|
|
Rob Edelman
April 11, 2011: Then and Now
Ronald Reagan is not the only deceased Hollywood actor to have his centennial in 2011.
Ginger Rogers also was born in 1911. With her birth year in mind, I recently programmed for myself a mini-Ginger Rogers movie marathon. Instead of re-seeing the obvious films-- for example, Ginger's musicals with Fred Astaire or a film like KITTY FOYLE, which earned Rogers her lone Academy Award-- I chose some more obscure titles. One is a 1944 feature titled I'LL BE SEEING YOU. I hadn't seen this film in years. Even though it is very much of its time, it also resonated for me on a very contemporary level.
Nineteen-forty-fourwas not the happiest time in American history. The U.S. had been immersed in World War II for three long years. The sons, boyfriends, husbands, brothers, and next-door neighbors of countless Americans had made the supreme sacrifice. Hollywood movies were acknowledging this reality, as well as the fact that many combat veterans were returning home to their communities with their bodies and minds shattered.
One such character is found in I'LL BE SEEING YOU. He is a soldier named Zach, and he is played by Joseph Cotten. What we learn about Zach is that he has experienced first-hand the horror of war, and he has a chest-full of medals to prove it.
At the beginning of the film, he meets a woman named Mary on a train. This is the Ginger Rogers character. And early on, we see that Mary is dealing with her own misery. Once upon a time, she was young and alone. She took a secretarial job, and her boss attempted to seduce her. While avoiding his clutches, he fell out of a window to his death-- and poor Mary was found guilty of manslaughter. The time is the Christmas holiday, and Mary has been given a furlough from prison. But she soon must return there, to finish out her sentence.
As you might guess, I'LL BE SEEING YOU is a love story. It is a tale of two lost souls who find each other. But there is one aspect of I'LL BE SEEING YOU that fascinated me. Like quite a few other films of this period, it offers a portrayal of deeply troubled souls, but it also puts forth a positive spin. Sure, the film acknowledges that 1944 was a rough time for the average American, but it also suggests that life will improve. The day will come when the war will be over, and it will be possible to mend your broken spirit, find love in the world, and live among fellow citizens who are good and decent.
Today, the U.S. is not immersed in World War III, but we are facing myriad problems from Middle East unrest to the threat of terrorism to the dreary economy. Now after seeing I'LL BE SEEING YOU, I thought of other films of its era that acknowledged the issues of the day but also put forth the notion that times will get better. These films just begin with THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, THE HUMAN COMEDY, TILL THE END OF TIME, and PRIDE OF THE MARINES.
Then I asked myself: What current films focus on contemporary dilemmas but also offer the notion that there is brightness at the end of the tunnel, that the state of things will improve.
Can anybody name one?
Well, there is a film from 2003, titled LOVE ACTUALLY, that offers a refreshing and hopeful take on our post 9/11 world. But beyond LOVE ACTUALLY, I could not think of any other...
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
April 4, 2011: Douglas Fairbanks and Robin Hood
Douglas Fairbanks is one of the legendary stars of the silent screen. Between 1915 and 1921, he established himself playing animated, contemporary, all-American heroes. Then, through the rest of the 1920s, he predated Errol Flynn as the movies' definitive swashbuckling idol.
One of his best swashbucklers will be screened, with live organ accompaniment, on the main stage of Proctors Theater in Schenectady on Sunday afternoon, April 10, at 2 PM and again on Monday evening, April 11, at 7:30 PM. That would be Fairbanks' version of ROBIN HOOD, which dates from 1922.
The first Doug Fairbanks swashbuckler is THE MARK OF ZORRO, released in 1920, in which he is cast as the fabled hero of old California. Arguably, THE MARK OF ZORRO is his all-time greatest film, but his ROBIN HOOD is no less enjoyable. ROBIN HOOD, THE MARK OF ZORRO, and Fairbanks' other swashbucklers fit a tried-and-true formula. In them, the actor self-assuredly poses, smiles, and exudes star power. He is charismatic and athletic, proving himself a swordsman supreme as he battles the bad guys and wins the fair maiden.
His ROBIN HOOD makes an interesting contrast to Errol Flynn's THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, released almost a decade-and-a-half later, in 1938, and considered the preeminent Hollywood swashbuckler. In the Fairbanks version, Robin falls for Maid Marian-- who is called "Lady" Marian-- and heads off to the Crusades with Richard the Lion-Hearted before being called back to England upon learning of Prince John's duplicity. Alan Hale, a popular character actor of the period, is cast as Little John-- and went on to play the same role in the Errol Flynn version.
Across the decades, Robin Hood has proved a popular and marketable character. There was a television series in the 1950s, filmed on location in England and starring Richard Greene, as well as a Disney cartoon in 1973. Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn poignantly played a middle-aged Robin Hood and Maid Marian in ROBIN AND MARIAN, released in 1976. Kevin Costner took on the role in 1991, and Mel Brooks parodied the fable in 1993 in ROBIN HOOD: MEN IN TIGHTS. Then there is the now-legendary Rat Pack-- in other words, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis, Jr. and company-- who in 1964 starred in the cleverly titled ROBIN AND THE 7 HOODS.
Still, the most beloved Robin Hood is Errol Flynn. His ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD was one of the favored movies of my childhood, even though it was made years before I was born and even though I only could view this Technicolor film on a small black-and-white television screen. By the way, the story goes that Warner Bros. originally planned to film THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD in 1935, with James Cagney. After Errol Flynn won stardom in CAPTAIN BLOOD, another of his classic swashbucklers, it was clear that only he could play Robin Hood.
But Douglas Fairbanks is no less impressive in the role, and no less impressive a celluloid swashbuckling champion. It surely will be a treat to see his ROBIN HOOD on the big screen.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
March 28, 2011: What Is Real, What Is Special Effects
In the wake of the devastating earthquake in Japan, I found myself glued to the TV, gazing at clip after clip of the quake rattling the country and the subsequent tsunami washing away cars, and houses, and lives, with the ease of an eraser forever rubbing out the writing on a blackboard.
This, of course, is very real. But then I thought of HEREAFTER, the Clint Eastwood film that came to theaters this past fall. HEREAFTER features a very realistic recreation of a tsunami. It is extremely well-done, and HEREAFTER deservedly earned a Best Achievement in Visual Effects Academy Award nomination.
But when we see this tsunami, we know that it is special effects. We know that it is not real. One of the long-debated issues regarding violence onscreen involves the possibility that watching graphic images desensitizes the viewer to real violence. Do viewers respond differently if they know the violent images they are seeing are real, as opposed to Hollywood make-believe?
Ten years ago, I was not surprised that so many people who saw the twin towers crumble reported that seeing the skyscrapers imperiled seemed like something out of a movie. Nor was I surprised to read the following in an Associated Press account of the present-day earthquake and tsunami: "The apocalyptic images of surging water and uncontrolled conflagrations broadcast by Japanese TV networks resembled scenes from a Hollywood disaster movie."
My concern about the impact of violent imagery had led me to devise the following film clip program. First, I screen clips from several Hollywood "disaster"/science fiction films. One is THE TOWERING INFERNO, a 1974 extravaganza that features a skyscraper ablaze. Another is Steven Spielberg's AI ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, which includes futuristic images of Manhattan encased in ice.
These images are, of course, not real. But then I show actual news footage taken in downtown Manhattan on 9/11. And up for discussion are the following questions: How do we respond to the "manufactured" violence? How do we respond to the footage of the real-life disaster? Is there a difference?
When we watch films like THE TOWERING INFERNO and AI ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, we can remind ourselves that what we are seeing is "only a movie." The bloodied actors and extras in a Hollywood action film are not real casualties. At one point during the filming, the director yelled "Cut" and the actors and extras stopped "playing dead," wiped away the fake blood, and strode off the set.
But what would happen if reality intruded? In AI ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, images of the twin towers establish the sequence's setting as Manhattan. This film was released in 2001, several months prior to 9/11. And so, how might viewers have responded to the film if they had seen it on September 9th, 2001? How might this have differed on, say, September 13th?
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
March 14, 2011: Different Types of Docs
Today, whether in documentaries or reality TV shows, we are used to watching the on-screen subjects play to the camera. It is as if the individuals being filmed are well aware of the presence of the camera, and so there is a fine line between what is really happening-- the film we are seeing is, after all, a documentary-- and what is being manufactured by the director, the producer, the participant.
With this in mind, it would be useful to cite the manner in which two very different documentaries are constructed. The first is LA DANSE: LE BALLET DE L'OPERA DE PARIS, and its director is Frederick Wiseman. For over four decades, Wiseman has been at the forefront of American documentarians, from his first film, the controversial, still shocking TITICUT FOLLIES, released in 1967, in which he takes the viewer inside a Massachusetts institution for the criminally insane, to STATE LEGISLATURE, from 2007, a warts-and-all look at the workings of the Idaho State Legislature.
LA DANSE... offers a sharp, insightful look at the inner workings of the Paris Opera Ballet. One of the keys to this film is that there is no narration. In other words, Wiseman is minimizing his presence here. He simply is offering a candid look at the dancers as they perform, as well as an inside peek into what goes on during rehearsals and production meetings.
Wiseman wants the subjects and their actions to speak for themselves. This is the opposite of what you will find in any Michael Moore film, or a documentary like WAITING FOR "SUPERMAN," one of last year's high-profile releases, which offers insight into the crisis in American education.
In these films, the directors not only narrate-- or, in the case of Moore, are strong on-camera presences. They infuse their films with their personalities and points-of-view. (By the way, for obvious reasons, LA DANSE... makes a telling contrast to one of last year's most hyped non-documentaries. That would be Darren Aronofsky's BLACK SWAN.)
LA DANSE... already is available on DVD. The second documentary I want to cite has just been released to DVD. It is titled A FILM UNFINISHED. For its content alone, A FILM UNFINISHED is difficult viewing. But for its content alone, it is essential viewing.
The film's director is Yael Hersonski, the granddaughter of a Warsaw Ghetto survivor. At its core is an infamous Nazi propaganda film, titled DAS GHETTO and filmed in 1942. DAS GHETTO actually is disguised as a documentary which purports to depict the wealthy Jews of Warsaw as they callously ignore the plight of their less fortunate brethren.
A bit of history is helpful here. An hour-long silent version of DAS GHETTO was unearthed in an East German film archive during the 1950s. Then in 1998, a missing reel was discovered. This reel features raw footage of the staging of scenes and alternate takes, and its content is pivotal to the manner in which DAS GHETTO was constructed. Here, in what only can be described as a perversion of reality, the viewer clearly sees how Jews were forced by the Nazis to partake in a sickening charade of "role-playing."
Given its content, A FILM UNFINISHED offers up an extreme example of twisting the facts to suit an agenda. But there is a lesson here. Just because something is labeled a documentary, or "reality television," this does not mean that its content is in fact real.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
March 7, 2011: Corporate Greed
Sometimes, a movie may be, on so many levels, well... ordinary. Yet at the same time, because of its content or what it sets out to accomplish, it is relevant-- and even memorable. One such film is THE COMPANY MEN. The dynamics of its plot are predictable. The plights and fates of its characters are predictable. Yet this film has much to say about the sorry state of corporate America, 2011-style. In this regard, THE COMPANY MEN is the equivalent of a Page 1 headline in today's newspaper.
Its central character is Bobby Walker, played by Ben Affleck, a mid-level employee at the GTX Corporation. Walker has a wife and a couple of kids, and a life that centers on his golf game. But one day, after 12 years at GTX, he is unceremoniously fired, not because his work performance has been lacking but because the balance sheet at GTX must be improved. In other words, the company's coldhearted CEO will be bringing home just a few million dollars this year, rather than the many millions he usually pockets. So for him, it merely is good business to dispassionately lay off workers like Bobby Walker.
The other main character in the film is Gene McClary, played by Tommy Lee Jones. McClary is the CEO's underling and oldest friend. He at least is more humane than his boss, in that he is guilt-ridden over the firings of workers and the impact it has on their lives. But there is nothing that McClary can do to remedy the situation.
THE COMPANY MEN is not a movie about blue collar workers being exploited by their superiors. It is not a film like 1979's NORMA RAE, in which underpaid factory workers with limited educations or experiences end up unionizing themselves. The employees in THE COMPANY MEN are well-paid paper pushers who live in comfortable suburban houses with neatly-trimmed lawns, or in McMansions. They can afford expensive vacations. They can afford to send their children to Italy on school trips. Some even fly in corporate jets. In other words, from a strictly materialistic point of view, they are living out their American Dreams, and they are at a loss when their lifestyles are trampled on.
On one level, it is easy to place blame on characters like Bobby Walker for embracing money-oriented lifestyles. Maybe a man like Walker would be better off if he downsized his life and found more joy in his relationships with his wife and kids. But still, Walker is a victim here. He is a victim of a contemporary corporate culture in which loyalty and hard work go unappreciated. He and other basically decent people are sacrificed, not for the good of the company but for the greed of the man at the top-- and no one takes responsibility.
At one point, one of the characters offers a point of view that not only sums up the film but reflects on the state of contemporary corporate America. "We used to make something here," he observes, philosophically, "before we got lost in the paperwork."
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
February 28, 2011: Of Local Interest
Many films that earn theatrical release in the U.S. never play outside New York City or other major urban venues. And many films never even earn theatrical distribution. Instead, they are released direct to DVD. More often than not, they forego theatrical play because they are both awful and unmarketable. In other words, they likely would not earn back the dollars spent to put them in theaters and publicize them, let alone come away with any sort of a profit.
But one such film I recently saw is anything but dreadful. I mention it now because it also is of local interest. The film in question is titled AGAINST THE CURRENT. It played the Sundance Film Festival two years ago. After screening at other fests from Seattle to Chicago to Glasgow, it came out on DVD in October.
The local angle is that much of AGAINST THE CURRENT was shot on location along the Hudson River. While the filmmaker, Peter Callahan, does an excellent job of capturing the beauty of the Hudson, his film is not without interest as a pensive exploration of the purpose of life-- and the meaning of life.
Joseph Fiennes, who perhaps is best-recalled for playing Will Shakespeare in 1998’s SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, stars as Paul: a man in his mid-thirties who still is grief-stricken over the death of his wife and child five years before. Paul feels that life is pointless. Nothing really interests him, except the idea of fulfilling a childhood dream. And so, in the company of Jeff, his childhood pal, a wannabe actor who tends bar, and Liz, a schoolteacher acquaintance, Paul decides to swim the Hudson River. His starting point is Troy. His finish-line is the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
AGAINST THE CURRENT is a leisurely paced, extremely downbeat film that builds in intensity as it goes along. Most significantly, filmmaker Callahan, who also scripted, asks a question that really strikes a nerve: Is it possible to find meaning in life, and keep on living life, when life has dealt you the cruelest of blows?
Given its subject, it is understandable why AGAINST THE CURRENT did not earn a theatrical release in the U.S. It is not the kind of film you will want to watch on a Saturday night-- or any night, for that matter-- if you are craving escapism and happy endings.
But AGAINST THE CURRENT is worth seeing for several reasons. First, it thoughtfully deals with issues and feelings that are universal. Next, it features an eye-opening supporting performance by none other than Mary Tyler Moore. In this film, Moore’s character is anything but an aging version of perky Laura Petrie. In her brief scenes, she steals the film as Liz’s royal pain of a mother.
And finally, AGAINST THE CURRENT features some absolutely stunning views of the mighty Hudson River.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
February 21, 2011: Childhood
A complex, ambitious, albeit flawed film recently came to my attention for several reasons. For one thing, one of its stars is Michelle Williams, a current Best Actress Oscar nominee. But more importantly, the film offers astute commentary on an issue that is vital to humankind. That is that all children are alike in that they essentially are innocent. They may look up at the sky and stars and dream. They may crave opportunity-- and they should be created equal. But in our world, all children are not created equal. Life simply does not work this way.
The film is titled MAMMOTH, and it is available on DVD. Its writer-director is Lukas Moodysson, and the manner in which young people are viewed and treated within different cultures is a constant in his films. But in MAMMOTH, Moodysson also spotlights the excesses of even the most well-meaning in America’s privileged classes.
The central-- but not sole-- characters are an affluent married couple who reside in New York City. Leo, played by Gael García Bernal, is a businessman. Ellen, the Williams character, is a doctor. In their orbit are a range of characters, starting with their little daughter, who they dearly love. This is an American child who has all of life’s advantages. One of them is the affection of Gloria, her caring Filipino nanny.
Ellen often is so busy with her career that she spends little time with her child, and she fears that the girl will grow away from her and be more emotionally dependent on the nanny. Gloria, meanwhile, has children of her own, but they are thousands of miles away, back in the Philippines. She misses them, and they miss having their mother in their presence. But working in the U.S., mothering someone else’s child, is Gloria’s sole means of earning the kind of money that will allow her family to escape from a life of horrific poverty.
Two other plot threads comprise the scenario. The first involves what happens when Leo goes on a business trip to Bangkok, where he suddenly decides to change his lifestyle and comes to the assistance of an exploited young hooker. The other centers on Ellen’s reaction as she doctors a little boy who has been rushed to her hospital after having been stabbed in the stomach five times by his mother.
Dramatically-speaking, MAMMOTH is far from perfect. It occasionally meanders, and at 125 minutes it a bit overlong. But it is spot-on as a story of contrasts and a commentary on how, if you are lucky enough to not just be born in the U.S. but be born into affluence and have loving, caring parents, your life will be pretty much set. Whatever problems you have will be of your own making. You may feel dissatisfied, but you will have no concept of what it means to truly struggle. You will be allowed the luxury of being compassionate, but only for as long as it suits you.
However, if you are abused rather than loved by your family, or if you are the product of a society in which poverty and exploitation are everyday realities, your life will be that much more difficult to navigate. You will struggle. And you will have less control, or no control, over your fate.
One all-too-brief scene echoes volumes about this film's emotional terrain. One of Gloria’s sons asks her to buy him a basketball. Gloria dutifully visits a New York sporting goods store to purchase the ball. As she does so, there is a close-up of the ball-- and we see that it was made in... the Philippines.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
February 14, 2011: An Oscar Nominee’s Other Films
At the moment, ten actors are in the media spotlight. These are the ten who have earned Academy Award nominations in the acting and supporting acting categories. But in a number of cases, the performances for which they’ve been cited are not the only performances they’ve given during the year.
Take, for example, James Franco, whose well-earned nomination is for the well-received 127 HOURS. Unfortunately, two of Franco’s other 2010 films are anything but distinguished. He had a role in EAT PRAY LOVE, the Julia Roberts starrer. I saw EAT PRAY LOVE in August, which is not that long ago, and I must admit that I have no memory of James Franco in this film. Part of the reason, perhaps, is that EAT PRAY LOVE was, for me, little more than a Julia Roberts vanity project. So the less I recall of the film, the better.
Franco had a small part in DATE NIGHT, the Steve Carell-Tina Fey comedy. I was anticipating seeing this film not because of Franco. I was looking for a bit of escapism and figured: How could I miss with a comedy starring Steve Carell and Tina Fey? Well, despite the likable presences of these actors, DATE NIGHT was a major disappointment. It was barely funny and extremely dumb: the kind of witless film that, in the present day, too often comes off the Hollywood assembly line.
However, there was one film in which James Franco appeared that is well-worth discovering. That film is HOWL, and it recently was released to DVD. HOWL is an unusual, stimulating semi-narrative film from Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, who are best-known as documentarians. Franco stars as Allen Ginsberg, and the film charts the creation of Howl, Ginsberg’s landmark poem, and its impact on the American cultural landscape of the 1950s.
In the film, Epstein and Friedman effectively blend a recreation of Ginsberg reading the poem at San Francisco’s City Lights bookstore in 1955 and responding to an interviewer’s questions about his life; the 1957 obscenity trial of Howl’s publisher, Lawrence Ferlinghetti; and some stunning animated sequences, created by Eric Drooker, whose imagery reflects the poem’s content. Additionally, images of the real individuals portrayed are cleverly mixed in with those of Franco and the other actors. For example, you see Franco as Ginsberg, and then there are childhood photos that clearly are of the real Allen Ginsberg.
Some of the actors in HOWL are familiar names and faces: David Strathairn; Jon Hamm; Bob Balaban; Alessandro Nivola; Treat Williams; Mary-Louise Parker; and Jeff Daniels. But James Franco is the film’s focal point, and he is made up to eerily resemble a young Allen Ginsberg.
Finally, a word about the content of Ginsberg’s poem and why it caused controversy. In the film, Franco’s reading of Howl quickly becomes a challenge to the viewer-- or, if you will, the listener. And a question comes to the fore: Are some of Ginsburg’s words and phrases obscene? The answer, perhaps, depends upon how you define “obscene.” But for sure, the poem was shocking to the more mainstream element in 1950s America.
Granted, many of Ginsberg’s words and phrases could not be repeated on the radio-- even today. But if you ponder the manner in which Ginsberg connects his words and uses language, you can see how Howl indeed is poetry, written from the heart.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
February 7, 2011: Ozu
STILL WALKING, a Japanese film directed by Hirokazu Kore-eda which momentarily will be arriving on DVD, is a quietly moving family drama that deals with universal emotional issues. And in its simple straightforwardness, it recalls the best of one of Kore-eda’s legendary countrymen. That would be Yasujiro Ozu, who passed away in 1963: just one year after Kore-eda was born.
When I was coming of age, “foreign-language films” meant Federico Fellini, Ingmar Bergman, Francois Truffaut, Luis Buñuel, and Akira Kurosawa. Sure, there were plenty of world-class filmmakers working in France and Italy. But it seemed as if Bergman was the lone filmmaker in all of Scandinavia, and Kurosawa was Japan’s sole contribution to the art of the cinema.
Boy, how I was wrong.
For one thing, across the decades there have been other exceptional Japanese filmmakers-- and one of them is Yasujiro Ozu. Furthermore, I am delighted to report that, last year, the restored version of a film Ozu directed way back in 1932 enjoyed theatrical play. The film is titled I WAS BORN, BUT..., and you can see it on DVD. It is a witty satire of Japanese culture and customs, and it is one of Ozu’s early masterpieces.
I WAS BORN, BUT... is the tale of two young brothers who scheme to raise their standing in a neighborhood gang, one of whose members is the son of their father’s boss. The film also takes on a more universal tone as it reflects on the impact of peer group pressure and the sacrifices one makes for one’s family. It is a typical Ozu work in that its scenario emphasizes human connection and compassion, the carefree nature of childhood contrasted to the stresses of adult responsibility, the bond between parent and child, and the alienation that often exists between parent and child.
Ozu’s best-remembered film is TOKYO STORY, which was released in 1953. TOKYO STORY is the heartbreaking account of an elderly couple who visit their otherwise distracted children in the title locale. Here, Ozu offers keen insight into the changes then occurring in post-World War II Japan. But a film like I WAS BORN, BUT...-- made before the war-- is just as profoundly moving.
Other early Ozu films also are available on DVD. They include TOKYO CHORUS, from 1931, a graceful, emotionally rich comedy-drama spotlighting the daily struggles of a Tokyo family; PASSING FANCY, from 1933, about an amiable single father and his compassion for a solitary young woman; and A STORY OF FLOATING WEEDS, from 1934, which Ozu remade as FLOATING WEEDS a quarter-century later, in which the head of a traveling acting troupe visits the small village that is home to an old lover.
When I think of Japan during the 1930s, I think of a country that was aggressively preparing for war. I do not automatically think of Yasujiro Ozu and his special brand of humanism. But Ozu was making films back then, films that are as relevant in subject and tone as Kore-eda’s STILL WALKING-- which was made almost a half-century after Ozu’s death.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
January 24, 2011: Casino Jack Abramoff
At this time of the year, amid all the Academy Awards hoopla, one performance that I do not expect to cop an Oscar nomination is Kevin Spacey’s flashy, spot-on turn in CASINO JACK. Sure, Spacey did earn a Golden Globe citation, in the Best Actor (Comedy/Musical) category, but I would bet that the five Best Actor Oscar nominees-- which will be announced tomorrow-- will be the five actors who earned Golden Globe nominations in the Best Actor (Drama) category. They are Jesse Eisenberg for THE SOCIAL NETWORK, Colin Firth for THE KING’S SPEECH, James Franco for 127 HOURS, Ryan Gosling for BLUE VALENTINE, and Mark Wahlberg for THE FIGHTER.
But this does not negate Spacey’s performance, nor does the fact that CASINO JACK likely will earn no Oscar nods negate its power as a reflection of our sorry times.
The title character in CASINO JACK is Jack Abramoff (whose story, by the way, also is told in Alex Gibney’s appropriately titled documentary, CASINO JACK AND THE UNITED STATES OF MONEY). Once upon a time, Abramoff was one of the most influential lobbyists in Washington. But his actions-- in particular, those involving the pilfering of funds from Indian casinos-- were the definition of greed and excess, and a political system gone awry.
At its best, CASINO JACK offers a knowing portrait of corruption 21st-century American-style. It is the story of a self-absorbed power player who rationalizes his bad behavior, all in the name of looking after his family, playing out the role of a tough guy, and taking no prisoners in a hard-as-nails world. This is apparent in the film’s first scene, in which Abramoff looks at himself in a mirror while brushing his teeth and, in a soliloquy, pronounces that he is a "big leaguer,” a major player who refuses to accept mediocrity. And also, Abramoff observes, "Lobbying is nothing more than American-style democracy in action. And the more influence we have, the bigger the smiles on our kids’ faces.”
Oftentimes, in fact-based movies, the names are changed to protect the innocent-- or avoid lawsuits. This is not the case in CASINO JACK. Many of those who play roles in the Jack Abramoff story-- including Tom DeLay, Ralph Reed, Karl Rove, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Bill Clinton--- all are in the script.
But at its core, CASINO JACK is a cautionary tale about present-day Washington, where the true policymakers are not the presidents and congressmen and women who are elected to office. Nor are they those who have the public interest at heart. Rather, they are lobbyists like Jack Abramoff and those who represent corporate self-interest.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
January 17, 2011: Under-the-Radar “Documentaries”
During the first months of each new year, the art house theaters usually screen the top films released at the end of the previous year while the generally awful new films that are commercial throwaways are dumped into the mall theaters. Add to this the cold and snowy weather, and January and February are perfect months for exploring films on DVD.
A couple of unusual new films recently have been released to DVD. Both are difficult to categorize, and both are perfect fare for those who savor films that are stimulating and challenging.
DOUBLE TAKE is a unique, fascinating film, and it is not quite a documentary and not quite a work of fiction. As it offers up a portrait of the legendary Alfred Hitchcock, it combines early 1960s television advertising, newsreel footage, and images of Hitchcock introducing episodes of his television series and spinning what then was his latest feature film, THE BIRDS. Plus, there is the presence of Ron Burrage, a Hitchcock look-alike. At one point, in the late 1990s-- years after the real Hitchcock passed away-- we see Burrage impersonating Hitchcock at a film festival in which a print of THE BIRDS was screened. And there is the faux–Hitchcock in the presence of Tippi Hedren, the real actress who starred in the real Hitchcock’s film almost four decades earlier.
And so, after a while, as we watch the decades-old clips of a playful Hitchcock introducing ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS, and we stare at Burrage, a question may be asked: Who is the real Alfred Hitchcock, and who is the impostor?
DOUBLE TAKE is at once a revisiting of the politics, culture, and Cold War paranoia that defines the early 1960s as well as an exploration of the manner in which images play a role in contemporary culture and what those images mean: How do we know that what we are looking at on television is real, or made-up, or merely hype? It’s as if, when we happen upon a television commercial in which an actor tells us, “I may not be a real doctor, but I play one on TV,” we somehow are supposed to give this ad extra-special attention, as if the words uttered by the actor are more significant than if they are being spoken by a real doctor.
And for those who are bothered by the so-called “salesmanship” found in contemporary television commercials, wait until you see those ancient Folger’s coffee ads in DOUBLE TAKE. All at once, they define marriage and male-female relationships in a pre-feminist culture-- and, they are riotously funny.
Unlike DOUBLE TAKE, EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP clearly is a documentary. Its ostensible subject is Banksy, the “notoriously secretive” king of British street art, a “man of mystery” who has avoided being photographed and has never been seen in public. Nonetheless, Banksy allows Thierry Guetta, a French video artist living in Los Angeles, to shoot his work. Banksy, meanwhile, encourages Guetta to make his own art-- and Banksy then decides that Guetta would be an interesting subject for a film. So he promptly switches roles and begins directing a movie about Guetta.
EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP asks some salient questions about art, filmmaking, and popular culture: What exactly is art? Can art be displayed only in museums? Must an aspiring artist be a slave to the politics of the established art world and the whims of whoever rules that world at any given moment?
In general, who really dictates the content of a documentary film, its maker-- or its subject? And finally, and perhaps most significantly, is art in our modern world about self-expression-- or self-promotion?
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
January 10, 2011: Deconstructing De Niro
Once upon a time, Robert De Niro was the outstanding young American actor. He was cutting edge. And for my money, he outranked the best of his peers, and this list includes Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, and Dustin Hoffman-- heavyweights all-- who deservedly earned their initial acclaim in the late 1960s and early 70s. At the time, these actors riveted audiences in a string of landmark films that collectively redefined the American cinema.
But seeing Robert De Niro giving searing, emotionally raw performances in such films as MEAN STREETS, TAXI DRIVER, THE GODFATHER PART II, BANG THE DRUM SLOWLY, and RAGING BULL was extra-special, and nothing short of breathtaking. His performances in all these films were in the moment and, to this very day, I take great pleasure in re-watching them.
But these films are decades old and, all these years later, the question is: What happened to Robert De Niro? Will he ever again give a performance to rival his Johnny Boy in MEAN STREETS, or Travis Bickle in TAXI DRIVER, or Jake LaMotta in RAGING BULL?
Well, De Niro’s most recent film, a witless, patronizing alleged comedy titled LITTLE FOCKERS, is the latest in a depressingly long string of unmemorable to downright embarrassing films in which he has appeared. LITTLE FOCKERS, the third in a trilogy, following MEET THE PARENTS and MEET THE FOCKERS, is the sort of film that defines all that is wrong with contemporary American movies.
Granted, not all of De Niro’s films released during the past two decades have been as appalling as LITTLE FOCKERS. For example, in the crime comedies ANALYZE THIS and ANALYZE THAT, released respectively in 1999 and 2002, De Niro cleverly satirizes his roles in Martin Scorsese crime films. But I could not begin to list all the De Niro films that are closer in lack of quality and entertainment value to LITTLE FOCKERS than to ANALYZE THIS and ANALYZE THAT, let alone his iconic films of the 1970s.
Back in September, I attended a Toronto Film Festival press conference for STONE, which was released in the fall and featured De Niro in a dramatic role. There he was on the panel, quietly offering comments about the film in an effort to sell the product to the press. I’ve seen De Niro in similar venues on several occasions, and his demeanor always is quietly unassuming. One never would think that this is the same actor who, at his best, is capable of burning up the screen.
And while watching him as he hyped this mostly forgettable film, I found myself asking the very same question that I am putting forth here: Whatever happened to Robert De Niro?
For his seminal early performances alone, he will forever rate as one of the defining forces of the new American cinema of four decades past. He is a Hollywood legend, right up there with the Marlon Brandos and Paul Newmans. But it seems that, in recent times, De Niro simply has stopped challenging himself, and stopped challenging audiences. Clearly, he has squandered his talents in too many third-rate films, films like LITTLE FOCKERS.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
January 3, 2011: Biutiful
The just-concluded holiday season is a time for good cheer and cotton-candy escapism. But given its subject matter, one end-of-the-year release likely will not have you clamoring to see it. It is a Spanish-Mexican film, directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu, that is titled BIUTIFUL.
The central character is Uxbal, played by Javier Bardem. Uxbal is a solitary figure, “a man who senses the danger of death.” For one thing, he has a gift for communicating with the recently deceased. So it is no surprise that Uxbal’s own mortality becomes the central force in the film. After feeling a pain, he visits a doctor and learns he has terminal cancer. How will he respond? How will this news impact his relationships with his two adoring children, his capricious estranged wife who is sleeping with his brother, and the manner in which he relates to the world?
Uxbal, certainly, is not a great man. He isn’t even a good one, as he gives no thought to his behavior and the manner in which his actions impact on most of those around him. One even might describe Uxbal as a villain, in that he earns considerable sums of money by engaging in a string of shady activities involving the exploitation of Chinese immigrants. Certainly, his life is ordinary, insignificant, even sordid. But at least he loves his children. They are his lone link to the future-- and, for him personally, that future is tenuous.
BIUTIFUL is a difficult, challenging, deeply personal film which affectingly ruminates on the brevity of life and the importance of not wasting a minute of it. And this is, in its way, a perfect thought for the new year.
A couple more points: First, Iñárritu’s films generally are crammed with striking images, and BIUTIFUL is no different. Beyond its plot and characterizations, this film may be appreciated for its visual stylistics. It is a sterling example of the art of cinema, which-- commercial considerations aside-- is what movies should be about but too often are not.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the title of the film is spelled B-I-U-T-I-F-U-L-- which is the way a child might spell the word “beautiful.”
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
December 27, 2010: The Year’s Ten Best
Usually, it seems, a majority of each year’s highest-quality films-- those that make critics’ top-ten lists and are the hot prospects for Academy Awards-- are end-of-the-year releases. However, in 2010, this was not the case. Granted, what for my money is one of the year’s two best films-- that would be THE KING’S SPEECH-- is an end-of-November release. But this year, the dates in which most of the top films came to theaters were scattered across the calendar.
In any case, THE KING’S SPEECH, directed by Tom Hooper, and THE SOCIAL NETWORK, directed by David Fincher, earn special praise-- and deserve to be singled out for being the best of the ten-best films.
* On paper, THE KING’S SPEECH sounds downright uncinematic. It is the story of the Duke of York, the soon-to-be king of England prior to World War II, and how he overcomes a terrible stammer. But what makes the film so memorable is David Seidler’s witty script and tremendous performances by Colin Firth, who plays the king-- and who likely will walk off with the Best Actor Academy Award-- and Geoffrey Rush, cast as his speech therapist.
* THE SOCIAL NETWORK charts the birth of and controversy surrounding Facebook, the hugely popular social networking web site. It also is a character study of Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, who is played by Jesse Eisenberg in a letter-perfect performance. Cinematically-speaking, THE SOCIAL NETWORK is cutting-edge. Once you get used to its rhythms, Aaron Sorkin’s rapid-fire screenplay is first-rate, Fincher’s direction is spot-on, and the result is a devastating portrait of power and ambition in a culture ruled by computer software, rather than human contact.
All-to-briefly, the OTHER top-ten titles are:
* 127 HOURS, a story of perseverance and survival that features sharp direction by Danny Boyle and a fantastic soundtrack.
* THE GHOST WRITER, directed by Roman Polanski, a chillingly contemporary film that offers a sobering look at a modern world that is steeped in paranoia: a world in which there is constant surveillance and a constant fear of terrorism, a fear that may be real-- or may be manufactured.
* Lisa Cholodenko’s THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, which is funny and entertaining in an easy, naturalistic manner, and which tells the story of the everyday issues facing a very contemporary American family.
* Nicole Holofcener’s PLEASE GIVE, a tale of individuals who are not intrinsically evil but who are flawed and vulnerable. This is a keenly observational film which examines a range of moral issues.
* HEREAFTER, the latest from Clint Eastwood, a daring, occasionally heartbreaking film that poses touchy questions that impact on each and every human being, starting with: What happens to you after you die?
* Who says such a list has to be restricted to films that were new in 2010? One of the year’s most pleasurable films was the restored, complete version of METROPOLIS, Fritz Lang’s 1926 German expressionist masterpiece. Its theatrical play surely was one of the movie events of the year.
* More than the usual number of outstanding documentaries enjoyed theatrical releases in 2010. My choice for the best of the lot is RESTREPO, directed by Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger, a riveting portrait of the members of one U.S. platoon stationed in Afghanistan. As I watched RESTREPO, all I could do was repeat to myself questions that I could not answer: What are we doing in Afghanistan? What are we accomplishing?
* Some of the year’s best foreign films are explorations of criminality. These films include ANIMAL KINGDOM, from Australia, and the three “GIRL...” films that comprise Stieg Larsson’s “Millennium Trilogy.” But my choice to close out this list is A PROPHET, a French-Italian co-production directed by Jacques Audiard: a shattering denunciation of penal systems that are operated not by wardens and jailors but by the most dominant inmates. A PROPHET, like some other titles on this list, is a film for our time in that it is an exploration of the pervasiveness of corruption.
* Finally, I would like to single out Albany’s Spectrum movie theater and other, similar venues. These movie houses bring audiences the non-mainstream fare that predictably is ignored by the mall theater chains. Theaters like the Spectrum should be strongly supported by all movie lovers.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
December 20, 2010: Aronofsky, Portman, Black Swan
BLACK SWAN, a psychological portrait of a vulnerable young ballerina, played by Natalie Portman, is one of the more anticipated films of the season. One reason is that its director, Darren Aronofsky, is known for his edgy, demanding work. And also, his previous film, released two years ago, is THE WRESTLER, which earned much acclaim for, among other things, Mickey Rourke’s career-resurrecting performance.
THE WRESTLER and BLACK SWAN are alike in that they attempt to get under the skins and burrow deep into the souls of their central characters. In each, Aronofsky sets out to bare their imperfections and disappointments, and humanize them. But while THE WRESTLER is a top-quality character study, BLACK SWAN mostly disappoints.
BLACK SWAN is set in a high-pressure world in which a glittery, star-is-born kind of success goes hand-in-hand with rejection and humiliation. It is an exploration of the inner demons of Nina Sayers, the ballerina, and her fears of failure, aging, and becoming a has-been-- or, even worse, a never-was.
The title character in THE WRESTLER also deals with some of the same issues. He is an isolated, inarticulate man who also is, within the narrow world of professional wrestling, a celebrity. But how much contentment is there for him when he is cheered in the ring but otherwise has no meaningful relationships? THE WRESTLER, at its core, examines the need for intimacy and the inability of some people to realize this need.
Unlike in THE WRESTLER, the central character in BLACK SWAN is at the beginning of her career and still is a wannabe: a dedicated ballet student hoping to crash through to stardom. The film attempts to explore her subconscious as she deals with everything from a manipulative stage mother to backstage politics, sexual and otherwise, to her own ambition, insecurity, and desire to be nothing short of “perfect.” But what will happen to her if she is rejected by her professional superiors and does not get the role she covets? What will happen if she does, but then is injured? How will she deal with a competitor who is bitchy, and perhaps even more determined to succeed?
Nina’s deep psychological issues are apparent from the outset. Here, in what only can be a visualization of a dream, she is seen in performance-- and her partner morphs from handsome young man to monster while she is transformed from poised performer to terrified young woman.
As you watch Nina early on, you get the feeling that she easily could end up writhing in psychological pain in a mental hospital, rather than having roses at her feet after dancing on a stage. In this regard, BLACK SWAN is as much a horror film as a psychological portrait of an emotionally fragile young woman.
However, the problem with BLACK SWAN is that it simply does not work. Too many aspects of its storyline are trite. Too many of the supporting characters are show business clichés. Granted, the central character is a juicy one, and Portman plays it to the dramatic hilt. I would be surprised is she does not earn a Best Actress Oscar nod.
But despite its good intentions, and the pedigree of its director, BLACK SWAN is way too melodramatic.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
December 13, 2010: Streaming Films
Among the more pleasurable activities presently available to movie buffs is the ability to watch films instantly on the Internet. One way of doing this is by subscribing to Netflix. There are countless choices here and much to discover, as many of the Netflix titles never have been released on DVD or VHS.
Some of these films offer eye-opening performances by soon-to-be stars. When you think of Steve McQueen, for example, you think of a movie legend who is hip and tough and oh, so cool. You think of the Steve McQueen from such iconic 1960s films as THE GREAT ESCAPE and BULLITT. Well, in 1958, before he became a star, McQueen had a supporting role in NEVER LOVE A STRANGER, a crime drama based on a Harold Robbins novel. Here, McQueen’s character is anything but hip and tough and cool. He plays a young law student, living in an urban ghetto, who is bullied by the neighborhood wise guys because he is Jewish.
Watching Steve McQueen being intimidated in NEVER LOVE A STRANGER serves as a reminder that actors are not the characters they play. An actor and his or her screen persona are completely separate entities.
Moving on to on-screen portrayals of war veterans: In so many post-World War II films, veterans are depicted sympathetically. Sure, some have issues, but these issues all may be dealt with. It seems that only Vietnam veterans have been portrayed cinematically as deadbeats and nut jobs or, worse, as criminals and even terrorists.
But then there is a 1955 film titled 5 AGAINST THE HOUSE. This is the story of a bored college rich boy who, on a lark, plans a Reno, Nevada, casino heist. What he doesn’t count on is that one of his pals, played by Brian Keith, is a mentally-scarred Korean War veteran and a firecracker waiting to explode. While he is a menace to all around him, the Keith character is compassionately portrayed, and the film is a sobering reminder that not all war veterans of the period overcame their traumas and made happy readjustments to civilian life.
Indeed, so many of these films tell us much about the era in which they were made. LONDON BELONGS TO ME, also known as DULCIMER STREET, a British film from 1948, charts the lives of the residents of a London boarding house and what happens when one of them is accused of murder. The film is set in 1939, in the months right before the start of World War II, and it serves as a peek into what then was recent British history. But primarily, LONDON BELONGS TO ME is an allegory of how the British, as a people, placed their differences aside and remained united in the face of the Nazi invaders.
One film whose politics really struck me is EDGE OF DOOM, from 1950. This is the story of a poor, hardworking young man who blows up upon the death of his mother; the only person who understands him is the local priest. EDGE OF DOOM offers a fascinating mirror of its era, when Hollywood was running scared in the face of the Cold War and the Hollywood blacklist. In EDGE OF DOOM, police officers bully American citizens. They do not identify themselves as they interrogate suspects or take them into custody. The chief cop orders his underlings to book suspects based on no evidence-- and the police are not the villains. They are portrayed as men who are just doing their job.
And finally, EDGE OF DOOM presents religious faith as a panacea, as a cornerstone of Americanism, and heaven help anyone who might disagree.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
December 6, 2010: Anne Hathaway Status Report
So many actors, even if they earn the opportunity to star in a motion picture, quickly are relegated to flavor-of-the-month status. When their film opens, they are paraded before the press and introduced to the public as the next James Dean, the next Julia Roberts. But ours is a throwaway culture, and so a year or two later many of them are yesterday’s news.
One performer who has successfully avoided this trap is Anne Hathaway, whose latest film is LOVE & OTHER DRUGS. Back in 2001, Hathaway-- who then was all of 19 years old-- burst onto the motion picture scene as the star of THE PRINCESS DIARIES. In this well-liked film, which was fashioned for pre-teen girls, Hathaway plays a shy 15-year-old who learns that she is a European princess. The popularity of THE PRINCESS DIARIES led to Hathaway’s being cast in a sequel, and also an offshoot, a Cinderella story titled ELLA ENCHANTED.
On one level, starring in three mainstream films is more than any Hollywood wannabe could hope for. Yet actors have long been pigeonholed by the public and typecast by the studios. So Anne Hathaway was in danger of being labeled a goody-two-shoes who only was capable of playing sugary sweet characters.
But Hathaway-- or at least, her managers-- took steps to remedy the situation and advance her career. In 2005, she had a key supporting role in a film that was controversial for the manner in which it portrayed the sexuality of its two primary characters. That film was BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. That same year, Hathaway also starred in a less-heralded film, one that was little-seen. But it was what Hathaway did in the film that was so startling, given her PRINCESS DIARIES persona. The film is titled HAVOC. It is a rare narrative directorial credit for Barbara Kopple, the esteemed documentary filmmaker. In HAVOC, Hathaway plays a wealthy, bored teenager who spouts the foulest of language. And she frequently appears on-screen without a stitch of clothing.
Hathaway’s PRINCESS DIARIES fans and their parents would be shocked. But in all practicality, her appearance in HAVOC was an excellent career move.
The following year, Hathaway won co-starring status in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA opposite no less a screen legend than Meryl Streep. It is a role that any young actor would crave. And then, in RACHEL GETTING MARRIED, released in 2008, Hathaway earned a Best Actress Oscar nod playing a deeply troubled young woman who returns home for her sister’s wedding.
At the time, I observed that PRINCESS DIARIES officially was ancient history for Anne Hathaway. However, in the two years since, Hathaway’s credits-- most specifically, I am thinking of a dreadfully unfunny comedy titled BRIDE WARS-- have been undistinguished. But now comes LOVE & OTHER DRUGS. Here, Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal play two 21st-century-slick twentysomethings who become involved sexually. They have spent their lives avoiding intimacy, but what will happen when their relationship goes beyond sex and they start to have feelings for each other? And also, added to the mix is that Hathaway’s character is suffering from early onset Parkinson’s disease.
LOVE & OTHER DRUGS is a real mishmash. All at once, it tries to be a searing expose of drug conglomerate excesses, a poignant exploration of physical frailty, a zany comedy, and a sweet romance-- and, it falters in all areas. But in her dramatic scenes, Hathaway is sensational. She adds depth and feeling to a role that is, at best, sketchily written.
For sure, Anne Hathaway no longer is in danger of becoming a flavor-of-the-month. But RACHEL GETTING MARRIED aside, I am eagerly awaiting the one film that will allow her to rise above the Hollywood A-list.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
November 29, 2010: Biopics
Some of the most highly anticipated end-of-the-year films are not cheery, candy-coated holiday fare. They deal with serious situations and life-altering dilemmas faced by their main characters. And they are biopics.
FAIR GAME, directed by Doug Liman and starring Naomi Watts and Sean Penn, easily might be retitled THE VALERIE PLAME-JOSEPH WILSON STORY. Its scenario, of course, involves the outing of Plame by White House officials as a CIA operative, supposedly as a means of disgracing Wilson, her husband, after he penned an op-ed article in the New York Times. In the piece, Wilson, a former ambassador to Niger, claimed the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Chaney altered the facts regarding weapons of mass destruction to validate the invasion of Iraq.
Today, we live in an era in which all that seems to matter is today, and what is happening right now, in the moment. If it occurred last Tuesday, let alone in 2007 or 2003, it is ancient history. However, a film like FAIR GAME serves as a sobering reminder that some stories and some events should remain in the public consciousness because they just may help to define an era.
On paper at least, two other new biopics appear to be uncinematic. One is 127 HOURS, Danny Boyle’s first feature post-SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. James Franco plays Aron Ralston, a young outdoorsman who falls into a ravine while hiking in Utah. His arm is pinned by a boulder, he is trapped, and the question is: What must he do to survive his ordeal?
The other is THE KING’S SPEECH, directed by Tom Hooper. Colin Firth stars as the Duke of York, the second son of King George V of England. The Duke suffers from a horrible stammer, and this becomes a major problem when his older brother, the Prince of Wales, abdicates the throne. The Duke now is the new king of England and the question here becomes: How will he cope with appearing in public and making speeches as England becomes immersed in World War II?
At the core of the story is the king’s involvement with Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush, the speech therapist and commoner who becomes the monarch’s tutor and friend.
THE KING’S SPEECH and 127 HOURS both are outstanding films. They benefit from superior performances, sharply written scripts, and creative direction-- and they will not be forgotten on January 25, when the nominations for the 2010 Academy Awards are announced.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
November 22, 2010: Life in Combat
These days, several outstanding-- not to mention well-publicized-- documentaries are playing in movie houses. They include INSIDE JOB, WAITING FOR SUPERMAN, and CLIENT 9: THE RISE AND FALL OF ELIOT SPITZER, and they examine such weighty subjects as the global financial crisis of two years ago, the disheartening state of public education in the United States, and... well... the rise and fall of the former New York governor.
Speaking of documentaries, I would like to mention an altogether different film, one that still is making the rounds of the film festival circuit. It is titled ARMADILLO, and it is similar to RESTREPO, a documentary released earlier this year, in that it spotlights a group of young soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. The difference is that, here, the young men are Danish; in RESTREPO, they are Americans. In both films, the soldiers are deployed, and they acclimate themselves to life at the front.
At the outset of ARMADILLO, we see one young man dealing with his feelings as he is about to go to war. There are the tearful goodbyes as he departs. While at the front, he speaks with his loved ones via cell phone. He learns that, back home, a phone recently rang in the middle of the night. It terrified his mother because, to her, a ringing phone at an ungodly hour only can mean tragic news. Then a loved one tells him that the photos of three soldiers who were killed in action were published in a local newspaper. These were young men, handsome and full of life. She tells the soldier that she is scared. She does not know how she can keep living under such stress, and she begs the young man to take care.
At another point, an innocent little girl is killed by a grenade. The soldier who tossed it feels guilty. Can he ever get beyond this? Will he rationalize that he was doing his job, following orders, and this is the sort of thing that happens in war?
While watching ARMADILLO, I had the same reaction I did with RESTREPO. I could not stop thinking: What is being accomplished here? What a waste of young lives. What a waste of promise. And finally, will any of these young men be wounded? Will any of them be killed?
But there is a difference between the two films. RESTREPO poses these same questions. However, in ARMADILLO, quite a few of the young men have joined the military simply because they want adventure. But how are they being touched by their experiences?
Before their deployment, they are shown partying with strippers. While at the front, they play violent video games-- as if the threat of real violence does not exist in their lives-- and they are turned on by the “extreme experience” of being in combat. So a question emerges: After completing their tour in Afghanistan, how many of them will willingly accept redeployment in the war zone?
ARMADILLO, ultimately, explores the psychology of men in war. It reflects on the way soldiers feel about what they do, how they perceive themselves, and how they are perceived by the outside world. Unlike RESTREPO, ARMADILLO is not an anti-war film. It is about some young guys who become addicted to the rush of combat, just like the central character in THE HURT LOCKER.
It also is as tense and moving as THE HURT LOCKER. But the difference is that what we see onscreen is real.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
November 15, 2010: John Cazale/Meryl Streep
For three decades, Meryl Streep has been the foremost American film actress. In fact, next to Bette Davis, Streep arguably is the all-time greatest female screen star. She is an actress who invests herself in each and every role.
John Cazale, meanwhile, is all but forgotten today. One reason is that he was way too young when he passed away-- and, unlike a James Dean or Marilyn Monroe, he has not evolved into a celluloid icon. Before his death from lung cancer in 1978, at age 42, Cazale appeared in just five feature films. But all were Best Picture Oscar nominees or winners: THE GODFATHER; THE CONVERSATION; THE GODFATHER: PART II; DOG DAY AFTERNOON; and THE DEER HUNTER.
Yet Cazale and Streep are intricately connected-- and not just because they both appeared in THE DEER HUNTER. The depth of their off-screen relationship is poignantly recounted in a documentary, I KNEW IT WAS YOU: REDISCOVERING JOHN CAZALE, which has just arrived on DVD.
I KNEW IT WAS YOU... is a generally outstanding film. But it is most special when focusing on Cazale and Streep, and their feelings for each other. They met while appearing in a stage production of MEASURE FOR MEASURE at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park, and they fell in love. When they acted in THE DEER HUNTER, Cazale already had been diagnosed with the cancer that would kill him. And we learn that Streep was with him until the very end.
I KNEW IT WAS YOU...-- the title is a line from THE GODFATHER-- also follows Cazale’s early life, his struggles to succeed as an actor, and how he was cast in THE GODFATHER as Fredo, the weak-willed older brother of Al Pacino’s Michael Corleone. Pacino, in fact, is on hand to discuss Cazale. So are some of our most acclaimed actors, including Robert De Niro, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Steve Buscemi, Gene Hackman-- and Meryl Streep. But most impressive is one particular observation from Pacino. He declares, “I think I learned more about acting from John than anybody.”
Cazale brought to his characterizations a sense of naturalism. He was adept at communicating his characters’ pain and vulnerability, and their deepest fears. In finding a character, an actor must uncover where that character hurts, and this defines Cazale’s approach to his craft. And in I KNEW IT WAS YOU..., there are plenty of clips to illustrate this point.
Three decades after appearing in MEASURE FOR MEASURE, Meryl Streep returned to Central Park to star in Tony Kushner’s translation of Bertolt Brecht’s MOTHER COURAGE AND HER CHILDREN.
MOTHER COURAGE..., which premiered in war-torn Berlin in 1949, is a fervently anti-war play, and an outcry against injustice. At its core is a question that is not easily answered: Why is so much of humankind too often drawn to actions and behavior that only will result in destruction and death?
The behind-the-scenes activity involving this new production of MOTHER COURAGE... is detailed in THEATER OF WAR, a documentary which came to DVD several weeks ago. In THEATER OF WAR, it is a treat to watch Streep in rehearsal, creating the title character and discussing her motivation for wanting to appear in the play. The film also spotlights the life and career of Bertolt Brecht, centering on his art and his politics.
Those who admire Meryl Streep or Bertolt Brecht, not to mention lovers of quality theater, will take great pleasure in THEATER OF WAR.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
November 8, 2010: Clint Eastwood
HEREAFTER, the latest from Clint Eastwood, is the kind of film that just may stick in your mind for days and even weeks after you see it. This is not just because of its subject matter. The film is astute and stimulating, to be sure, but it also is extremely well-made-- which is what one has come to expect in a Clint Eastwood film.
As it begins, HEREAFTER introduces characters in three separate scenarios. Marie (Cécile De France) is a celebrated French television journalist vacationing with her lover at a Pacific island resort. Marcus and Jason (Frankie and George McLaren) are twin boys who reside in London. George (Matt Damon) is a troubled San Francisco psychic who is cursed with the ability to communicate with the dead. Given George’s talent, and given the film’s title, it is no surprise that all these characters are in one way or another touched by death. Another point that is made throughout is that life-altering tragedy can appear and strike anyone, at any time, regardless of one’s status or age.
But primarily, as the film plays itself out, Eastwood and his screenwriter, Peter Morgan, pose questions that are touchy, but that impact on each and every human being: What happens to you after you die? Is there such a thing as an afterlife, or, once you are dead, is your soul in an eternal void?
Given the fact that Eastwood is 80 years old, one should not be surprised that these issues are on his mind - and that he has chosen to explore them cinematically. But HEREAFTER is not just concerned with what happens to souls in the hereafter. Sure, it is an ambitious and daring film, and it occasionally is heartbreaking. But most of all, it is life-affirming, as Eastwood and Morgan put forth the notion that, when you are alive, it is most essential to search for the person who is meant to be your soul mate. And in this regard, one can say yet again that Clint Eastwood has come a long way from DIRTY HARRY.
Finally, while pondering the film, I was reminded of the fate of one of Clint Eastwood’s long-ago co-stars. Back in the early 1960s, Eastwood was the second lead on RAWHIDE, a popular television series. The star of the show was Eric Fleming. In 1966, one year after RAWHIDE was cancelled, Fleming drowned while shooting a movie in Peru. He was just 41 years old.
There is no way to figure the future course of his career. Maybe he would have made a smooth transition to the movies and earned even greater fame on the big screen. Or maybe not. But what strikes me is that Eric Fleming, the star of RAWHIDE, died unexpectedly and tragically and now is all but forgotten, while Clint Eastwood, the co-star, is now and forever a Hollywood icon.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
November 1, 2010: History Comes Alive
On Monday evening, November 1-- that’s tonight-- Turner Classic Movies will present the first episode in a seven-part documentary series that is the equivalent of a film history text come to life. The series is titled MOGULS AND MOVIE STARS: A HISTORY OF HOLLYWOOD, and it is a straightforward overview of the American film industry from the invention of the moving image in the 19th century through the late 1960s. Subsequent episodes will air on TCM every Monday through mid-December.
MOGULS AND MOVIE STARS... focuses on the industry’s creators and innovators, and the lives and careers of countless filmmakers and stars. It is crammed with film clips-- and movie clips always are fun to watch. But the series is no mere trip down memory lane. It is informative, and it is insightful. It is worth watching if you already have a general knowledge of American film history, as well as a sense of how movies have impacted on the changing culture and mirrored the eras in which they were produced. But if you do not, you are certain to find the series illuminating.
In it, a range of subjects are explored. They include the interplay between movies and politics, the manner in which changes in the economy and world events have impacted the content of movies, the industry and its labor struggles, the uneasy mix between art and commerce that often defines Hollywood product, how the industry responded to the House UnAmerican Activities Committee hearings in the late 1940s, and the manner in which individuals have reinvented themselves in Hollywood-- how Schmuel Gelbfisz became Samuel Goldwyn, Archie Leach became Cary Grant, Frances Gumm became Judy Garland.
Most significantly, MOGULS AND MOVIE STARS... examines the individuals who literally built the motion picture industry from nothing: the Samuel Goldwyns and Louis B. Mayers and brothers Warner, most of whom were impoverished, semi-literate Jewish immigrants. As a group, they were brashly self-confident. Their success earned them tremendous sums of money, and allowed them to mix with United States Presidents. They were, to quote from the narration, “tough, driven men” who “didn’t need to be loved. They wanted to win.”
With these moguls in mind, another theme runs through the series. On occasion, those who amassed great power and influence as motion picture pioneers eventually lost that power, and ended up forgotten by the industry they helped create.
If anything, MOGULS AND MOVIE STARS... can be faulted for focusing only on the top names in film history. Only the major personalities and landmark films are mentioned. But the series does cover quite a bit of ground-- and, after all, it is titled MOGULS AND MOVIE STARS... And it correctly puts forth the notion that, to quote again from the narration, “The history of Hollywood is a history of the American experience.”
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
October 25, 2010: Rebecca Hall
Movie stars come, and movie stars go.
If you are fortunate enough to win fame on the silver screen, the key to sustaining that fame and not becoming just another flavor of the month is to maneuver your career in a manner that will keep the public’s attention focused not just on you, but on your performances.
This brings to mind a young, London-born actress by the name of Rebecca Hall. Perhaps you remember her as Vicky in Woody Allen’s VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA, or from Nicole Holofcener’s PLEASE GIVE, which was released earlier this year and is one of the better films of 2010.
Hall currently is featured in Ben Affleck’s THE TOWN, which was screened at the Toronto Film Festival just prior to its theatrical release. She plays a Boston bank manager who is taken hostage during a hold-up and is unknowingly romanced by one of her abductors.
Then in Toronto, I saw her opposite Will Ferrell in EVERYTHING MUST GO, based on a Raymond Carver short story, which features Ferrell in a non-comedy role: an alcoholic whose life is falling apart. Hall plays his new next-door neighbor, who is pregnant and is dealing with issues of her own.
Since first noticing her in VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA, I have been intrigued by Hall-- and not just because of the refreshingly unaffected quality of her work. My feeling is that, unlike so many Hollywood wannabes, she primarily is a serious actor. By this, I mean that she does not desire to be just another pretty movie-star face. She wishes to be respected for her work and her craft, in a culture in which one’s value as a person or a talent is directly related to one’s looks.
While in Toronto, I attended a press conference for THE TOWN. Present were Ben Affleck, Jeremy Renner, Chris Cooper, Blake Lively, Jon Hamm, and Rebecca Hall. The way these press conferences work is that, right after the filmmakers arrive on a stage, they pose for photographers for a minute or so. Then they get down to the business of explaining how wonderful their film is, how they were one happy family on the set, and so forth.
One thing I’ve noticed at these events is that, just after they end, the sexy young actress present often will stand off to the side, by herself, and pose for additional photos. This is a smart move on her part. The more images recorded of her, the better chance they have of being published in the print media or posted online-- and this cannot hurt if she is intent on self-promotion and Tinseltown self-preservation.
But Hall did no such thing, and this impressed me. My take is that she is not interested in smiling prettily and posing for cheesecake. She views herself, first and foremost, as an actor.
And given her talent and dedication to her craft, I suspect that her career will be long and fruitful.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
October 18, 2010: Seniors
Three films newly released to theaters-- IT’S KIND OF A FUNNY STORY, NEVER LET ME GO, and JACK GOES BOATING-- all were screened at this year’s Toronto Film Festival. None may be categorized as brainless eye-candy. None are special effects-laden extravaganzas. None are sure shots to earn box office gold. Yet each has earned theatrical play within weeks of its festival play.
The reason, I think, is because they feature name actors, like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Carey Mulligan, and Keira Knightley, or hot filmmakers, like Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden, the directors-writers of 2009’s SUGAR. Plus, they are to varying degrees provocative and imaginative-- and have the potential to become art house hits.
This brings to mind a film that was screened in Toronto two years ago. It is titled LOVELY, STILL. Since its Toronto play, it has been booked into festivals from Milwaukee to Chicago, Stony Brook to Sao Paolo. LOVELY, STILL finally opened theatrically last month, but I cannot imagine that it will enjoy much of a theatrical life, even though it is well worth seeing and even though its two stars are Academy Award winners.
The reason is that the actors, Martin Landau and Ellen Burstyn, are no spring chickens. Landau is 82 years old, while Burstyn is 77. The characters they play are, of course, senior citizens, and films spotlighting characters who are past middle-age simply are not going to cut it at the box office.
In LOVELY, STILL, Landau plays an elderly man who is about to spend yet another Christmas holiday alone. He meets and falls in love with a sweet, kind woman, played by Burstyn, but there are surprises in store-- and they are not what you think. LOVELY, STILL is a heartfelt, tremendously moving drama of old age and eternal love. It features superlative, Oscar-worthy performances by Burstyn and especially Landau.
Now certainly, IT’S KIND OF A FUNNY STORY, NEVER LET ME GO, and JACK GOES BOATING all have their merits. While not large-audience films, all are worth recommending to discriminating filmgoers. But so too is LOVELY, STILL. The fact that this film focuses on the feelings and fears of senior citizens should not turn off audiences.
But given its subject matter, and given the ages of its main characters, you likely will not be able to see LOVELY, STILL until it is released on DVD.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
October 11, 2010: Is Greed Really Good?
THE SOCIAL NETWORK and WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS are two of the season’s more anticipated new films.
THE SOCIAL NETWORK charts the birth of and controversy surrounding Facebook, the hugely popular social networking web site. It also is a character study of Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, who is played by Jesse Eisenberg in a letter-perfect performance.
Meanwhile, WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS offers up the further adventures of Gordon Gekko, again played by Michael Douglas, who at the outset completes his prison term for the offenses he committed in the original WALL STREET, released way back in 1987. But of course, Gordon Gekko is not through with empire-building. He is not ready to disappear into the night. The question is: Who will he destroy, and who will he manipulate, as he conspires to reestablish himself as a big-money player?
Given the real-world events of the past couple years, one would think that an updating of the Gordon Gekko story would be illuminating. But unfortunately, WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS falters cinematically. Some of what occurs onscreen is dramatically fuzzy. But the main culprit is a happy-ever-after finale that is pure hogwash.
WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS is most interesting as a companion piece to THE SOCIAL NETWORK. In THE SOCIAL NETWORK, the primary characters are college age. In WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS, the key character is old enough to be their grandfather. Yet most of those portrayed in THE SOCIAL NETWORK are disturbingly similar to Gordon Gekko in their unabashed ambition, their lust for power and wealth, and their lack of human feeling. Like one too many real-life bloodsuckers, it is as if they have taken Gekko’s infamous pronouncement that “greed is good” at face value. To them, Gordon Gekko might be a hero for our age, rather than a villain.
Cinematically-speaking, THE SOCIAL NETWORK is cutting-edge. Once you get used to its rhythms, Aaron Sorkin’s rapid-fire screenplay is first-rate, David Fincher’s direction is spot-on, and the result is a devastating portrait of power and ambition in a culture ruled by computer software, rather than human contact. But with one exception-- Eduardo Saverin, played by Andrew Garfield, the Harvard undergrad who provides the start-up money for Facebook-- the individuals depicted in THE SOCIAL NETWORK are collectively heartless, soulless, and lacking in humanity.
THE SOCIAL NETWORK is, indeed, a film for our time. Yet for all its cinematic brilliance, it is, at its core, a disturbingly sad film.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
September 27, 2010: Teens in Trouble
Of all the films I saw at the recently concluded Toronto Film Festival, two have stuck in my mind because of the issues with which they deal. Both are cautionary tales. Both involve young people, their families, their problems, and how they fit into the world. And both are well-worth seeing and discussing.
The first is titled TRUST, and it is the story of an average, happy, all-American family. The parents, played by Clive Owen and Catherine Keener, love their children, and still are in love with each other.
Annie, their 14-year-old daughter, is, like many of her contemporaries, a devotee of Internet chat lines. She develops a friendship with a male who first presents himself as her contemporary-- or, just a couple years older. There is no harm in this, one might think. In our Internet age, this is how people of all ages connect.
But there is a problem here. “Charlie,” Annie’s new “friend,” is not who he says he is. Far from it. For one thing, he is several decades older. And as Annie-- who is, like many teens, questioning her parents’ authority and yearning to be well-liked by her schoolmates-- grows to trust “Charlie,” will she find herself in great danger when he insists on meeting her?
The point cannot be overemphasized that Annie’s parents are ideal parents. But how can they protect her from the world’s evils? How can they protect her from predators like “Charlie”? How can they maintain her trust as she grows and evolves and tries to make sense of a world that is ever-more confusing?
TRUST also deals with a subject that is at the heart of contemporary American culture: How does a young girl who is Annie’s age keep her innocence in a culture in which her contemporaries casually remove their clothes at parties and graphically describe their sexual exploits?
The second film is titled BEAUTIFUL BOY. The parents here, who are played by Michael Sheen and Maria Bello, are not as contented as those in TRUST. They are, in fact, in the process of separating. But both love their son, who is a college freshman.
One evening, they speak with him on the phone and discuss plans for an upcoming vacation. The next day, they learn-- to their horror-- that their “beautiful boy” entered a classroom and, in what the media reports as “one of the deadliest shootings in history,” murdered seventeen of his classmates and professors. Then, he killed himself.
BEAUTIFUL BOY is not about the act of violence, and the massacre is not depicted onscreen. Instead, it explores the impact of violence as it focuses on the parents and their relationship, how they respond to the tragedy, and how the world responds to them.
And there are questions to be asked: Why didn’t they sense their son’s discontent? Why didn’t he express this discontent to them? Are the parents somehow responsible for their son’s act? As parents, was the mother too demanding? Was the father too distant? Will the parents ever be able to piece together their lives?
Both BEAUTIFUL BOY and TRUST are well-acted and dramatically involving. And both serve as reflections of the very real dangers of modern American life.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
September 20, 2010: Oscar Spin
Each year, at the Toronto Film Festival, the Oscar buzz for certain high-profile films is inevitable. This year, it was no different.
At the start of the festival, two films-- each of which is set for a late-November/early December release-- were being heavily touted as Academy Award contenders. They are Darren Aronofsky’s THE BLACK SWAN and Tom Hooper’s THE KING’S SPEECH. The hype was that both films surely will be Best Picture contenders, and Natalie Portman, the star of THE BLACK SWAN, and Colin Firth, the lead in THE KING’S SPEECH, will be shoe-ins as Best Actress and Actor.
This buzz often transcends the actual quality of a film, or a performance. This is to be expected, as we live in an era of spin. But spin, and the concept of presenting opinion as fact or attempting to rewrite history or influence events as they unfold, is of course hardly a new phenomenon. Let me quote a classic line from a film that is almost a half-century old. The film is John Ford’s THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, released in 1962. The line is: “No, sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
I attended screenings of THE BLACK SWAN and THE KING’S SPEECH in Toronto. In the case of one film, the hype was justified. In the case of the other, it was anything but...
THE BLACK SWAN offers a psychological portrait of a determined, emotionally fragile young ballerina. The film attempts to explore her subconscious as she deals with everything from a manipulative stage mother to backstage politics, sexual and otherwise, to her own ambition, insecurity, and desire to be nothing short of “perfect.”
But the film simply does not work. Too many aspects of its storyline are trite. Too many of the supporting characters are show business clichés. Granted, the central character is a juicy one, and Portman plays it to the dramatic hilt. But THE BLACK SWAN, despite its good intentions, is way too melodramatic, and the film does not emerge from Toronto as a legitimate Oscar shoo-in.
On the other hand, THE KING’S SPEECH will deserve every Oscar accolade it earns. On paper, the film sounds downright uninteresting, not to mention uncinematic. It tells the story of the Duke of York, the second son of King George V of England. The Duke suffers from a terrible stammer, which becomes a major issue when his older brother, the Prince of Wales, abdicates the throne.
How will the new king deal with public appearances, and with the necessity of speechmaking, as his country heads into the Second World War? The answer comes in the person of Lionel Logue, a speech therapist-- and a commoner-- who becomes the monarch’s teacher and friend.
What makes THE KING’S SPEECH so memorable is David Seidler’s extremely witty script and tremendous performances by Colin Firth, who plays the king, and Geoffrey Rush, cast as the therapist. The two actors are a pleasure to watch as their characters meet, spar, and develop a mutual respect and unlikely friendship.
THE KING’S SPEECH is one of the year’s very best films-- spin or no spin.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
September 13, 2010: Metropolis
The theatrical release of the restored, complete version of METROPOLIS, Fritz Lang’s 1926 German expressionist masterpiece, surely is one of the movie events of the year.
This silent sci-fi epic portrays a massive, futuristic city, and a mechanized society that is separated into two classes: those who rule, and who exercise unlimited power as they do so; and those who are oppressed, and who endlessly toil in the city’s underbelly.
Various truncated versions of METROPOLIS have been available for decades. This new version, which includes 25 minutes of recently discovered footage, premiered earlier this year in Berlin. At the end of the month, it will be screened at Proctors Theater in Schenectady. If you haven’t seen it-- particularly, in a wide-screen theatrical setting-- you really have not seen METROPOLIS.
This new version begins with a preface which tells you all you need to know about the restoration: “Soon after its premiere, METROPOLIS was severely shortened and altered. Since then, more than a quarter of the film was assumed to have been lost. In 2008, an almost complete version of the film was discovered in Buenos Aires. The material was heavily damaged and, because it had been printed on 16mm stock, does not have the full-aperture silent picture ratio. Utilizing the footage from Argentina, a virtually complete METROPOLIS has been reconstructed and its proper editing has been restored. The text of the intertitles was taken from German censorship records and has been translated into English.”
As one revisits METROPOLIS, one is struck by its futuristic sets. Strictly on visual terms, the film is an eye-popping spectacle, as dazzling today as ever. This is particularly impressive in an era in which celluloid special effects are commonplace, and too often are the sum and substance of a film.
But more importantly, METROPOLIS is a fervent, still-relevant plea for humanism, for placing human feeling, kindness, and contact above all else. It is a pointed condemnation of absolute power and the abuse of power, whether by governments or corporate entities. It castigates those who, to consolidate their power, would manipulate the masses. It offers acute commentary on the manner in which the masses may be easily controlled, and how they will find scapegoats for their troubles-- even when those troubles are self-inflicted.
These were significant issues in the years immediately following the production of METROPOLIS, when Hitler and the Nazis were coming to power in Germany. Needless to say, they remain all too relevant in our present-day world.
METROPOLIS will be screened at Proctors Theater in Schenectady on Sunday, September 26, at 2 PM and Monday, September 27 at 7:30 PM. It will be shown with live organ accompaniment-- and it is not to be missed.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
September 6, 2010: Alain Resnais
Clint Eastwood, who several months ago celebrated his eightieth birthday, is not the world’s oldest living filmmaker. Far from it. Manoel de Oliveira, the Portuguese director who in the past decade has made nineteen films, is almost two years past his one-hundredth birthday. De Oliveira made his first film in 1931, not too long after silence on celluloid still was considered golden.
This brings me to Alain Resnais. A list of the almost fifty films Resnais has directed across the decades only begins with such classics as HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR and LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD. NIGHT AND FOG, a rumination on the Holocaust which he made fifty-five years ago, is for me the most poignant and gut-wrenching Holocaust film ever made.
Resnais was born in June, 1922. Three months ago, he celebrated his eighty-eighth birthday. Yet he still is making films that are inspired and challenging. His latest, the English title of which is WILD GRASS, presently is in theatrical release.
WILD GRASS is the story of Marguerite, a middle-aged woman who, at the outset, purchases a pair of shoes. Just as she is leaving the store, her wallet is stolen. It soon is found by Georges, a married man. Even though Marguerite is a complete stranger, Georges finds himself becoming irrationally fixated on her.
WILD GRASS is an engaging, dreamlike farce that is almost surreal in effect. It is an exploration of chance and fate, and the strange, complex evolving relationship between these two characters.
Resnais’ previous film, whose English title is PRIVATE FEARS IN PUBLIC PLACES, was released in 2006. Thematically-speaking, it clearly is linked to WILD GRASS. It is based on an Alan Ayckbourn play and tells the stories of various Parisians who go about their daily lives while searching, often haplessly, for intimacy.
As I wrote in my review published in the Leonard Maltin Movie Guide, PRIVATE FEARS IN PUBLIC PLACES is a meditative exploration of the human condition. In it, Resnais astutely scrutinizes the way people present themselves to others. He also asks some pertinent questions: What are they looking for? What will they settle for? How well do they know the people around them, the people who pass through their lives?
At their core, these queries-- and the issues explored in both WILD GRASS and PRIVATE FEARS IN PUBLIC PLACES-- involve the choices individuals make as they go about their lives. They make perfect sense, given the age, experience, and cinematic sensibility of the filmmaker who is exploring them.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
August 30, 2010: This Film Is All Right
One of the more satisfying films currently in release is THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, which tells the story of the everyday issues facing a contemporary American family, consisting of two parents and two adolescent offspring. But there is a difference here. The parents, who are played by Annette Bening and Julianne Moore, are lesbians.
THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is funny and entertaining in an easy, naturalistic manner, but what I most liked about the film is that it depicted the two women realistically. They are struggling to be good parents. They are straining to keep the spark in their relationship. Sometimes, they are slaves to their feelings, and they act accordingly. In short, they are human-- and, in this regard, their sexual preference is irrelevant.
In a perfect world, this is the way it should be. But of course, we do not live in a perfect world-- and, in decades past, the manner in which society stereotyped and branded gays and lesbians was reflected in the movies.
I am thinking here of THE CHILDREN’S HOUR, written by Lillian Hellman, which began its life as a play in the 1930s. THE CHILDREN’S HOUR is set in an all-girls school run by two women. One of their students is a vicious brat who concocts a tall tale that the women are lesbians. They are not lesbians, but the story causes scandal. It destroys the lives of the women.
THE CHILDREN’S HOUR first came to the screen in 1936. This version was titled THESE THREE. Because of the Hollywood Production Code, combined with the culture of the era, the story had to be completely changed. In THESE THREE, the controversy involves an alleged heterosexual romantic triangle.
THE CHILDREN’S HOUR was remade under its original title in 1961. At the time, the Production Code was loosening up a bit, and so the lesbian issue was included in the storyline. Here, the nasty little girl does spread the rumor that the women are gay. One of them, played by Audrey Hepburn, has a boyfriend, played by James Garner. The other woman, played by Shirley MacLaine, does not have a boyfriend.
Near the end of the film, after the child’s lie is exposed, the Shirley MacLaine character comes to think that, deep, deep inside, maybe, just maybe, she has a romantic attraction to her friend. What does she do? Well, she promptly commits suicide. This is how on-screen homosexuality was dealt with decades ago.
Today, in many-- but not all-- circles, we have progressed beyond such small-minded views of homosexuality, so much so that the issue of gay marriage presently is part of the public debate. So a film like THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT can be viewed as a progressive and clear-eyed reflection of our times.
Beyond its entertainment value, the film serves to acknowledge that American families do not just consist of mothers, fathers, and children.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
August 23, 2010: Julia Roberts, Superstar
There is a sequence in EAT PRAY LOVE, the new Julia Roberts film, which features a sterling acting turn by Richard Jenkins, one of the supporting players. In this scene, Jenkins’ character strips his soul bare, and reveals key information about his motivation. It is the kind of sequence that wins actors Academy Awards.
Yet I was bothered by the manner in which it was filmed. In it, Jenkins’ character is addressing the one played by Julia Roberts. As he speaks, Roberts is in the shot-- unnecessarily. A far more thoughtfully-made film would have stressed Jenkins, and only Jenkins, as he gives his speech.
My sense was that a more generous actor would have allowed Jenkins his moment without imposing her presence in the frame. But Julia Roberts is the star of EAT PRAY LOVE. She is the power behind the film. She, rather than its director, Ryan Murphy, is in control. Richard Jenkins is a mere supporting player. So Julia Roberts gets to be in the shot, even when her presence is extraneous.
In EAT PRAY LOVE, based on the best-selling memoir by Elizabeth Gilbert, Roberts plays Liz, an American writer who realizes she is unhappy in her marriage, and her life. She has lost the ability to experience pleasure. So she treks off to Italy, India, and Bali, where she predictably learns the true meaning of eating, praying, and loving.
As the film began, I was put off by the fact that this character was so self-absorbed, so clueless. She reminded me of the worst kind of self-indulgent American. But as the story unfolded, I realized that this precisely was the point. The character was meant to be out of touch. She needed to leave her country, and her circle, to learn how to live properly and happily. But because she was so self-absorbed, it became impossible to care about her plight, or her fate.
Additionally, in EAT PRAY LOVE, Julia Roberts is surrounded by a bevy of handsome actors, all of whom fall heavily for her. This is not so much because her character is lovable, or even likable. It is because the character is played by Julia Roberts, superstar.
This is the equivalent of an aging Woody Allen casting himself in his movies, and having his characters becoming romantically involved with much-younger players, from Helen Hunt in THE CURSE OF THE JADE SCORPION, to Elisabeth Shue in DECONSTRUCTING HARRY, to-- Julia Roberts, in EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
August 16, 2010: Oliver Stone and Paul Greengrass
The works of two contemporary filmmakers mirror the massive changes in our national consciousness since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. These directors are Oliver Stone and Paul Greengrass.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Stone and Greengrass respectively directed WORLD TRADE CENTER and UNITED 93, films that spotlight the everyday heroism of Americans on September 11, 2001. WORLD TRADE CENTER is a fact-based account of the actions of a Port Authority police squad that responded to the first tower attack. The bulk of the film centers on two of the rescuers, who are trapped in the rubble of the collapsed towers. UNITED 93 spotlights the determination and real-life heroics of the passengers on board the hijacked plane that crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It was the intention of the hijackers to fly the aircraft into the Capitol building in Washington.
Both WORLD TRADE CENTER and UNITED 93 are more than accounts of events on one of the bleakest days in American history. They celebrate the heroes of the day: the policemen who served proudly and fearlessly and in many cases lost their lives in lower Manhattan; and the passengers who came together to thwart the hijackers on United Flight 93. Both films are odes to America on 9/11, a nation that became truly united by an appalling series of events.
So the question now becomes: How do Stone’s and Greengrass’s more recent films differ from WORLD TRADE CENTER and UNITED 93?
Earlier this year, Greengrass directed GREEN ZONE, a thriller whose storyline emanates from the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Matt Damon plays a U.S. Army officer who correctly begins questioning the intelligence reports he has been receiving in relation to his search for WMDs in Baghdad. The villains of the film are not terrorists. Rather, they are those in the Bush administration who spin the necessity of the Iraqi war via exaggerations and outright lies.
Post-WORLD TRADE CENTER, Stone directed W., in which George W. Bush is portrayed as an irresponsible frat boy who spends his early adult years drifting from job to job, and drinking, and licking the silver spoon in his mouth, and drinking some more. Sure, he eventually sobers up. But he is not a bright man. For example, he casually refers to “Guantanamo” as “Guantanamera.”
But more importantly, according to Oliver Stone, George W. Bush is an insecure man whose actions are predicated on his need to please his father. Stone’s George W. is little more than a child-man who yearns for his daddy’s approval. And in W., Stone seems to be shaking his head in disbelief and declaring, “This is the man who was a two-term United States President.” It is a shame, according to Stone, that W got to work out his issues in the Oval Office rather than on a psychiatrist’s couch.
In the late 1980s-- in other words, pre-9/11-- Oliver Stone made WALL STREET, a morality tale spotlighting the shenanigans of Gordon Gekko, a Wall Street high-roller and villain whose infamous motto is: “Greed is good.” Stone’s latest film, set for release in September, promises to offer more of the same in the wake of the current worldwide financial crisis. It is a sequel to WALL STREET, titled WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS.
As I think of all these films, and place them within the context of the times in which they were made, I only can shake my head in dismay and wonder what our world would be like if only the fictional Gordon Gekko and the real-life George W. Bush were as genuinely noble as the brave, real-life individuals portrayed in UNITED 93 and WORLD TRADE CENTER.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
August 9, 2010: Pat Tillman
One film, a documentary, that for me is a must-see is THE TILLMAN STORY. The film presently is making the rounds of the film festival circuit. Its description, which can be found on various web sites, is a real attention-grabber:
“Pat Tillman gave up his professional football career to join the Army Rangers in 2002, and became an instant symbol of patriotic fervor and unflinching duty. But the truth about Pat Tillman is far more complex, and ultimately more heroic, than the caricature created by the media. And when the government tried to turn his death into war propaganda, they took on the wrong family. From her home in the Santa Cruz Mountains, Pat’s mother, Dannie Tillman, led the family’s crusade to reveal the truth beneath the mythology of their son’s life and death.”
In May, 2002, months after 9/11, Pat Tillman turned down a $3.6-million contract from the Arizona Cardinals to enlist in the U.S. Army. He eventually was deployed to Afghanistan. The “truth” regarding his death is that, on April 22, 2004, he was killed by friendly fire. But the U.S. military authorities initially announced that he died “in the line of devastating enemy fire.”
I thought of Pat Tillman and THE TILLMAN STORY several weeks ago, while in Cooperstown attending the Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremony. One of the oldest living Hall of Famers is 91-year-old Bob Feller, whom Jon Miller, the sportscaster and this year’s Ford C. Frick Award-winner, aptly described as “one of the gods of the game.”
Back in June, while visiting Cooperstown, I spent some time in the company of Feller-- who is not just a baseball icon. Military issues and strategies have long been close to his heart. You see, upon the United States entry into World War II, Feller was the first major leaguer to enlist in the military. He joined the U.S. Navy on December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. And he did not pass the war playing exhibition baseball games. He spent four years in the Navy, and was a decorated anti-aircraft gunner onboard the USS Alabama. He earned five campaign ribbons and eight battle stars.
One only can imagine how many ballgames Feller might have won had he not spent all that time away from the game. But Feller does not lament this. And for this, he earns respect and gratitude.
You might say that the modern-day version of Bob Feller is the Pat Tillman we see in THE TILLMAN STORY. For sure, the two shared a patriotic inclination that allowed them to forsake their athletic stardom, enter the military, and fight for freedom, rather than pursue fortune and celebrity on the playing field.
But what sets them apart is that Bob Feller and Pat Tillman are men of different eras, who fought in different wars. Their plights, and their fates, serve to define and contrast the U.S. in the periods after Pearl Harbor, and after 9/11.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
August 2, 2010: Truth in Advertising
A while back, I commented on the content of the trailers for INCEPTION, the Leonardo DiCaprio mind-game that presently is in theatrical release. These trailers were of varying lengths, and were screened on the Internet, in theaters, and on television.
For openers, they collectively spotlighted the film’s special effects. They emphasized explosions, crumbling buildings, speedy car chases, and more explosions. Meanwhile, some of the sound bites spoken by the characters were impossible to understand.
My question at the time was: Does this emphasis on eye candy and lack of care in presenting the characters mean that the film also will lack any sort of crisp, clear storytelling or narrative cohesion, which often is the case these days in too many Hollywood movies?
Well, I have seen the film, and have an answer. And that is: In the case of INCEPTION, there is truth in advertising.
The film opens with the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio washed ashore on a beach. In rapid succession, we then see him in different settings, mixing with different people. The question I had while watching all this was: Who is he? We eventually learn that he is an expert in getting into peoples’ dreams and discovering their innermost secrets. But the question remained: Who exactly is he? Who does he work for? A government? A corporation? Himself? Plus, as some of the other characters were introduced, I more often than not had no idea who they were.
Some viewers may find all this challenging. INCEPTION is directed by Christopher Nolan, and the film is a stylistic link to MEMENTO, Nolan’s breakthrough film. In MEMENTO, Nolan toyed with cinematic “reality” by portraying a man who attempts to find his wife’s killer while suffering from short-term memory loss.
INCEPTION is a serious film, to be sure. It is not your typical Hollywood popcorn movie, and it does have its strengths. The relationship between DiCaprio’s character and the one played by Marion Cotillard is complex and intriguing. Some of the special effects, which serve to visualize the power of dreams, are impressive. But during its 2 1/2-hour length, I too often found myself glancing at my watch, and wondering when the film would end.
However, when compared to another current thriller, INCEPTION is the equal of CITIZEN KANE and CASABLANCA. That film is SALT, starring Angelina Jolie. SALT is a textbook example of everything that is wrong with contemporary mainstream moviemaking. Its storyline is ridiculous. Its dialogue often is unintentionally funny. The special effects are more in-your-face than clever. Sitting through SALT is the equivalent of listening to someone scream in your ear for 100 minutes.
If you are in the mood for a rock-solid thriller, I would highly recommend THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE, Part Two in the Swedish-made trilogy based on the novels of Stieg Larsson. THE GIRL WHO PLAYED WITH FIRE, a well-made, well-told tale of evil, is nothing less than superb storytelling.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
July 26, 2010: Jack Webb, Harry Morgan, and the 1950s
One reason why I am endlessly fascinated by older films is that they offer up a mirror into the time in which they were made. Take, for example, APPOINTMENT WITH DANGER, a 1951 crime drama. The film is part of a package that is arriving on DVD this week from Olive Films.
In APPOINTMENT WITH DANGER, Alan Ladd stars as a tough-talking, two-fisted postal inspector who battles some generic hoodlums. This is not a classic film, by any means. But it is a fascinating one, on several levels.
For one thing, at the beginning of APPOINTMENT WITH DANGER, the viewer is given a documentary-style introduction to the U.S. Postal Service. We are told that some Americans use the service for business. And here, we see a man mailing a letter. Then we are told that other Americans use the post office for pleasure. And here, we see a woman mailing a letter. This choice of visuals, which is presented ever-so-casually, tells us volumes about how men and women were defined in the pre-feminist 1950s.
Beyond such observations, there still is plenty to be entertained by in APPOINTMENT WITH DANGER. If you are of a certain age, you will remember DRAGNET, the 1950s television series that starred Jack Webb as Sergeant Joe Friday, the ever-serious Los Angeles cop. In the late 1960s, Webb also appeared in a reworking of the original series. Here, Harry Morgan co-starred as his partner, Officer Bill Gannon.
Both these actors have supporting roles in APPOINTMENT WITH DANGER-- and their characters are anything but good guys. Webb plays a smart-mouthed punk, and he is quite effective in the role. Across the years, he has been criticized for playing Sergeant Friday as a one-dimensionally stiff representative of law and order. But in APPOINTMENT WITH DANGER, Webb offers evidence that, had he not been typecast as Joe Friday, he easily could have carved a solid screen career as a heavy. Plus, there is one memorable scene in the film involving Webb and Alan Ladd, and what the latter does to the former on a handball court. Meanwhile, in APPOINTMENT WITH DANGER, Harry Morgan-- always the fine character actor-- is aces as a jittery thug.
Morgan and Webb appear yet again in DARK CITY, a 1950 film noir which also is in this DVD package. DARK CITY, which is a perfect title for a film noir, is the feature debut of Charlton Heston. He plays an embittered hustler and gambler. With his bookie pals, he ropes an unsuspecting out-of-towner into a fixed card game-- much to his regret.
In DARK CITY, Webb plays yet another wiseguy while Morgan is a punch-drunk ex-pug. The two of them are constantly on each other’s cases.
To paraphrase Claude Rains’ Captain Renault in CASABLANCA, Joe Friday and Bill Gannon would be-- shocked!
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
July 19, 2010: War
In documentaries that deals with serious, life-and-death issues, viewers do not have the luxury of distancing themselves from the on-screen horror by telling themselves that what they are watching is only a movie.
A fiction film may explore sobering subject matter. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, have been dealt with in such films as IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH, STOP/LOSS, THE LUCKY ONES, LIONS FOR LAMBS, REDACTED, and the most honored of the lot, THE HURT LOCKER. But in these films, audiences know they are watching actors on-screen. The words their characters utter were penned by screenwriters. The best of them may be dramatically potent, and may deal with real issues. But they are not in themselves real.
This explains why watching documentaries about Iraq and Afghanistan can be so unsettling. For after all, what is unfolding on-screen is real. And one of the very best I have seen is titled RESTREPO. This riveting film captures the personalities and spirits of the members of one U.S. platoon stationed in what is described as the deadliest valley in Afghanistan.
One thing that struck me while watching RESTREPO is that the platoon members were, ethnically-speaking, a cross-section of America. They were white, black, Latino, and Asian-American. And as I observed them, and looked into their faces, I saw fear and distress. I saw a rainbow of related emotions, and a common humanity.
I also learned that “Restrepo” is the surname of one of the platoon members who already had been killed in action. His name was Juan Restrepo. He was a medic. And he was 20 years old.
Paradoxically, one of Restrepo’s buddies was raised in a non-violent household. As a child, he was not allowed to play with toy guns, or watch violent movies. Yet here he is, with a real gun in his hand, living a day-in-day-out, kill-or-be-killed existence.
Another irony is that, back home, Americans wave flags and sing “God Bless America” and honor the brave young men and women in the military. Yet one thing to be learned from RESTREPO is that these soldiers do not claim to be fighting for truth, justice, and democracy. They do not claim to be America’s heroes. Almost collectively, all they desperately want is to do their time, and survive, and get the hell out of Afghanistan.
Also at issue is: After all they have experienced in Afghanistan, how can they return to their homes and communities and seamlessly blend in with their fellow Americans?
As I watched RESTREPO, all I could do was repeat to myself questions that I could not answer: What are we doing in Afghanistan? What are we accomplishing? With so much in the news these days, it is easy to forget that young Americans are fighting and dying in the Middle East. They are more than numbers. They are more than statistics. And a film like RESTREPO gives them a human face.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
July 12, 2010: Character Development Vs. Eye Candy
The current state of mainstream Hollywood filmmaking is encapsulated in the various trailers for INCEPTION, one of the summer’s hyped blockbusters. The trailers are of varying lengths, and may be seen in theaters, on television, and on the Internet.
For openers, some of the sound bites spoken by the characters are indecipherable. It is as if the dialogue in the film is insignificant. Does this lack of care in presenting the characters mean that the film also will lack any sort of crisp, clear storytelling or narrative cohesion-- which often is the case these days in too many Hollywood movies?
Even though we live in an era in which the casting of movie stars does not always translate into box office gold, the INCEPTION trailers do spotlight Leonardo DiCaprio and Ellen Page, the film’s leading actors. But primarily, they draw attention to the film’s special effects. They emphasize explosions, crumbling buildings, and speedy chases down urban streets. That is the film’s prime selling point.
INCEPTION is being marketed as if it was an elaborate video game. But this does not mean that all current films are little more than the equivalent of high-tech playthings. Some are character-oriented. Some do attempt to get inside the souls and hearts of the people they portray. These are the films you more than likely will find playing at the art house, rather than the mall theater.
Take, for example, SOLITARY MAN, which is not to be confused with the Coen brothers’ A SERIOUS MAN or Tom Ford’s A SINGLE MAN. SOLITARY MAN is a character study about a 60-year-old, played by Michael Douglas, who refuses to acknowledge his age or take responsibility for his often destructive behavior. This is not a perfect film. Some of the scenes are pointed and poignant while others, including the finale, are inauthentic. But SOLITARY MAN succeeds at examining the behavior and vulnerability of the title character: a man who needs to grow up before he grows old.
Joan Rivers may be a funny lady, but she is not my idea of a fun person. For this reason, the documentary JOAN RIVERS: A PIECE OF WORK was not atop my must-see list. But I did see it, and the film-- although far from the best documentary released this year-- is a revealing portrait of an obsessive, insecure individual who is wrestling with her advancing years in a youth-dominated culture: a woman who is at once a part of, and a victim of, the cutthroat world of show business.
Finally, PLEASE GIVE is an automatic ten-best-list candidate. It is set in New York City and features an array of New York City character types. The one who is the most striking is a woman, played by Catherine Keener, who purchases the belongings of the recently deceased, which she and her husband resell for big bucks. To alleviate her guilt over profiting from the misery of others, she is obsessed with doing charitable deeds-- even though she is not emotionally equipped to handle such undertakings.
PLEASE GIVE is a story of individuals who are not intrinsically evil, but who are flawed and vulnerable. It is a keenly observational film, which examines a range of moral issues.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
July 5, 2010: A Conversation With Bob Feller
A couple weeks ago, while in Cooperstown for the Hall of Fame Classic baseball game, I had occasion to spend a bit of time in the company of Bob Feller.
Feller, for those non-baseball fans, is one of the all-time great major league pitchers. He spent his career with the Cleveland Indians, winning 266 games. One even might call him the Stephen Strasburg of 1936, when the 17-year-old Feller made his big league debut. The following year, he was featured on the cover of Time magazine.
Today, Bob Feller is 91 years old. If you are privileged to be in his company, you know that you are in the company of an American legend. And these days, Bob Feller has much to say about issues that are far removed from sports. Without my asking, he explained to me in great detail why the United States should have won the Vietnam War-- and why we are fated to lose in the Middle East.
But for my purposes, the question becomes: What does Bob Feller have to do with motion pictures?
Well, back in 1949, he and his fellow Cleveland Indians appeared in THE KID FROM CLEVELAND, the story of a troubled, baseball-crazy youth. “They had so many Hall of Famers in it,” Feller recalled. “Lou Boudreau. Satchel Paige. The acting was pretty good. They had George Brent and Lynn Bari in it.” Now of course, today, nobody remembers Lynn Bari. Only aficionados of 1930s Bette Davis films will know George Brent. But I remind you, Bob Feller is 91 years old. He remembers.
Despite this praise, Feller also described THE KID FROM CLEVELAND as “the world’s worst movie. It just was a bad movie.” Are there any baseball films you would recommend?” I asked. “Well, yes,” he responded. “PRIDE OF THE YANKEES and ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD.” PRIDE OF THE YANKEES is, of course, a biopic of Lou Gehrig, who is played by Gary Cooper. It was released in 1942. The original ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD, the film to which Feller referred, dates from 1951. It is a comedy-fantasy in which the Pittsburgh Pirates and their profanity-spewing manager are positively impacted by the arrival of the title cherubs.
“Both were good,” Feller explained. “But they were tearjerkers. Teresa Wright did a good job of acting.” Wright, yet another performer who is pretty much completely forgotten today, plays Lou Gehrig’s wife Eleanor in PRIDE OF THE YANKEES.
I asked Feller why so many baseball films, and so many films in general, disregard everyday reality. “In the sports films, they get these people who never had a jockstrap on a day in their lives to do the writing,” he responded. “It’s all over-hyped.”
With some prodding, Feller did admit that 1989’s FIELD OF DREAMS had its virtues. “The first five minutes were just like my life,” he said. FIELD OF DREAMS is set on an Iowa farm. Once upon a time, Feller was himself an Iowa farm boy. In 1931 and ‘32, his family even constructed a baseball diamond on their land, just as the fictional character Ray Kinsella does in FIELD OF DREAMS.
That was an eternity ago-- an eternity before last year when, at age 90, Feller actually pitched to three batters in the Hall of Fame Classic. This year, he merely threw out the first pitch.
Finally, Bob Feller is showing his age.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
June 28, 2010: The Arrogance of Power
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is, for good reason, much in the news these days. So are the hijinks of Tony Hayward, the Chief Executive Officer of British Petroleum. First, as unemployed oil drillers, fishermen, and other workers along the Gulf Coast were being smacked in their faces with losses of income and uncertain futures, Hayward publicly, self-pityingly lamented that he wanted his life back. Then, after testifying before the U.S. Congress, and with the crisis far from ended, Hayward was on hand to watch his yacht compete in one of the world’s leading races. Such flagrant displays of the arrogance of power are not at all surprising. They occur all the time. The difference is that they usually do not transpire in such a public spotlight.
This brings to mind a must-see documentary, titled THE ART OF THE STEAL. This film, which presently is enjoying a theatrical run, recounts the story of Dr. Albert C. Barnes, who in 1922 created The Barnes Foundation in Lower Merion, Pennsylvania, just outside Philadelphia. The Foundation’s holdings included an astonishing collection of Impressionist, Post-Impressionist, and early Modern art.
Barnes died in a car accident in 1951. His will contained strict instructions stating that the Foundation shall forever remain an educational entity. Furthermore, the artworks were to never be removed and commercially exploited. But was Barnes’ property-- which today is valued at more than $25-billion-- actually protected?
THE ART OF THE STEAL charts what happens when, more than five decades after Barnes’ death, a powerful group of individuals went to court to remove the art from its home and relocate it to a new museum in Philadelphia-- despite the provisions in Barnes’ will.
At its most potent, THE ART OF THE STEAL is like a punch in the gut as it emphasizes the fact that, in many circles in contemporary America, culture is nothing more than an industry. It is a business that constantly requires new product. Seeing art is not necessarily about appreciating art. It is, instead, about marketing images, about art as being little more than glorified wallpaper.
Now perhaps, if you are clued into the goings on in the art world, you will have been aware of the controversy surrounding the Barnes collection. Yet whatever your knowledge of the case, as you watch THE ART OF THE STEAL, you only can shake your head in disbelief at the actions of certain influential individuals who are determined to circumvent the wishes of Dr. Albert C. Barnes.
And afterward, as you ponder the content of THE ART OF THE STEAL, you may be reminded of the behavior of Tony Hayward and British Petroleum. In both cases, the conduct of those involved, while egregious, is not at all unexpected.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
June 21, 2010: Revisiting Classic French Cinema
In recent years, a number of little known and long forgotten French films have been rediscovered and resurrected to great acclaim in the U.S. They include Henri-Georges Clouzot’s QUAI DES ORFEVRES, originally released in 1947, and Jean-Pierre Melville’s ARMY OF SHADOWS, from 1969.
The latest is LE COMBAT DANS L’ILE, which dates from 1962 and is the debut feature of the esteemed director Alain Cavalier. After enjoying a theatrical run last year, LE COMBAT DANS L’ILE will be released this week on DVD.
In the film, which is heavily influenced by American film noir, Cavalier tells the story of Clément and Anne, a seemingly ordinary married couple. The coldly serious Clément operates a factory with his father and brothers. The more extroverted Anne, a former actress, loves to socialize, and Clément jealously reacts whenever she smiles at another man. There is tension between them. They argue over trivialities, like so many couples.
Clément, however, is living a double life. He is a member of a right-wing political organization, an extremist group that has embraced the notion that the “western world is declining” and “power must be seized to be regenerated.” In addition, Clément is neck-deep in the plotting of a political assassination.
A third character plays a key role in the story. He is Paul, Clément’s old friend, who-- unlike him-- is liberal and pacifistic.
On a superficial level, LE COMBAT DANS L’ILE is a tale of passion and betrayal that is overly melodramatic. But if you understand its film noir influences, you can see the purpose of such embellishments. What makes LE COMBAT DANS L’ILE an above average film is that so much is going on beneath its surface. The film is of its time in that Clément’s group sees communism as its primary threat. But it is jarringly contemporary in its portrayal of a misguided fringe organization that is alienated from the mainstream. Its members see their lifestyle, and their power, threatened by a changing world, and they are determined to maintain the status quo through violent means.
But at its core, LE COMBAT DANS L’ILE is not really about political issues. It is most potent as it explores the personalities involved with the group, and their true motivations. An individual may espouse a political belief, and rave and rant, on and on, about ideology. Yet that individual may in fact embrace that ideology because of issues that are highly personal-- and highly self-serving.
Finally, the credits of LE COMBAT DANS L’ILE are loaded with familiar names, including Louis Malle, who produced the film, Jean-Paul Rappeneau, who penned the script, and Jean-Louis Trintignant, who stars as Clément. Then there is Romy Schneider, the luminous actress who plays Anne. In her all-too-brief life and career, the Austrian-born Schneider exuded star power. And, here, she brightens every frame she is in.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
June 14, 2010: The Power of Celluloid Icons
Film history is loaded with iconic moments that define the art and power of the cinema, and are indelibly lodged in the memories of moviegoers. They include everything from Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert attempting to hitchhike in IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, to Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr embracing as waves crash around them in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, to Marlon Brando acknowledging that he “coulda been a contenda” in ON THE WATERFRONT.
You can add to this list John Travolta’s dance floor gyrations in SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. Travolta’s dancing to the sounds of The Bee Gees was deftly lampooned in AIRPLANE, a parody of Hollywood genres and iconography that was released in 1980, a mere three years after SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER mesmerized audiences.
Travolta and his character, Tony Manero, also are central to another film, this one titled TONY MANERO: a Chilean film released in 2008. TONY MANERO is yet another provocative, razor-sharp film that did not quite have the U.S. theatrical release it deserved. But now, it can be seen and savored on DVD.
The main character in TONY MANERO is a John Travolta wannabe. His name is Raul, the time is the late 1970s, and he is obsessed with dressing like Travolta’s Tony Manero character, imitating his dance floor moves, and winning a televised Tony Manero impersonation contest. But Raul is no oversexed young stud or adolescent fan boy. He is, instead, a 52-year-old petty criminal. When he is not imagining himself the new Travolta, Raul is beating up old ladies and stealing their color TV sets. He has no personality of his own. He is, in fact, zombie-like in his obsession with SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER.
It is no coincidence, then, that TONY MANERO is set during the period in which Augusto Pinochet was in power in Chile. Pinochet, an army general, was notorious for liquidating his opponents. And while watching TONY MANERO, I came away with the feeling that Raul’s coldness, his brutality, his disrespect for human life was meant to parallel the rule of Pinochet.
But TONY MANERO also works as a reflection on the manner in which any of us may become transfixed by popular culture, and how this culture influences how we talk, how we dress, how we act. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a fan of a movie star, or relating to the emotional or moral issues faced by a fictional character. When Brando’s Terry Malloy, in ON THE WATERFRONT, declares that he “coulda been a contenda,” he is, in essence, speaking for every human being who ever experienced disappointment and foiled dreams, or who was sold short by a loved one.
If you have a life of your own, a life that is generally productive and fulfilling, a more-than passing interest in popular culture will not be a distraction. But Raul has no such life. Plus, he is naïve enough to completely embrace the fantasy that movies provide, and confuse that fantasy with the dreariness and disappointment of life in Chile under Pinochet.
And this, as the story plays itself out, can be a dangerous thing.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
May 31, 2010: New York, New York
Sixty-one years ago a movie titled ON THE TOWN, based on a musical play by Betty Comden and Adolph Green, offered a gloriously upbeat portrait of New York City. ON THE TOWN opens with Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, and Jules Munshin, cast as sailors on leave in the Big Town, singing and dancing their way across the cityscape. This sequence was filmed on location. All these years later, it is fascinating to see so many still-familiar New York sights in beautiful Technicolor.
Given its title, one might think that a newer film-- this one called NEW YORK, I LOVE YOU, and recently released on DVD-- would offer a similar valentine to its title locale. But this is not the case.
NEW YORK, I LOVE YOU, aside from being a generally lackluster film, offers a portrait of the city that is anything but celebratory. The film actually is a series of vignettes, each directed by a different filmmaker and each offering a snapshot of city life. By the way, it is a follow-up to a similarly-structured film, this one titled PARIS, JE T'AIME.
What is most telling about NEW YORK, I LOVE YOU is that too many of its vignettes feature chance encounters: encounters in which one person is hustling another person. From watching NEW YORK, I LOVE YOU, one comes away with the notion that, Hollywood romanticism aside, if you reside in the city, you will find it virtually impossible to maintain a steady, generally happy relationship.
Perhaps the most stable union portrayed in the film is that of an elderly couple, played by Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman. They have been married for over six decades, and these two frequently are in each other’s faces. Beneath their aggression, they do care deeply for one another. But who wants to spend one’s life with a partner who is constantly nagging, endlessly complaining? In this regard, they are not so much characters as caricatures.
Perhaps the most buoyant relationship in NEW YORK, I LOVE YOU is one that does not involve adults. It features a little girl, played by Taylor Geare, and her devoted caregiver, played by Carlos Acosta. But even here, there is hostility and cynicism on the part of some bystanders and the child’s mother.
Now cinematically speaking, most of the segments in NEW YORK, I LOVE YOU are slight and boring. These vignettes about the City That Never Sleeps just may put you to sleep. The few that are noteworthy include Brett Ratner’s clever take on a 17-year-old and his unusual prom date, and the aforementioned piece about the little girl, which was directed by Natalie Portman.
But the segment that, for me, was the most evocative in relation to the reality of life in the city was deleted from the theatrical version of NEW YORK, I LOVE YOU. However, it is an extra on the DVD. This piece was directed by Scarlett Johansson. It features Kevin Bacon as a solitary New Yorker who deals with in—your-face hostility from strangers as he makes a purchase in a convenience store and rides the subway.
While watching it, I was reminded how much a film like ON THE TOWN offers a view of New York City that is ancient history.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
May 24, 2010: Recycling Robin Hood/Observing Babies
The summer movie season has begun in earnest with the release of, among other films, ROBIN HOOD, yet another retelling of the adventures of the expert archer who steals from the rich and gives to the poor in merry olde England.
Now the question is: Do we really need one more rehashing of the legend of Robin Hood? For after all, there still is great entertainment value in relishing the dashing Errol Flynn, the beautiful Olivia de Havilland, and the classically villainous Basil Rathbone and Claude Rains in THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, one of the definitive Hollywood swashbucklers. This ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD features dazzling Technicolor cinematography, a memorable Erich Wolfgang Korngold score, and an all-time-great climactic dueling sequence pitting Flynn and Rathbone.
In relation to the younger moviegoers that the major Hollywood studios crave, however, there is a problem with THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD. The film is old. It was released way back in 1938. And also, today, none of its stars will be recognizable to younger moviegoers. I would bet that three twentysomethings in a hundred have even heard of Errol Flynn, let alone seen him at his charismatic best in films like CAPTAIN BLOOD, THE SEA HAWK, and THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD.
But the Robin Hood character still has name recognition. So he will be recycled, just as Sherlock Holmes was last year. To appeal to a younger demographic, the Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes characters will be spiffed up and modernized, if you will. The result will be a new Robin Hood and a new Sherlock Holmes, with these characters performing their derring-do in showy, big-budget, action-packed adventure sagas.
Now these Robin Hoods and Sherlock Holmses may be new, but does this necessarily mean that they are improved? In some cases, the answer would be no. But it also could be yes, depending upon the manner in which the character is recreated. In other words, a popular character like Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, Batman, or Superman can be reworked successfully, but only if the film in which he appears is sufficiently rousing and intelligently scripted-- and if the special effects and eye candy do not overwhelm the storytelling.
Speaking of eye candy, a new documentary, titled BABIES, has been earning quite a bit of press. The film consists of footage of four newborns, with the camera observing their behavior and the manner in which they interact with the world around them.
The marketers of BABIES certainly are clever. The film was released over Mother’s Day weekend and, not surprisingly, it took in over $2-million during its opening weekend. This may not compare to the profits earned by ROBIN HOOD or SHERLOCK HOLMES, but it is quite a haul for a limited release documentary.
But what exactly is this film?
I saw BABIES mostly out of curiosity, and my sense is that it is little more than 79 minutes’ worth of home movies of infants mixing with their parents and siblings. It is a perfect film for viewers who are content to ooh and ah at the mere presence of cute, cuddly little ones.
But why shell out your hard-earned money to see BABIES when you can stay home and watch the same sort of thing on YouTube?
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
May 17, 2010: Lena Horne
Upon hearing of the death of the great Lena Horne, I immediately recalled one of her final screen appearances. That would be in THAT’S ENTERTAINMENT III, a compilation film released in 1994.
The THAT’S ENTERTAINMENT films, made between the mid-1970s and mid-90s, feature Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer musical performers, from Fred Astaire and June Allyson to Frank Sinatra and Esther Williams. These legends introduce film clips and reminisce about their years under contract at the studio. Most of these recollections are sweetly nostalgic. However, Horne’s comments are anything but longings for the “good old days.”
In THAT’S ENTERTAINMENT III, a luminous Horne is introduced singing “Where or When,” excerpted from the 1948 film WORDS AND MUSIC, a highly fictionalized biography of Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart. Then we meet Horne in the present, where she is interviewed on an MGM recording stage. “It was a long time ago I stood in this very spot and recorded that lovely song,” she recalls.
Then, after commenting on the technological advances in sound recording across the decades, Horne gets to really speak her mind. She explains, “I have many memories here, good and bad. I never felt like I really belonged in Hollywood. At that time, they didn't quite know what to do with me, a black performer. So I usually just came on, sang a song, and made a quick exit.”
A bit later, Horn adds, “What I really wanted was to be given an acting role in the movies.” However, if you peruse her filmography, you will see that this rarely happened.
Now Lena Horne was lovely and sexy, and she had a radiant screen presence. But she could not be marketed, as a Rita Hayworth or Ava Gardner or other 1940s screen siren. That was solely because of the color of her skin. And that is one of the injustices and tragedies of American history.
In honor of Lena Horne, Turner Classic Movies will be screening three of her films this coming Friday, May 21. They are THE DUKE IS TOPS, her screen debut, an independently produced all-black-cast feature from 1938; PANAMA HATTIE, from 1942, in which Horne memorably sings Cole Porter’s “Just One of Those Things”; and CABIN IN THE SKY, one of a handful of major-studio all-black-cast musicals, in which Horne gets to act as well as sing.
TCM also will be screening a film that does not feature Horne. That would be THE FALLEN SPARROW, from 1943, a Hitchcockian thriller starring John Garfield as a Spanish Civil War veteran who investigates the murder of a buddy. According to TCM, Horne was a “tremendous fan of Garfield,” and counted THE FALLEN SPARROW among her favorite films.
I would bet that this was the case as much for Garfield’s progressive politics as for his talent. Now for my money, anyone who is a fan of John Garfield has class and taste. And this is yet another reason to admire Lena Horne.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
May 10, 2010: Violence, Part 2
These days, it is perfectly acceptable for a major Hollywood studio to release a film in which a female doles out deadly violence. But I am not talking about Uma Thurman’s heroine in Quentin Tarantino’s KILL BILL films, or the character played by Carrie-Anne Moss in THE MATRIX.
The film I am referring to is KICK-ASS. The empowered female, whose mouth is as foul as a drill sergeant or a drunken sailor, is eleven years old. Her character, by the way, is called “Hit-Girl.”
Now of course, we do live in an anything-for-a-buck culture. If you can market a product that will turn a profit, well, that’s perfectly okay because, after all, one has to feed one’s family. But whatever happened to adults being role models for children? Whatever happened to responsible behavior? And here, I am not just referring to filmmakers who will produce and sell any type of film. I am citing adults who will expose youngsters to sounds and images that are entirely inappropriate.
KICK-ASS and its heroine brought to mind another film, titled BAD SANTA, which came to theaters in 2003. BAD SANTA starts off looking like a traditional holiday movie. Among its first on-screen images are Christmas decorations. The main character, played by Billy Bob Thornton, is a department store Santa-- but he is not a lovable, MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET kind of Santa. We first see him boozing away an evening in a dreary bar. He then offers a monologue which includes no less than six four-letter words or phrases. As the scene concludes, we see him throwing up in an alley.
It is for good reason that BAD SANTA earned an R-rating.
Now I saw this film at a pre-release screening. Sitting behind me was a woman and a little girl, who was about five or six years old. After the film began, and Billy Bob began boozing and cursing, I glanced behind me. The child was staring blankly at the screen. So was the woman, who seemed oblivious to the impact this portrayal of Old St. Nick might be having on the girl. All I could think of was to want to wish a very Merry Christmas to all the parents who accompanied their pre-teen children to this screening.
Today, this child would be a couple years older than “Hit-Girl.” And even though KICK-ASS, like BAD SANTA, is R-rated, how many contemporaries of “Hit-Girl” will think that this film is the height of cool, and will manage to see it?
Now watching a foul-mouthed pre-teenager bloodily battling adults is, how shall I put it, an unusual if not unique cinematic experience. But whether you are six or sixty years old, is it an experience that is worth having?
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
May 3, 2010: Violence, Part 1
Whatever you might think of THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, a smash-hit Scandinavian feature currently enjoying a theatrical run, one point is undeniable: Parts of this film are explicitly brutal. This should not be surprising, if you combine the film’s thriller element with present-day sensibilities regarding on-screen violence.
These days, countless films feature imagery that some viewers may find unnecessarily disturbing and nightmarish. And here, I am not just referring to low-budget, TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE-style horror films. I am talking about A-list features, made by A-list filmmakers, and starring A-list actors. These films only start with CHANGELING, directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Angelina Jolie, and I don’t know how many films made by David Fincher.
Their scenarios focus on individuals who are exploited or terrorized. They include images that are not just bloody and violent but downright disturbing as they graphically depict human suffering in the most vivid detail.
On one level, you can argue that such films merely are reflections of a less-than-hospitable world. They do not romanticize criminal activity, or good-guy bad-guy heroics in which right invariably overcomes might. That is Hollywood Dream Factory fantasy.
You might say that the mainstreaming of the monstrous dates to 1991, when SILENCE OF THE LAMBS broke a taboo of sort by winning the Best Picture Academy Award. This leads me to an anecdote involving a young woman who was at best a toddler in 1991. A few weeks ago, I showed her and other young people THE OX-BOW INCIDENT, a 1943 feature whose scenario involves a lynching. Now the lynching is depicted on-screen, but not in the kind of way that a horrific crime would be shown in a contemporary film. All you see are the victims on horseback. Then, the horses are kicked out from under them and, ever so briefly, you see the victims’ shadows twisting in the wind.
After the screening, this young woman cornered me and reported that, just before the hanging, she automatically found herself looking away from the screen. She was expecting to see imagery that she did not want to expose herself to, imagery that she did not want to store in her memory bank. Given her age, and the popular culture as it exists in her lifetime, her reaction was unsurprising.
The point is not that all movies should be fluffy, escapist fare. Films certainly can, and should, deal with issues surrounding violent crime. Yet do viewers have to be exposed to in-your-face human suffering? Does this sort of thing become-- entertaining?
My take on all this is that a film’s psychological impact just may be greater if more was left to the imagination.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top
April 26, 2010: Rough Childhoods
If you grow up in a generally supportive, conflict-free home, the odds are that you will be a happy, well-adjusted adult. However, your story will not be spotlighted in movies, because there is no drama in your life. There is no conflict. To tell a compelling story, there must be drama and conflict.
This thought came to mind while watching THE RUNAWAYS, the new film which tells of the plight and fate of the groundbreaking 1970s female rockers Joan Jett and Cherie Currie. Similar stories are told in plenty of other recent films. This list just begins with COCO BEFORE CHANEL, which follows the early years of the legendary fashion designer Coco Chanel, and LA VIE EN ROSE, a biography of the singer Edith Piaf.
The characterizations in all these films happen to be based on fact. However, they easily could be the fictional creations of screenwriters. What they all share is that they all are products of less-than-ideal upbringings. In these films, the central characters are orphans, or they are ignored and even mistreated by their elders. So as they grow up and come of age, they do not have support systems. Nobody has their backs. And so they are left to their own resources as they attempt to find themselves and forge their identities in a less than hospitable world.
Now sometimes in these films, the characters do not drown. In fact, they even thrive. The reason is because, despite their hardscrabble childhoods, there is something inside them that allows them to be tough and determined. These individuals are survivors. Yet whatever success they achieve still is impacted by their childhood experience.
On the other hand, if someone does not have that inner fire, that self-preservation mechanism, that individual might drown in excess-- whether that excess be drugs, alcohol, or unwise lifestyle choices.
Now of course, Coco Chanel became a world-famous designer. But as portrayed in COCO BEFORE CHANEL, her steadfast devotion to her work and preference never to marry are inexorably linked to her childhood experience. Edith Piaf earned accolades in her field. But as portrayed in LA VIE EN ROSE, she was like a delicate flower, easily wilted. Her vulnerability also may be linked to her hardscrabble youth.
The two main characters in THE RUNAWAYS experience great success. But the manner in which these two young women handle that success is altogether different.
Whenever an actor or director gives a speech after winning an accolade, and that honoree thanks his or her mother and father for their support and encouragement, I think about how fortunate that individual is to have had such parents. But their true-life stories would not make for compelling filmmaking.
The individuals whose early lives are complicated or troubled-- individuals like Coco Chanel, Edith Piaf, Joan Jett, and Cherie Currie-- will be the individuals whose stories are told on-screen.
Rob Edelman teaches film history at the University at Albany. He has written several books on film and television, and is an associate editor of Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide.
Back to the Top |
|
Support for WAMC comes from
|
|
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr