#15)
100 Years...100 Passions (#44)
The Revised Top 100 (#44)
10 Top 10's (#5 Romantic Comedy)

I saw The Philadelphia Story initially as one of the films I consented to watch the first time I tried to make it through the Original AFI list. Ever since then, I've counted it among my top ten favorite films of all time (so long as you count trilogies as one movie :-D). Sure, it's a romantic comedy, and sure, it follows the formula established a few years earlier by It Happened One Night, but what the Philadelphia Story has that most romantic comedies typically don't is a high threshold of wit, a wonderfully written adapted screenplay with more layers than its surface belies, and three legendarily wonderful actors rounding out a truly superb cast. To think that a film with Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, and James Stewart would have any potential to be somehow less-than or worse would be a sort of blasphemy indeed. Plus, the film is just downright funny. It makes me giggle every time I see it, and I've seen it many times in the last decade or so.

The Philadelphia Story opens with wealthy Philadelphia socialite C.K. Dexter Haven (Grant) walking out on his wife, Tracy Lord-Haven (Hepburn). She breaks his putter. He "socks" her and knocks her on her million-dollar keister. Cut to two years later: the society pages are announcing the pending nuptials of Tracy to miner-turned-mogul George Kittridge (John Howard), who is stalwartly not part of the old-time Philadelphia aristocracy, even as he wants their privileges. Though the wedding is the talk of the town, Tracy has some high-minded ideals (because, in fact, all of her ideals are high-minded) about keeping her family's private business out of the publicly-consumed tabloid papers. The trouble is, tabloid rag Spy Magazine has been targeting her citadel of privacy for years and decides to send in snarky writer-reporter Macaulay Connor (Stewart) and photographer Elizabeth Imbrie (Ruth Hussey) to cover the event - with the help of "Dex" and his prior family connections. Knowing that the presence of reporters in the house might cause one of their famous rows, Dexter explains to Tracy that Spy's editor, Sidney Kidd, will publish a story implicating her philadering father unless she cooperates. Begrudgingly, she obliges, though on her own terms, and the resulting comedy of errors bears witness to something of a love rectangle with a predictable yet hilariously satisfying outcome.

I love this film as much as I do because first and foremost: it's funny. It's so funny! I was in stitches the first time I saw it, and I've still been known to giggle at it after years of repeat viewings. The dialogue and story, adapted from the play of the same name by the actual playwright, includes so many excellent one-liners, candidly ascerbic and timeless observations, and undeniable wit, it's hard not to fall in love with it. In fact, the storyline unfolds not unlike an Oscar Wilde play, minus the pithy English affectations. The banter is quick and intelligent, the commentary is about the disparities of class, and the situations are a bit screwball without actually crossing the line. My favorite scenes start with the pre-wedding party at Uncle Willie's house, at which point Tracy - who has always chastised her ex-husband for his seeming if slight alcoholism - has begun to be tidily intoxicated on champagne herself, after hearing about some of her less-ideal personality traits from her ex-husband and father and after drowning her sorrows in the bubbly. These scenes progress the budding romance between Connor and Tracy, while they are both intoxicated, and because these two actors were so good at what they did, the scenes themselves are perfectly executed and roll-on-the-floor-with-hysterical-laughter humorous.

Second: this film contains three legendary actors that were never in another film together again and that were at their finest at the time of its making. Hepburn negotiated a comeback for herself after years of being labeled "box office poison," but the role suited her to a tee, and you have to admire her sense of survival and business acumen. In fact, I admire the choice to play this character, even if it is similar to the actress portraying her: a strong, opinionated female during a time when women weren't encouraged for such behavior. Now, of course, the morals of the story find Tracy being too strong and, therefore, weakened by her own prejudice against weakness, but we'll ignore that for now. One of my two favorite Hepburns was brilliant in the role; her performance is an absolute treat to watch.

The other two were also in top form. Stewart won the only Oscar of his career for this movie, and while many thought he should have won for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, I would submit that his performance in this film is at least unique. It was not frequent that Jimmy played cynical and sardonic, and even his character in Rear Window doesn't quite measure up to the Connor character's piercingly merciless commentaries on class. Coupled with a supporting turn by Ruth Hussey that actually inspires me to want to play her role if I ever get a chance to be part of the stage version, the novelty of seeing Jimmy Stewart in this film doing this particular type of character - so against his type of imperfect but relatable everymen - is truly worth the watch. And, of course, Cary Grant was at his dapper and debonair finest, even if the character wasn't much of a stretch for him.

Finally: even though the film is a romantic comedy with at least an expected outcome, the journey toward that outcome makes everything entirely fulfilling. Tracy learns some lessons, Dexter learns (or re-learns) forgiveness, Connor relaxes his own prejudices. Plus, the subtext of the story is to remark on tabloid voyeurism and the idiosyncracies of the wealthy. This kind of discussion, even if superfically considered in a romantic comedy, is as timeless as this film has now become.

All in all, I can't say enough good things about The Philadelphia Story, and I haven't noticed any flaws or elements that detract from this film for me, save for the semi-abrupt ending, but that's only because it leaves me wanting more. It may not be George Cukor's most visually creative picture, but there are some romantically poetic uses of camera and lighting to create and reflect mood, such as the scene when Tracy stares thoughtfully at the model of her prior honeymoon sailboat in her pool that was given to her by Dexter as a wedding present. Ultimately, though, the true Philadelphia Story is about its pitch-perfect writing and one-shot assembly of such a talented and enjoyable ensemble cast. I consider this film something of a masterpiece - I feel like it's the perfect thinking-person's romcom - and so I'm actually inclined to give the film a 10 for masterpiece! I also own the film. It passed the test ages ago. So, what can I say? The Philadelphia Story is highly entertaining, deserves all of its AFI rankings, and should not be missed.

Posted Friday, April 17, 2009 7:46 PM by pippin06 | with 4 comments

Viewing Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for the AFI Project

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

Under discussion:

Film Name Production Year

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

What's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is on the following AFI lists:

The Original Top 100 (#50)
100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#54)
100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid are the #20 heroes)
100 Greatest Film Songs (#23 - "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head")
The Revised Top 100 (#73)
10 Top 10's (#7 Western)

I borrowed this film from my parents again, given that they seem to have many of those canonical films released during the late 60s and early 70s. I was familiar with its existence pretty much my whole life but never had much interest in watching it until I was reviewing the AFI lists for this project. If you've been following these entries, you may remember that I don't really care for westerns; it's my least favorite film genre, and if I'm going to consent to watch one, I would hope that it turns out to be a really good film. I simply think that westerns often follow a certain formula, not unlike romantic comedies and other genre films, and I don't generally prefer this formula as opposed to others. I leave the theories as to why alone, but I can say that this film didn't disappoint - it was a good film, due largely in part to the chemistry between its two stars, Paul Newman and Robert Redford, and due to its glib and witty script, for which it won an Oscar. I'm not sure I understand why it's considered one of the greatest American films in just about every one of the above lists, however, but I still found it entertaining.

Butch Cassidy (Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Redford) are the two last-standing outlaws of the Hole-in-the-Wall gang. The film opens with a silent movie of sorts introducing the viewer to the Gang and its legendary exploits in the Old West. It then segues to the two pals and partners finding themselves amid a mutiny from one of the Gang members. This showdown is designed to clue the viewer into the fact that Butch and Sundance are no ordinary men; they're skilled with firearms, quick on the draw, and smarter than the average bears. After this little uprising is settled, the two friends and gang-leaders decide to rob a train not once but twice, thanks to the idea of the now-deceased mutineer, the logic being that the train company will never expect the second hit. Butch and Sundance happily gloat after the first hit, resting with Sundance's girlfriend, school marm Etta (Katharine Ross) and listening to the local law enforcement sweat over the details, but during the second robbery, Butch overuses the dynamite on the safe, now under extra protection because of the first theft, and blows half the train and the money sky high. This prompts the railroad boss to hire the most skilled hitmen he can find to tail Butch and Sundance, as they flee across country. Though the pair manages to scale wide open spaces and a rocky gorge, the gang of hunters, including the legendary La Fours (known for his white hat) seem to tail them at every step, prompting Butch to suggest that the pair, along with Etta, flee to Bolivia. They successfully manage to arrive in the South American country, and while they continue their robbing business there, with Etta in tow teaching them awkward Spanish and vowing to leave before she is forced to watch them die, they soon suspect that La Fours has found them. The pair then make an effort to go into hiding by going straight and by working as payroll security for a mining operation, but when their boss is gunned down by local bandits, they are soon caught in the crosshairs once again. Etta leaves, sensing the worst, and the pair run once more, only to be cornered in a local village while soldiers surround the outlaws and await their latest bid for escape.

As I previously mentioned, this film would not be half so good as it is if it weren't for the otherwordly and charming chemistry between Newman and Redford. I don't believe I've seen The Sting (or any other films with both stars, if they exist), so I was not familiar with any previous performance dynamic between them. They were simply really funny, they are/were such consummate performers, and they seemed to really have fun with this picture, so much so that it worked to create a highly entertaining vehicle for them. It was their banter, often volleyed at a rapid pace, that kept my interest in the film--well, the banter coupled with their undisputed and undeniable good looks. My, they were such handsome men in their prime, weren't they? I probably would have had a Robert Redford pin-up or something if I'd lived at the time this movie was released. Seriously.

This film also had some creative direction by George Roy Hill, who included some great cinematography, using wide shots of natural landscapes. He also cleverly inserted sepia-toned silent films - or, at least, silent slide shows of photographs - at the beginning and at the halfway points of the film to effectively provide summaries of time and fast forward through events in order to reach the next narrative segments in a quicker manner. The originality of these insertions gave the film a certain charm, even if they were something of a narrative cheat, and were a welcome alternative to playing out all of the events in motion.

The ending was also one of the more perfect conclusions I've seen to any film. While I wasn't particularly wowed by anything up until the point (even by the handsome, handsome leads), the final scene left me feeling more satisfied than many other film endings and more satisfied about this film in general. I don't want to give anything away, so I would just say that Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid may be worth the watch simply for the perfectly executed finale, which combines all of the film's best elements into one action-packed, somewhat hilarious, and poignant moment.

Despite all of these positive aspects, however, I didn't love this film. First, the pacing was decidedly choppy and mostly slow to the point of distraction. Normally, I wouldn't mind slow, but considering the fact that Butch and Sundance's snappy banter moved much more quickly than the plot, I felt myself growing alternately impatient and sleepy. This was felt most acutely during the very protracted chase scenes in the Southwest, when Butch and Sundance are scaling the varied western terrains, and during the Bolivia scenes when they are attempting to resurrect their bank-robbing exploits (though not in the scene when Butch brings a crib-sheet of basic Spanish in terms of common words used in robberies; that was hilarious).

Second, I became rather uninterested in the character of Etta, and that's largely because a) it seemed to be a thankless and boring character, underdeveloped and unsympathetic, and b) it wasn't helped by Ross' somewhat stale and one-dimensional performance. I was not impressed by her in The Graduate and felt my respect for her wane more in this film. I'm not sure if it was because she did not have much to work with to start, but I felt myself grow somewhat irritated when she was present in scenes that could otherwise be filled with Butch and Sundance and their humor exclusively.

Third, I have trouble understanding why the Raindrops song was included in this film at all. They were in the desert. Will someone explain that to me? Did I miss something? It just felt hokey and tends to date this film more than any other element. I was discussing this fact with my mother, who likes this film; I have less luck with this era, in terms of finding films I enjoy, and I feel like it's because some of these late 60s movies incorporate aspects that render them feeling dated and more like time capsules than timelessly great films. I suppose the song's inclusion was whimsical and ironic, but some of that whimsical irony was lost on me because the film did not consistently sustain that tone, even given the verbal exchanges of Butch and Sundance.

In fact, I have problems with most of the AFI's rankings for this film. It's important to note that this is one of the films to slide substantially on the anniversary Greatest list - a whopping 23 points - and I think that's because the film has noticeable weaknesses/flaws. The AFI also ranked this film amongst its thrillers, which makes no sense at all (even counting the ending, which is the only time my heart pounded) and made Butch and Sundance high-ranked heroes - when they're wisecrackers in cowboy hats. I can see why, in the year 1969, they're rebellious anti-hero status might have made them appealing to young movie-goers and members of the counter-culture, but by today's standards, it's hard to agree that they're the kinds of heroes that inspire, at least in my opinion, as a voice from a later generation.

Ultimately, as scathing as these opinions might have sounded, I chalk this film up to a pleasantly amusing buddy picture. As westerns go, I enjoyed this more than most. I found myself being especially entertained by the chemistry between the two leads, and they're extreme good looks, though I think the film itself is good, too. I'm just not of the opinion that it's a great film. There are better westerns, better films from the era, and so on. I think the novelty of this film can be reduced to the dynamic between Redford and Newman, and the calibre of their performances makes me inclined to rate the film a 7.5 between shaky/entertaining and very good/minor flaws on the ratings scale. Still, their handsomeness and witty repartee doesn't leave me interested in buying Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, so it doesn't pass the test. I think people who generally enjoy westerns will probably love this film quite a bit, and I think if you're a fan of late 60s products, including The Graduate, Bonnie and Clyde, and Midnight Cowboy, the general tone of this film will also suit you. Otherwise, you might be left finding the film funny but ultimately empty in the end.

Posted Sunday, April 12, 2009 10:52 PM by pippin06 | with 0 comments

Hedwig and the Angry Inch Rocks Out to a Mean Tune

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

Under discussion:

Film Name Production Year

Hedwig and The Angry Inch (2001)

"Hedwig and the Angry Inch" constitutes the last of the indie quartet recently topping my Netflix queue, as well as an overlapping segue into the subsequent string of five LGBT-themed films that are next, all of which were nominated for Oscars. Hedwig was not nominated for an Oscar, but it won at least one Independent Spirit Award. I was interested in this film for a few reasons. First, I have some friends (of a certain persuasion) who simply adore this film, and I kind of wanted to be a part of the fan club or at least see what all the fuss was about. Second, it is a musical, and as a theater-addict, and as the film is based on a previous stage version, I was naturally drawn to it – plus, it has somewhat of a cult following in the vein of the Rocky Horror (Picture) Show, and I tend to enjoy those quirky, off-the-wall selections that no certifiably mainstream movie or theatre fan enjoys. Third, I've been craving something a little different in film lately, so it was fortuitous indeed that Hedwig happened to be at the queue's apex at this time. Hedwig is definitely a little different – in fact, there was clearly a design on the part of writer, star, and director John Cameron Mitchell to make it very different, even if at times, while watching the film, it felt like he was trying too hard to do so.

Mitchell plays the title role, as Hedwig and her band, the Angry Inch, tour shopping malls and a chain of dive restaurants in semi-major metropolitan areas across the country. Hedwig belts out her guttural yet biographical brand of rock music and delivers edgy quips while telling her story in flashback. Born young Hansel in East Berlin, in the year the wall was erected, he amuses himself by dancing on his mother's bed in their tiny, one-room apartment and by listening to American rock 'n' roll while his single mother cares for him (having evicted his father, who molested him when he was younger, from the home). As Hansel grows into his own sexual curiosity, he encounters an American GI named Luther, who falls for him and promises to whisk him away to America, provided that he get a sex change operation, as military men can only marry women. Hansel's mother endorses the idea in the hopes that he escapes Communist Germany, and bequeathing her name, Hedwig, to him, finds money to pay for the operation; however, it's botched, and Hedwig is left with a non-functional inch of flesh where her penis used to be. To rub salt into this ripening wound, on their one-year wedding anniversary, Luther leaves Hedwig at their trailer park for a man. In her anger, Hedwig seeks refuge in music, first playing with a quartet of Korean army wives; however, she meets young teenager Tommy (Michael Pitt), who is deeply religious and interested in mysticism and mythology. He is also sexually curious and likely gay, and, together, Hedwig and Tommy explore a tentative and intimate love relationship while writing songs together. Hedwig even christens Tommy "Gnosis," after a particular sect of Christian belief that elevates Eve and other female Biblical personae. The trouble is that Tommy, after an encounter with Hedwig's angry inch, abandons her and steals her music, getting rich and famous in the process. Thus, Hedwig and her band, consisting of her current lover Yitzhak (Miriam Shor), who dreams of dressing in drag but outwardly remains male for Hedwig, make due by playing for disinterested crowds in restaurants and malls near Tommy's headlining locations.

I liked Hedwig. I didn't love the film, though, mostly because I didn't relate to it much (and I've never seen the stage version, so I had no basis for comparison). The themes explored in this film touch religion, spirituality, and identity, not only sexual and gender identity but also self-identity as it relates to love. There were some powerful images, and the songs pretty much rocked. I particularly enjoyed "The Origin of Love." In fact, the singular most appealing part of the film is the musically rich and powerful songs delivered in a tour de force performance by Mitchell.

Because, while the music may be the soul of the movie, the magic and heart behind Hedwig is the man who created her in word and who played her both in the film and in the initial stage version. Mitchell oozes pure charisma, and the script/book, which he wrote, contains some acidly funny one-liners and observations about life and identity in addition to some emotionally powerful passages that Mitchell delivers with true panache. Since the film is Hedwig's story, Mitchell's performance as the main character was particularly vital in creating a connection to the viewer, whether the topic is ultimately relatable or no.

The film, however, lost focus, somewhat ironically, in its direction and cinematography. I think Mitchell, in the transition to celluloid, wanted to up the ante of the visual experience by employing a hodgepodge of different camera angles, techniques, and lighting palates. At one point, for example, the camera, in a jauntily vertical 360, encircles Hedwig's adult head in a mirror of his childhood (while he's laying in the oven). In fact, when the story is told in flashback or in a dream sequence, the techniques were visually interesting and often reflective of the primary emotions being conveyed; however, the more emotionally intense scenes, such as the intimate exchanges with Tommy, employed a more straightforward, visually uninteresting technique, which makes narrative sense but did not adequately draw focus to the budding relationship in a way that justified Hedwig's later obsession. Also, Mitchell's performance wavered in the scenes where more straightforward dialogue was used, and Pitt's heartbreakingly haunting performance also lost some of its luster when his character interacted with Hedwig, as if the two actors weren't all that comfortable together. In other scenes, such as the concert/gig scenes, the imagery and lighting played with colored strobe effects that ultimately felt too busy, even if the intention was to punctuate Hedwig's unresolved anger. In essence, the general visual ideas could be classified as extremely theatrical in presentation, and the lack of consistency could be symbolic of Hedwig's long, up-and-down road to self-acceptance, but it rendered the film version of this unusual tale disjointed in pacing and, thus, in this viewer's interest.

The other notable element of this film was Hedwig's fantastic costumes and wigs. Their raucously colorful and occasionally sparkly design further added to the theatricality of the piece.

I enjoyed hearing Hedwig's tale and her recounting of her journey toward making peace with herself and her surroundings, since that is ultimately the road the story travels. This lesson is a worthy one for really anyone seething from anger at life and the cars they've been dealt. As I'm pretty happy with my identity (for the most part), I would not run right out and buy this one, so the test does not pass. In the realm of wacky gender-bending, cross-dressing musical comedy with cult followings, I prefer The Rocky Horror Picture Show (though I can't be called a fan, complete with the shouted echoes). Still, as a filmmaking effort, Hedwig and the Angry Inch is entertaining and offers a powerful and interesting story, so I am inclined to rate the film a 7.5 between minor flaws/very good and shaky/entertaining. I also think the film is recommendable to anyone interested in a witty, truthful yarn who is otherwise not offended by such a nakedly in-your-face topic.

Posted Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:34 PM by pippin06 | with 0 comments