jjgittes

Under discussion:

Annie Hall  (1977)

Quite simply, ANNIE HALL is one of my top ten favorite films of all time, even higher on the list than CASABLANCA, the other Reel 13 film this year to have that honor. It is a perfect, soaring example of “modernism lite” – a cinematic movement that borrowed creative filmmaking ideas from European Art Cinema, but made them more accessible by utilizing them within a traditional Hollywood-type narrative. Modernism lite made its debut stateside in the seventies with the rise of the film school generation. Other examples of this might include AMERICAN GRAFFITI, MEAN STREETS or THE CONVERSATION. ANNIE HALL also started a genre of its own to some degree, which I like to call the “neurotic romantic comedy”, which is mostly typified by the idea that the obstacles for couple in question is really just themselves and their own hang-ups and psychological issues. This is a tradition that filmmakers like Nora Ephron and company would continue many years later with films like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY and SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE. In many ways, it is a truer and more honest representation of relationships as we know them in modern society and the comedy in these films derive from the audience recognizing themselves in the characters and the flaws in their own behavior. This is very different from traditional Hollywood romances in which the characters represented an ideal, something for the audience to admire and aspire to. Granted, none of us are quite as neurotic as Alvy and Annie are (though I may come close). They take the behavior to an extreme, but that only enhances the comedy. 

I think the element that is the most special about ANNIE HALL is the way it blends fantasy and reality. Early on, Allen comments that he always had a problem distinguishing the two and the results in the film are glorious. From the scene in which his eight year-old classmates stand to announce what they would grow up to become to when he and his friends would physically watch and then interact with flashbacks, these moments are high points in the film because they manage to not only provide exposition and character information, but they also comment and provide insight on the information in a way that feels very natural, kind of like drinking water to make a pill go down easier. Allen establishes this style from the get go and therefore, the transitions to his imagination never feel jarring. He handles them with a matter-of-factness for the rest of the way, which is fun, fascinating and also keeps the viewer on his or her toes. We are engaged.

Diane Keaton won an Academy Award for her performance as the titular character and deservedly so. Woody Allen, at his most amusing and charismatic, is no slouch either. There has been much criticism over the years that Allen and Keaton merely played themselves, but to me, that holds little weight. While I concur that the characters were based on them, every actor needs to draw from their own experiences when approaching a performance. Here, what Allen and Keaton each do, transcends the advantage they had of living through a similar, real relationship. Their comic timing is masterful while never feeling contrived or sitcom-like. Their chemistry is natural and even though that’s probably due to their off-screen relationship, it’s still a joy to watch on-screen. They manage to make scenes with all those zingers feel honest and real, as if conversations any of us would have in real life. It’s not as easy as they make it look. In my opinion, they used themselves as a starting point, a springboard for crafting the performances that they did, but each of them added to that foundation so that the film would not still be fun and not just a home movie of their love affair. 

Of course, the other memorable quality to ANNIE HALL is the script, particularly the dialogue. Allen keeps most of the best quips for himself, but that never feels like too much because many of them are self-deprecating. Not only are the lines witty and well-delivered, but they have a resonance behind them. Many of them come from old jokes that Allen retells, turning them upside down to shake out the hidden meaning. Examples include the famous “I wouldn’t want to belong to a club that would have me as a member” and “I need the eggs”. These moments or lines of dialogue are funny on the surface, but quite poignant underneath, offering insight into the nature of relationships and the characters we are watching while not hitting us over the head and still being interesting and entertaining. That’s a combination that serves the film as a whole and the result is an always surprisingly powerful experience.

(For more information on this film or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.com)

Under discussion:

Film Name  Production Year

Laura  (1944)

Interestingly enough, LAURA is the oldest film to have aired on Reel 13 this year, coming all the way from 1944. I'm not sure why the Reel 13 programmers have so vigorously avoided the 30's and such gems like BRINGING UP BABY, IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU, etc., especially given the strength of the older films they have showed. LAURA, for example, hardly feels dated. It is as evocative and mesmerizing a mystery as it must have been sixty plus years ago. The only thing that might be less effective to a modern audience is the surprise twist that occurs half way through. It was groundbreaking and the talk of the town in its day, but has been ripped off countless times since then. So, it might feel familiar to younger folks watching it today, but the film can hardly be blamed for the effect of subsequent copycats.

All of the elements of Laura are outstanding and work in concert for maximum impact. Otto Preminger, who parlayed the success of LAURA into the opportunity to do edgier films (CARMEN JONES, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM, THE CARDINALl), would probably cringe to hear me say that I still think this is best work. To him, it was a paycheck – his interpretation of Hollywood sugarcoated schlock. However, his instinctual choices add depth to an already well-structured and interesting narrative. He moves his camera fluidly at a time when tracking shots were de-emphasized. He cuts in and out of scenes at just the appropriate times, which helps keep the pace brisk. He moves in and out of the flashbacks with ease and clarity. The blocking is natural and yet still executed nicely for strong, stark camera angles, which is a particular challenge in a mystery, given all of the "suspects" that Preminger needed to manipulate throughout the frames. And of course, he uses the famous "Laura" theme to perfection, sometimes even diegetically, utilizing it as a backdrop to maintain the haunting mood. Preminger is overly reliant on the voiceover to get exposition across, particularly in the first half of the film. As you may know, that is a major pet peeve of mine, but it is somehow less offensive to me in LAURA, especially since they are framed within stories that are being relayed to the investigating detective. It, like the theme, is mostly diegetic and therefore feels more natural and less like the director forcing his hand.

I think another major contributor to the success of Laura is the highly underrated cast. All three of the major players are probably unknown to most modern audiences and although they would each have one or two other accomplishments in their careers, they would never be able to match the bar they set for themselves in this film. As a matter of fact, perhaps the most recognizable member of the cast to many would be Vincent Price in an against-type supporting role as Laura's cad fiancé. Price is perfectly passable in the film, but it is the three charming, charismatic leads that really make the film as engaging as it is. Clifton Webb brings the intelligence to the party in his outright remarkable performance as Waldo Lydecker (he was the only member of the cast to receive an Oscar nomination). Granted, it is a plum role with the best and wittiest dialogue of all the characters. As great as Webb is with the words, it is the combination of vulnerability and menace that he adds to the character that makes the performance so terrific. Dana Andrews brings the muscle as the Detective Mark Macpherson and I mean that in a good way. It's not that he's required to beat anybody up, but his stoic presence is intimidating to many of the other characters. He represents the earth, the practical everyman who doesn't much buy into the machinations of the bourgeoisie. Dana Andrews, who would go on to be president of the Screen Actors Guild, struggled in many of the leading roles he would score after LAURA. However, here, he provides an unusual amount of depth for what would otherwise be stereotypical flatfoot character. Although the shell of his cynicism is hardly ever broken, there is a foreboding sense of longing about him, which makes for a three-dimensional and appealing hero. Gene Tierney as the titular character provides the soul and spirit for the film, with her presence almost literally looming over scenes even when she isn't present. Tierney doesn't appear for most of the early film and is simply talked about by the other characters. One becomes incredulous as to how equally gorgeous and kind, how perfect that they make her out to be. However, once we meet her in the flashbacks, her beauty and poise suddenly make it seem plausible. I can't recall another time when being the unequivocal object of desire of so many characters was so well performed and executed. And Tierney would never have another role like it.

LAURA is that rare film that manages to combine a realistic human drama sensibility with the romanticized narrative akin to the dime store bubble gum novel of the period. On its surface, LAURA is a whodunit and it is effective as such, but it is also a heartfelt romance as well as a psychological drama. Its beauty is in its layers – taut narrative, surprisingly complex characters on highly evocative journeys and an engaging mystery that is emotionally resonant. It's a film that needs to be experienced by film buffs and future filmmakers alike. It's a truly great achievement.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Under discussion:

Lifeboat  (1944)

I saw LIFEBOAT for the first time this summer at the outdoor Bryant Park Film Festival and therefore didn’t need to watch it again when it aired on Reel 13 last week. This is not to suggest that it was painful to sit through. On the contrary, it was a revelation. Once again, a talented director takes on the challenge of directing an entire movie in a single location, in this case, a lifeboat drifting in the middle of Atlantic. Similar to Sidney Lumet in 12 ANGRY MEN from October, Hitchcock rises to the challenge and creates a taut, exciting, in-depth, human film. Granted, Hitch was aided by the intrinsic danger that comes along with floating in the Atlantic during WWII. In that sense, there are similarities and connections with Wolfgang Petersen’s 1982 film DAS BOOT, only LIFEBOAT might actually be more tense given that a) they are mostly civilians and b) they are totally exposed.

Actually, the performances in the film don’t help much. Mary Anderson is pretty useless as the young nurse. Hume Cronyn struggles, largely due to the implausible Cockney accent he adopts. William Bendix also would have better days, coming off here as wooden and forced. John Hodiak, as the stud on the boat, has absolutely zero charisma and his anger and bigotry has no layers to it. Tallulah Bankhead is surprisingly one of the more enjoyable performances, though I am skeptical how much “acting” went into it. Her screen persona slips into this character perfectly and does well for the struggle between the classes that develops on the little boat.

However, this is Hitchcock’s movie, driven almost entirely by the intelligent filmmaking. Granted, he had strong source material, working from a story by John Steinbeck, but it is the well-thought-out camera angles, detailed framing and on-point shot-to-shot editing that raise the film to another level. In a very short time frame and with significant shooting limitations, Hitchcock manages to make the boat a microcosm for global relations in the 40’s, deftly dealing with racism, xenophobia, nationalism, imperialism, the realities of war and the aforementioned class issue without beating us over the head on any one issue. In the Hitchcock canon, one often hears about NORTH BY NORTHWEST, PSYCHO, REAR WINDOW and Vertigo. Now, while I don’t suggest that LIFEBOAT is stronger than those masterpieces (it actually might be a little better than PSYCHO, though), it is in that class and though earlier in Hitchcock’s career, it needs to be included in the conversation as one of his finest achievements.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Under discussion:

America So Beautiful  (2001)

From the opening moments of the 70's era AMERICA, SO BEAUTIFUL, the Reel 13 Indie from a couple weeks ago, the disco music envelops me in the mood, embraces me like an old friend that I haven't seen in years and I am somehow immediately hooked in for the ride that is the film. During those early moments, the filmmakers also adopt a seventies era style of filmmaking, particularly during the dance sequences – fisheye lenses, split screens, etc. All this helps to establish the illusion of the period.

Though the flashiness dies down as the film goes on, the direction is confident and strong throughout – consistently good choices in terms of the camera work, design and blocking. If there is a problem with AMERICA, SO BEAUTIFUL, it would be in the screenplay itself with its flat dialogue, meandering narrative and over-the-top approach to its message against prejudice. The film is about Iranian immigrants in Los Angeles during the 1979 hostage crisis, which is a great premise, in theory. Even in practice, the film wisely avoids heavy-handed politics for most of the piece, instead focusing on the characters' desire to survive and assimilate and also the Americanization of the younger generation, which comes into conflict with the traditions of their native culture and their elders. All this stuff is great, but as we move towards the conclusion, the message starts to rear its ugly head and it interrupts the momentum of the story. The one, long night that pretty much dominates the entire second half really sinks the rhythm they had created (there is one unfortunate scene in a diner in which the filmmakers inexplicably abandon any sense of subtlety that they seemed to have had for most of the way) and the climax could have been a lot stronger if they had turned down the amplitude of the speech-giving just a tad. While I understand they felt compelled to show dissatisfaction and disillusionment amongst their Iranian-American protagonists, they needed to be much more subtle about it. Frequently a suggestion is better than a speech. Perhaps the screenwriters felt that their "point" wasn't clear once they got to the end and decided to really hit us over the head, just in case we weren't able to read in between the lines of the first three-quarters of the film.  The result for this viewer was that I felt condescended to.

Fortunately, this is ultimately a minor hiccup in an otherwise effective glimpse into the lives of Middle Eastern immigrants. The acting, direction and cinematography are all quite good. Despite a handful of small bumps along the road, the film is balanced, fair, honest, complex and therefore, interesting.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org).

Under discussion:

Psycho Beach Party  (2000)

I was truly good and excited about the airing of PSYCHO BEACH PARTY (based on Charles Busch's one-man stage show) on Reel 13 on November 1st. I have a lot of good friends in the world of theatre and many of them are big fans of Charles Busch. I had heard great things about this film and the cast alone is enough to warrant excitement – Lauren Ambrose, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"'s Nicholas Brendan, Thomas Gibson and Oscar-nominee Amy Adams seems like a dream team for this sort of an endeavor. Unfortunately, the end result didn't come close to the hype.

The material is pretty much there. I think the failure of PSYCHO BEACH PARTY is a failure of film direction. Firstly, the film is very empty (why is there no one ever on the beach?!?) and while I realize that is a budgetary issue, it is a costly problem, especially when trying to do a parody of this kind. If the film wants to ape Gidget, Frankie and Annette films, surfer movies, slasher movies, The Three Faces of Eve and Joan Crawford simultaneously, it needs the scope to match. I realize the independentness of the film creates limitations, but I know for a fact that there are inexpensive to free ways to fill scenes with background actors or design details that help with the illusion. However, the production team seems to have had their priorities elsewhere.

The Achilles heel of the film, however, is there is no rhythm, no sense of pace and in a broad comedy like this - that is equivalent to a slow, painful death. Most of the jokes fall horribly flat. One-liners spew out quickly enough, but the camera just lingers on the speaker, as if waiting for applause or laughter that just isn't coming. It's like those old cartoons where all you hear are crickets in the audience. Painful.

Fortunately, the cast raises the level of the film a great deal. A much younger Lauren Ambrose is once again magnificent (I have such a talent crush on her) in what ultimately amounts to be a triple-role, utterly believable and hilarious in each phase of her character. Brendan is very charismatic and amusing as usual and Gibson has fun with the conceit that his cooler-than-cool beach bum character rhymes everything he says. Busch himself does his usual cross-dressing act as the local police detective, Captain Monica Stark, but the theatricality of the character and the gimmick don't really connect on the screen. Bad wig and pale skin aside, the character is like an alien in the movie, as if occasionally entering through a portal from the Greenwich Village Halloween parade. I can see it working as a stage convention, but here, it just seems awkward.

Without having seen the stage play, I can't say for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that is the root of all the issues with the film version of PSYCHO BEACH PARTY. Generally speaking, there is naturally a greater suspension of disbelief in the theatre. Unfortunately, film as an artform does not have that luxury. I can see most of my problems with PSYCHO BEACH PARTY working much better on stage. But here, it just gets lost in the translation.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Under discussion:

Things You Can Tell Just by Looking at Her  (2000)

I actually saw NINE LIVES, Rodrigo Garcia's very similar follow-up to this film, a few months ago and so when I saw TTHINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER on Reel 13 at the end of October, I was having déjà vu all over again. Both films are an anthology of short films that give us glimpses into the lives of women living and working in Los Angeles. The two films boast many of the same female actors (Glenn Close, Holly Hunter, Kathy Baker, Amy Brenneman) and each film features some terrific performances (and one or two bad ones). Neither film is very upbeat or uplifting as they tend to focus on very sad moments in these women's lives. They are both mostly good and very accomplished and yet, I felt more connected with NINE LIVES. It has occurred to me that the reason for that is possibly that I saw it first even though THINGS YOU CAN TELL was chronologically first. Seeing THINGS YOU CAN TELL felt like rehashing old territory, which I think adversely impacted my viewing experience. Also, the major difference between the two films is that each of the stories in NINE LIVES are filmed in a single shot, with a slow-moving, unobtrusive camera. No cuts in the entire film. This gives NINE LIVES a certain vitality. Conversely, THINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER featured beautiful, rich close-ups, but at the same time, felt a little more contrived, crafted. It seemed slightly less real.

As with anything so fragmented, some segments are going to be better than others. Here, the stories featuring Glenn Close ("This is Dr. Keener") and Cameron Diaz ("Love Waits for Kathy") are both very strong and interesting. The tarot card scene featuring Close and Calista Flockhart is a triumph for both actors (and was wisely featured by Reel 13 on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU2RF6Kgowk). Ally McBeal has tainted the minds of viewers into the thinking that Flockhart's not the real deal, but here she proves different. The same goes for Cameron Diaz, whose good looks take attention away from her considerable talent. She has a monologue at the end of the film that is wonderfully executed. Even the consummate theater actor would have to be impressed, particularly by how she makes it work for the camera. Lots of consecutive words tend to fall flat on screen, but Diaz makes the most of her close up and lets her face tell the rest of the story that her words leave out. I think it's something young actors should looking at when studying screen acting.

Another downfall of the anthology structure is the probability of losing momentum and THINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER suffers from that, particularly in its latter stages. This is particularly notable during the less successful segments in the film, including Kathy Baker's ("Someone for Rose") and "Goodnight Lilly, Goodnight Christine", which features Calista Flockhart again as a lesbian who has to watch her lover (Valeria Golino) die. I really wanted to like that one – both actors are very strong in it, but, as you can probably imagine, it is simply way too slow and depressing to be effective.

On the whole, there is a lot of craft to the film. Garcia recruited one Emanuel Lubezki (one of the top three working cinematographers, if not the best) to shoot the film and the results are outstanding, particularly the aforementioned close-ups. The duo chose, on several occasions, to give the actors a great deal of headroom on some shots. It's a little distracting and I'm although I'm sure it was purposeful, I'm not clear as to their reasoning. Perhaps they were trying to suggest the influence of the surroundings on their characters or something like that… it's hard to say for sure.

On the whole, Garcia does a good job of planting small mysteries within his little micro-dramas, which manages to keep us mostly interested and engaged. Though, as I suggested, I prefer his follow-up NINE LIVES, I have a great deal of respect for what Garcia is doing and how he directs actors. That is just as true here as it was in that film and I feel like the pros of THINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER outweigh the cons. Now, the challenge for Rodrigo Garcia is to take his gifts and segue out of this niche that he's created for himself. That's what it will take for him to go to the next level as a modern filmmaker.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Under discussion:

The Great Escape  (1963)

I have seen THE GREAT ESCAPE dozens of times and it's always fun to watch, which remained to be true when it aired this past October on Reel 13. In spite of how often I'd seen it, I had forgotten that it was based on a true story, which makes it all the more remarkable.

I think the element that most makes THE GREAT ESCAPE work is the level of detail, the great pains that director John Sturges (in his third Reel 13 film this year) takes to display how things work – from how they forge the IDs to how they get the wood to support the tunnel to how they dispose of all the dirt they dig up without arousing suspicion. The more information we have as a viewer, the more engaged we are in the process, as if we were a part of the escape. Initially, it all seems like minutiae, but it adds up. I can't think of a modern film that would take the time to offer such small details. It's unfortunate, too, because it enhances the excitement and interest greatly. Also, for a film that lacks a lot of Sturges' trademark action scenes, it keeps the pace moving and the tone suspenseful.

The film doesn't really require "acting" in the traditional sense from its large all-male cast. For the most part, their characters are composites and as a result, are essentially built around a few basic factoids (i.e. American, pilot, good at scrounging, etc.). This is not a complaint or criticism so much an observation. As I've said, the film works. It's just interesting that it manages to work with mostly two-dimensional characters. They are mostly required to be macho, look cool and offer relevant information for the advancement of the plot. This plays perfectly into the hands of Charisma King Steve McQueen. Other MAGNIFICENT SEVEN alums James Coburn and Charles Bronson amuse themselves by putting on an accent, neither with much success. The latter has a claustrophobia subplot that isn't really effective or interesting. Donald Pleasance is one notable exception as the forger who deals with losing his eyesight. However, perhaps the strongest performance in the film comes from Sir Richard Attenborough as Bartlett or "Big X", the leader of the main escape attempt. While he also has a lot narrative information to convey to the audience, he layers it with the great burden of being a leader of such a dangerous enterprise. Several hundred men rely on him for their freedom and he makes that apparent in Bartlett's face and body language. Similarly, he plays the character as a man who could and would make quick decisions and sacrifices for the good of the mission, regardless of how unpopular they may be. Granted, Attenborough is given the best material in the character of Bartlett, but he doesn't fumble the ball. It's some great work. With that said, it struck me the connection between Big X and a film director. From the way he chose the route, the costumes, the paperwork, but also consulted his men from different "departments", it's as if he were "directing" a film of the escape instead of managing the actual event. (Interestingly enough, Attenborough would go on to be an Oscar-winning film director).

While it would never crack my top fifty films of all-time, THE GREAT ESCAPE is and always was a film I enjoyed thoroughly. Though, in the Sturges' canon, it does not come close to BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK - the masterpiece that I discovered this past April on Reel 13, it is stronger than THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, even though it's more ambitious. As an older and more experienced filmmaker, Sturges meets the challenge of balancing all the elements in THE GREAT ESCAPE e and manages to craft a thrilling adventure story that is and shall remain timeless.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Under discussion:

Oliver Twist  (1948)

I think my appreciation for OLIVER TWIST as a story by Dickens was dulled a little bit by the lame musical version, made into an Oscar-winning film in 1968 by Sir Carol Reed. It's the version by another knighted filmmaker – Sir David Lean – from 1948 that made me respect it again and I have to once again thank Reel 13 for bringing it to us this past October.

Lean uses a very similar approach to Dickens that he used in GREAT EXPECTATIONS two years prior. Same Gothic-style production design, luscious high contrast cinematography and a brisk, efficient pace. He even brings back many of the same actors as if he had a Dickens repertory troupe of some kind. Perhaps his wisest decision was increasing the screen time for Alec Guinness, who played a minor supporting role in EXPECTATIONS, but here gets to chew scenery as Fagin. Sir Alec, as you might expect, does not disappoint. He disappears into the character behind a wig, a sneer and a great deal of make-up. The character is fascinating to begin with, but Guinness adds layer upon layer to help create a three-dimensional portrait of greed with an ounce or two of compassion. Modern audiences might be offended by the gigantic prosthetic hooknose (to suggest his Jewish heritage) he dons, but these were less sensitive times. Similar devices were frequently used at the Old Vic and such for "The Merchant of Venice", et al, so no harm was meant.

I would still argue that GREAT EXPECTATIONS (aired on Reel 13 in April) is a slightly better film than OLIVER TWIST, but I think the primary reason for that is that EXPECTATIONS is just a stronger story than TWIST. In terms of filmic interpretation, Lean does a masterful job in both instances, on his way to becoming one of the finest filmmakers we've ever known.

(For more on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Under discussion:

Wall Street  (1987)

I tend to be down on Oliver Stone films. More often than not, they emphasize style over substance - flashy camera work or editing to mask an inability to tell a story effectively. I think one notable exception is WALL STREET, the Reel 13 Classic from the first Saturday in October. While there are occasional moments that Stone makes his presence felt (zooms that feel so wrong, occasional whip pans and of course, the old dolly-in/zoom-out that filmmakers love to overuse), for the most part, he lets the story unfold on its own. He (generally) doesn't force matters, which is unusual for him and allows, to my mind, for a more effective and interesting narrative.

And so, it's the script that's front and center in WALL STREET and that is what I think is the key to the film's effectiveness. Stone, along with co-writer Stanley Weiser, craft a very detailed and well-structured story with terrific, snappy dialogue that is clever without being overly so and therefore, remains believable. This gives the cast something meaty to work with and most of the ensemble doesn't disappoint. Of course, Michael Douglas' portrayal of Gordon Gekko is now legendary and quite possibly, deservedly so. He exudes both confidence and menace at all times, but occasionally reveals glimpses of vulnerability and humanity that make the character three-dimensional. It's never enough to diminish his on-screen authority, but just enough to round out Gekko. Even Charlie Sheen is quite strong through most of the movie, that is, until he gets truly tested in the third act. In other words, he nails ambition, greed and confidence. When he has to play betrayed, embarrassed, angry, devastated and hurt, he falters greatly.

It may come as no surprise that the one member of the cast that is a complete waste of space is Daryl Hannah as the femme fatale caught in the middle. She doesn't even look good (though that may be my 2008 sensibility speaking), let alone present an interesting character that we might actually root for. Her scenes are like nails on a chalkboard and add absolutely nothing to the narrative. Perhaps the character's storyline might have worked with another actor (I know that Diane Lane was around then…), but as it stands, you mentally plead with Sheen's Bud Fox to dump her ass as soon as possible so we can return to the real story.

This is just another of a handful of flaws that prevent WALL STREET from being a wholly satisfying experience. Hannah, Stone's sporadic stylistic flights of fancy and the unnecessary coda at the end all fall into that category, but ultimately they are overshadowed by the strength of the story and script. There is enough quality within the narrative to keep the viewer invested, in spite of the intermittent hiccups along the way.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Under discussion:

Giant  (1956)

This was another film that I didn't take notes for during the three and a half hours that it took to unspool on Reel 13 a few weeks ago. It's not because I didn't have anything to say, but I have seen the film several times, including recently during my assignment two years ago to watch films from 1956 (along with previous Reel 13 entries LUST FOR LIFE and MOBY DICK). On the contrary, I might be able to write a whole essay on this film alone. It is the best of those three films (though not even close to being the best of 1956) and one of the most fascinatingly flawed movies I've ever seen.

The primary thing that jumps out to me about GIANT is the disparate performances styles. The mid-fifties, in general, were a time in which performances were shifting from the bigger, theatrical style (Judy Garland, Susan Heyward, et al) to the quieter, more naturalistic process that we take for granted today. At the time, this style was mostly defined by the "Method" actors, many of which were students of the New York-based Actors Studio. The poster boy for this transition was, of course, Marlon Brando, but the tragic hero of the movement was James Dean, one of the stars of GIANT. Overall, this transition was an uneasy one with many naysayers and old schoolers eschewing the reported histrionics behind Method acting and nowhere was this schism in philosophy more transparent than in GIANT. It's almost as if director George Stevens were purposefully waging a war between the two styles. On the one hand, James Dean, Dennis Hopper and Carroll Baker represent the burgeoning new method, their scenes bristle with vitality with one great, informed choice after another. On the other hand, Rock Hudson, Mercedes McCambridge and many members of the supporting cast maintain their larger-than-life movie star approach. From a modern viewpoint, they might as well be doing Shakespeare. They feel extremely out-of-place, especially when in a scene with one of the newcomers.

Oddly enough, the glue that holds all this together is Elizabeth Taylor, who while she doesn't seem to subscribe to either theory, still manages to give a magnificent, layered, important performance. She never seems to be wholly natural – part of Method acting is a warts-and-all approach and Taylor never loses that movie star glamour, in spite of the dusty conditions of her surroundings. At the same time, she responds to Rock Hudson's large blustering with intelligence and restraint, making smaller choices that belie Hollywood's historical approach. In addition to her approach, Taylor's choices manufacture a truly modern feminist heroine. She leaves behind the starry-eyed children of her past and the damsels in distress that populated so many similar films before it. She is a truly strong woman without ever losing her feminine qualities. She is willful without being overbearing or devious – simultaneously assertive and sexy.

The other intriguing aspect to GIANT is the style of director George Stevens. There are so many well-thought out, well-designed, beautifully framed images throughout the film that add detail and texture to the sprawling story. In spite of what I assume was a hands off approach with the actors (how else do you explain such a wide range of styles?), he truly seems to understand the characters and shows us with his choices of lighting and framing. He masterfully balances the multitude of supporting roles and subplots without ever losing focus on the primary narrative. Furthermore, the pace of the film is actually quite brisk, which is quite an accomplishment given all the ground there is to cover. With all that said, perhaps the most impressive thing about Stevens is how frequently unobtrusive he is with his camera and his direction, that is, UNLESS he has something political on his mind.

And that's where GIANT takes another weird turn. There are several points that Stevens' seems to want to make at various points in the film – the most blatant of which is anti-racism. He highly accentuates a point that the book only hints at, using Texan prejudice against Hispanic-Americans as a substitute for the bigotry that permeated much of the country during the beginning of the civil rights struggle. It's at moments like these in the film where Stevens seems to lose all sense of subtlety with zooms into the face of a Hispanic baby or a sign that reads "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone". He over-makes his point time and time again, leaving the viewer frustrated, particularly during the second half. He takes a similar approach to mocking the nouveau riche of Texas – people who stumbled onto billions of dollars through the oil business, most notably in a scene where he plays cowboy music and makes the windows burst open as a large party of rich white people are literally herded out of the room like cattle. It's another moment that is amazingly unambiguous in a film that was so carefully crafted and understated for the two and a half hours prior.

All of these elements add up to a wholly uneven, but still mesmerizing film. There is great beauty, great art, great ideas mixed in a bowl with sloppiness, preaching, theatricality and misguided notions. Either way, it is an indelible experience that I think everybody needs to go through. One can learn great filmmaking as well as what not to do, all in one sitting.

Under discussion:

What's New Pussycat?  (1965)

I am not entirely sure what to make of WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT? after seeing it for the first time on Reel 13 in mid-September, I love Woody Allen, who served as the screenwriter for the 1967 film and can see glimpses of themes that he would later explore in a much more mature manner later in his career when he would go on to direct his own scripts – primarily sex and sexual exploration. However, I think the failure of WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT? stems from almost exactly that – Woody Allen was not the director. Instead, Clive Donner is at the helm and the film sputters under his guidance. Until the last fifteen minutes, it does not seem to have any sort of structure, style or form. Then again, maybe that's the point. The film seems to adopt the same sort of freewheeling attitude toward storytelling that its characters do toward the film's subject matter - sex and sexuality.

At the heart of the issue I think is the construction of scenes and the staging of the actors and the camera. Dialogue and beats move at a rapid speed, but the camera and editing, for most of the movie, doesn't seem to keep up with them. Furthermore, the pace of the story is so quick that it's difficult to get a stranglehold on the characters. For example, as brilliant as Peter Sellers is, I could not, for the life of me, figure out his character's purpose or thru-line in the narrative. It's almost as if he was concocted just to give Sellers the opportunity to have an accent an do silly things and as a result, his scenes play like bad "Saturday Night Live" sketches (Speaking of which, what is up with that Kristen Wiig character that can't keep a surprise – who is telling her that those sketches are in any way funny?). It seems as if the filmmakers were somehow trying to channel a slapstick element a la Mack Sennett, but also combine it with the artistic sensibility and purpose of the non-narrative dada movement of the twenties. That equation results in a big 'ol mess. I almost have to wonder how many members of the collaborative team were on drugs during the creative process (seriously).

The film does have an occasional good idea – the couple arguing in front of the English as a Second Language class was clever. Also, the very end of the film transitions into traditional farce, complete with slamming doors, mistaken identities and zany chases through hallways. This is the most fun part of the film – it's well-staged, well-shot and action-packed enough to be thoroughly enjoyable, but it's certainly not worth the ride we were on for the first ninety minutes. In spite of its infrequent moments of inspiration, most moments feel unmotivated and unearned. The film is very off-balance – a silly, bizarre, all-over-the-place romp. I was very much looking forward to seeing it and so you can imagine my extreme disappointment.

(For more on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Under discussion:

Casablanca  (1943)

I actually didn't bother to take a single note for this film when it aired on Reel 13 on September 13th. I just sat back and enjoyed the movie and after all, what can I say about the film that hasn't already been said? It is pretty much undisputed as one of the greatest American films of all-time is 10 on my personal all-time top ten list of favorites (well ahead of CITIZEN KANE). The film is near perfection in almost every discipline.

Even though I don't have much to say that is entirely original, I don't want to be lazy and skimp on the blog, so I'll briefly elaborate. At the heart of CASABLANCA is a great story, well-told. It features romance, adventure, betrayal, suspense, patriotism, politics and surprising to many first time viewers – quite a lot of comedy, mostly due to the famously sharp dialogue provided by the Epstein brothers, who represent two of the three credited screenwriters. They, along with structure expert Howard Koch, weave all of those elements into a seamless patchwork – a script so tight that you could bounce a quarter off it. What's most amazing about that is, according to many books I've read on the making of the film, they were still putting the screenplay together as shooting was going on. It's almost as if they stumbled onto the perfect movie.

This is not to discount the contribution of Michael Curtiz, who was always a good filmmaker, but had never been given this kind of well-written, multi-layered material. He employs a lot of very unobtrusive tracking shots to incorporate all of the multitude of characters that frequent Rick's Café American (Watching it again, I was reminded of all the little subplots throughout CASABLANCA. For example, do you remember Rick's jilted, mildly alcoholic lover Yvonne who struggles with nationalism or the young Bulgarian newlyweds desperate for an exit visa? It's amazing that they were able to include all of these wonderful details…). Most of all, I think it is the pace that Curtiz uses to get through the story that makes it really click. Even long scenes feel fast (though not overly) due to good cutting between shots and the laser speed with which the quippy dialogue is delivered. Additionally, Curtiz never panders to the audience or dwells too long on information that might be important. You are required to pay attention and follow along and if you do, you are rewarded with a highly satisfactory experience. Quite frankly, even if you miss things, the romance is enough to carry the film on its own and you still walk away with an appreciation for the movie.
Warner Brothers provided Curtiz with its finest talent (though it may not have known it at the time), particularly in the supporting roles. This is not to say that Bogart isn't good. On the contrary, he's pitch-perfect (Bergman, on the other hand, has a few weak moments, particularly in those of heightened emotions, but enough to really derail the movie in any way). However, it is the supporting cast that, in my mind, gives CASABLANCA its life. Character actors like Peter Lorre, Conrad Veidt and Sydney Greenstreet create such wonderful three-dimensioal portraits in their limited screen time. They are key to making the world of CASABLANCA feel real and relevant. Perhaps the finest performance of the film, though, is Claude Rains as Capt. Renault, the Vichy prefect of police. Of course, on several occasions, the plot hinges on Renault's shifting allegiances, but making that balance work in a character is a great challenge which Rains meets with confidence and charm. Technically, he is both a villain and a hero, but he is always likeable and much of that is due to Rains.

I was thinking that, in a way, it is almost unfair that Reel 13 aired CASABLANCA because when it comes to naming the best Reel 13 films of the year in December or January, there won't be any contest. CASABLANCA is everything that any movie could ever hope to be and much, much more.Casablanca (1942)

(For more on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Under discussion:

Witness for the Prosecution  (1957)

Billy Wilder has his fourth film featured on Reel 13 this year and it is one that I had, surprisingly enough, never seen before. WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, based on a play by Agatha Christie, turned out to be a very effective and tense courtroom drama, proving once again that Wilder is not just a great comedy director – he is simply a great director.

While the plot is all Christie, the dialogue is all Wilder. Snappy sarcasm and this time, with a Brit twist. The mystery itself has some formulaic elements – almost like an episode of THE PRACTICE – but is consistently interesting due to the way Wilder doles out the information. I think the attribute that most makes the movie work is the editing. The film has a brisk pace without being overly fast – it's a steady advancing of the narrative that keeps the viewer involved without stopping long enough for you to solve the crime or going too fast that you miss the bread crumb trail that is left for you. It's the perfect way to approach this kind of story.

The only real complaint I have about WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION is a small one and it relates to the ending. Granted, I was sufficiently surprised, but there was something that didn't sit well with me about it (it almost seemed as if the Charles Laughton character felt the same way). Firstly, the way the villains all explain themselves at the end is a staple of the genre, but remains problematic. Secondly, it was almost too perfect of a crime/scheme that it didn't seem natural. Only superbraniac villains the likes of Lex Luthor would be able to come up with a plan that air tight. They were able to perfectly predict and anticipate the actions of everyone involved, without even slightly knowing the players in advance. I know Christie's job was to consistently stump and bewilder her readers. She constantly had to be coming up with new ways to trick her increasingly savvy fan base. In this case, the trade off of achieving a truly surprising ending is that it didn't really ring true. While all the facts added up and made sense from a mathematical point of view, it still didn't feel right. And that's a shame, particularly because the first 100 minutes made for a truly great movie.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)

Under discussion:

Ocean's Eleven  (1960)

Though I had never seen the "original" OCEAN'S ELEVEN, I was well aware of it. Word on the street was that it was a bit of a lark and had the feeling of being a film that was made for fun by a bunch of big movie stars who wanted to hang out in Vegas. Watching it a couple weeks ago on Reel 13, I had no idea that it would be as sloppy or unsophisticated as it turned out to be.

I knew I was in trouble from the very beginning with the obnoxiously slow and annoying title sequence. Animated title sequences, particularly for comedies, were in vogue in the sixties, so that wasn't the issue as much as it was that there was nothing interesting or imaginative about the sequence. Counting up to 11 took forever and the music chosen wasn't engaging enough to make it worthwhile.

After that, the film is all over the place. It seems to me there were more inside jokes than there were actual jokes, which is pretty infuriating. The result is several scenes seem to ramble (Why do Sammy Davis Jr., Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin take ten minutes to discuss what they would do if they were president? What does that have to do with the price of tea in Vegas?), which interrupts the momentum of the narrative. After all, this is supposed to be a crime caper - the first meeting of the eleven doesn't even happen until fifty minutes into the film. And the caper itself isn't clever enough to make the waiting worthwhile. As a group, they face very little obstacles in pulling off their heist (as opposed to the far superior, exciting and fun remake by Soderbergh) and then to top it all off, the ending is so anti-climactic, that you want to throw something at the screen for wasting your time.

Director Lewis Milestone doesn't help the matter either. Floating balloons hiding cuts? Cameos? Really? Additionally, the blocking is pretty lame and wooden. Nearly every joke (what was with the running gags regarding the Russian mastermind guy?) falls flat. The sets look weirdly unrealistic and the swinging music gets to be really irritating after awhile, largely due to the constant repetition of the same chords over and over again without any variation. Overall, in spite of its star power, the film plays like a TV movie. No wonder that Soderbergh wanted to remake it. The plot has potential that Milestone, Sinatra, et al all seem to ignore. It is easily the worst film we have seen so far this year on Reel 13 Classics.

Under discussion:

Dial M for Murder  (1954)

I only wrote down two notes during my watching of DIAL M FOR MURDER last month on Reel 13: "They cut right to the chase" and "Why does Hitchcock love tennis players?" The former is a reference to the efficiency with which the film begins (efficiency is one of many Hitchcock trademark qualities) – the film opens with Grace Kelly kissing her American lover. They talk briefly, Ray Milland (a retired tennis player in this film) enters and the murder plot begins. No time wasted. The second note refers to the random abundance of tennis players in Hitchcock's milieu (STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, which aired on Reel 13 in May, is another notable example). It's not really that relevant, but it struck me as interesting.

It's not these notes, in particular, that strike me as much as the infinitesimal amount of them. I usually fill a whole page worth of notes when watching any Reel 13 film, Classic or Indie. I think there are three reasons why DIAL M FOR MURDER didn't motivate me to put pen to paper as much: 1) It's a film I've seen a million times, including recently enough at the 2006 Bryant Park Summer Film Festival, 2) it's a good film – very solid and well made (do you expect anything less from Hitch?) and therefore, I was left with very little to complain about and 3) it's a pretty simple film. It's based on a stage play and Hitchcock doesn't try to make it anymore ambitious than that. Almost all the action takes place in the Milland/Kelly living room and the majority of the film is discussion. The built-in tension, plus Hitchcock's adept camerawork and pacing help to prevent the talkiness of the script from ever getting overly dull.

With all that said, the simplicity of DIAL M FOR MURDER (and Hitchcock would probably agree with me) prevents it from being a great movie. In all likelihood, it was a small project that he could work on while he prepared some of his other triumphs of the 50's like REAR WINDOW (1957), VERTIGO (1958), NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959). It's not emotionally complex like VERTIGO or an epic cross-country adventure like NORTH BY NORTHWEST. It's not even a whodunit, since we know the perp from the outset. It's more of a howdunit and that is and always has been its appeal. Despite its lack of ambition, DIAL M FOR MURDER achieves its goals and as a result, provides for a pleasant and interesting 105 minutes of entertainment.

Under discussion:

Lust for Life  (1956)

LUST FOR LIFE, a recent Reel 13 Classic that aired on August 9th, was one of many 50's films that I studied intensely for an article I was writing for a nationwide periodical (future Reel 13 films MOBY DICK and GIANT are others). My chief issue with LUST FOR LIFE has always been that it attempts to cover too much ground in the life of Vincent Van Gogh. The result of which is that every aspect of his life feels rushed and therefore empty – from his time as a missionary with the coal miners to his brief relationship with the older woman Christine to his bizarre, heated and intense "friendship" with Paul Gaughin (Anthony Quinn). None of these potentially interesting detours in Van Gogh's life ever seem to last long enough on screen to resonate emotionally. On the other hand, the film is a masterful achievement in color cinematography (appropriately, the live recreation of Van Gogh's paintings are particularly impressive) and surprisingly, a very effective and thorough portrayal of mental illness – especially for the 1950's.

If the film is successful from that standpoint, it's no thanks to Kirk Douglas as Van Gogh himself. He campaigned heavily for the role, eventually optioning the source book himself to guarantee himself the opportunity. But as it happens, he just doesn't have the chops. He is frequently melodramatic, employing the wide-eyed, screaming approach to his complex character. But director Vincente Minnelli manages to counter-balance Douglas' histrionics with some great shot choices that do a fabulous job of offering insight into Vincent's mental state – his framing and angles allow the viewer to get inside the head of the troubled painter. Additionally, Miklos Rosza's beautifully nuanced score helps greatly in these moments, with dissonant music that echoed the tension and strain that Van Gogh seemed to constantly feel (although the sound mix of the copy that aired on Reel 13 was bizarrely problematic – consistently going in and out in volume). These elements contributed to making Van Gogh's psychosis palpable.

So, it is my conclusion that this was the element of Van Gogh's life that they should have tried to focus on. The film currently only covers a period between 1879 and Vincent's death in 1890, but it is such a tumultuous eleven years that no part of it ever has enough screen time. Van Gogh is constantly moving and passing through relationships, which makes eleven years seem like thirty. If they had tightened up their narrative and began with Vincent disappearing to Arles, they could have added more detail to his relationship with Gaughin, which led to the famous ear incident. These last three years of his life not only featured the most mental instability, but was also the most creatively prolific of his career, which is even further argument that had they concentrated on just those last few years of his life – those years in which the film really starts to take off - the whole experience might have been more effective.

(for more information on "Lust for Life" or any other Reel 13 Classic, check out www.reel13.org)

Under discussion:

Code 46  (2004)

Although I'm not sure CODE 46 qualifies as an indie, it is a really well-made, interesting film and one of the better Reel 13 "Indies" that have aired so far. It is also a welcome departure for director Michael Winterbottom who otherwise seems to specialize in more politically-minded fare (WELCOME TO SARAJEVO, ROAD TO GUANTANAMO, A MIGHTY HEART). With this film, not only does he veer into sci-fi territory, but he also displays the filmmaking skills that shows why many thought he had so much promise in the first place. Those skills used with this less-didactic narrative proved to be terrifically effective.

In Giuliana Bruno's famous essay, "Ramble City: Postmodernism and Blade Runner", she defines postmodernism as a combination of pastiche and schizophrenia (I'm simplifying her explanation a great deal for the sake of this brevity). Though not based on Philip K. Dick in any way, the many great details within the future imagined by Winterbottom and company fits perfectly into this definition. The architecture in BLADE RUNNER, with its classical, almost Gothic approach within its dystopic futuristic world, is probably the most apparent element of pastiche. For CODE 46, it is the language as almost all the characters speak a combination of Chinese, French, Spanish and English, suggesting that in the very near future, the world gets even smaller and cultures are in fact, combined (In BLADE RUNNER, the lower class in LA speaks a mish-mash of Japanese, German and English – in keeping with the film's post-industrialist themes). Instead of going old-school with the architecture a la BLADE RUNNER, the locations/sets in CODE 46 actually look modern (as opposed to futuristic) making the world of CODE 46 feel like a very palpable future (would that be a post-postmodernist concept?).

The schizophrenic element starts with the two lead characters, played by Tim Robbins and Samantha Morton. Robbins qualifies in the sense that he lives two distinct lives – the one in the US with his family and the other in Beijing with Morton and for Morton, she is both a worker and a thief and is also sort of a mixed race-type being the offspring of one parent from the "inside" and the other from the "outside". Though what makes someone banished from the "inside" isn't always clear, the very idea that the world has been essentially divided into two sections – the "inside" and the "outside" is, in and of itself, a schizophrenic quality.

Now that we've examined the level of sci-fi sophistication within the new world of CODE 46 and its place amongst other postmodernist works, it's time to delve into what makes it a good film itself. Firstly, as I suggested earlier, Winterbottom is at the top of his game. The camerawork and angles are outstanding throughout (there is an particularly awesome shot of the reflection of Tim Robbins in Morton's eye). Winterbottom also occasionally utilizes POV angles, which are very effective, especially since they are justified by the way that people's memories seem to be able to be recorded and played back, in lieu of photographs or videocameras. It's unfortunate that Channel 13 presented a version that got panned and scanned because a visual, widescreen film like CODE 46 definitely suffers as a result.

I'm not sure why CODE 46 didn't have a significant impact when it first came out. It's a really intelligent, thought-out script that not only borrows from postmodern science fiction, but also wisely revises the genre to fit its own purpose. As I mentioned, the cinematography, direction and production design are all exceptional, only adding detail and nuance to the already strong and interesting narrative. Perhaps this airing on Reel 13 will allow some to reevaluate CODE 46 and help put it in its rightful place among the strong cerebral sci-fi films of the last twenty-five years.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, visit www.reel13.org)