|
|
Rob Edelman
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
April 19, 2010: War Films, and Anti-War Films
As someone who has seen a lot of war films, and written about war films, and taught a course on war films (called The Hollywood Combat Film), a question that endlessly intrigues me is: When is a war film an anti-war film?
Some films set in wartime obviously are dead-set against warfare. They reflect on the manner in which conflict and combat destroy lives-- particularly those of young men who should be attending school, learning a trade, falling in love, and planning their futures, but instead are dodging bullets while waist-deep in trenches.
It is unsurprising that some of the most memorable blatantly anti-war films-- at least those produced in the United States-- were made when our country was not engaged in a shooting war. I am thinking of the Oscar-winning ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, released in 1930, and PATHS OF GLORY, the Stanley Kubrick-Kirk Douglas collaboration that came to theaters in 1957. I could not see either going into production in 1917 or 1918, at the height of World War I, or in 1942 or 1943, at the height of World War II. That simply would have been unpatriotic.
The subject of war films, and anti-war films, comes to mind because of the DVD release of an audacious and unusual French film that, appropriately, is titled LA FRANCE. This film is wholly original, and features its own quirky rhythm.
LA FRANCE is set during the First World War, which echoes in the background. The main character is Camille (Sylvie Testud), a young woman who lives peacefully in a small town in Northeastern France. One day, she receives a disturbing letter from her husband, who is fighting at the front. In it, he writes, “You’ll never see me again.”
Camille loves her husband and is determined to join him, but her gender will prevent her from traveling freely across the countryside. So she cuts her hair, passes herself off as a 17-year-old boy, and sets out on her journey.
At its core, LA FRANCE examines the manner in which war strips away innocence and irrevocably taints the soul. Like ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT and PATHS OF GLORY, it is pointedly anti-war. These films may be contrasted to the countless combat films that came out of Hollywood during the Second World War. They may feature young men being separated from their loved ones, and even dying in battle. But while they ruminate on tragedy, they are, at their core, patriotic and propagandistic in nature. They stress that America is at war against an enemy that must be defeated, and so Americans must band together and nobly sacrifice in the name of justice and truth.
Yet still, as I watch these films, I only can shake my head and mutter to myself, “What a waste. In wartime-- beyond the issues, beyond who is right and who is wrong-- ultimately, everybody loses.”
And to return to my question: When is a war film an anti-war film? I would say that, by their very nature, any movie that is set in wartime and features carnage is, intended or not intended, an anti-war 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
April 12, 2010: The Passage of Time
There is a scene in GREENBERG, the new film by Noah Baumbach, in which the title character, played by Ben Stiller, attends a party. He is as out of place there as a pork loin at a Seder. That is because the partiers all are in their twenties.
Greenberg, meanwhile, has just celebrated his 41st birthday. And at one point, he bemoans the fact that the young people are unfamiliar with one of the iconic movies of his youth. That would be Oliver Stone’s WALL STREET, released way back in 1987.
Now granted, the Greenberg character has issues. His life has been one of missed connections and lost opportunities. He recently suffered a nervous breakdown, and has just been released from a mental hospital. As he enters middle age, he still is trying to figure out what he wants to do when he grows up.
Nevertheless, who is he to feel he is smarter than, and superior to, some young people who still were in diapers, or maybe not yet born, when Michael Douglas’ Gordon Gekko enlightened the world by declaring that “Greed is good”? Now of course, Gekko is the villain of WALL STREET. A question that has intrigued me in the 23 years since the film’s release is: How many viewers took his words seriously?
But my point here is that time passes, new generations come along, and the fact that young people are not hip to the culture of their elders does not disturb me in the least.
A couple months ago, I asked a woman of college-age why she wished to enroll in a film course. Her response was that she loved “old” movies. As an example of an “old” movie, she cited WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT.
Now WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT was released in 1988. To me, this is not so long ago. It is, in fact, practically yesterday. To my way of thinking, old movies starred Charlie Chaplin, Edward G. Robinson, Greta Garbo, the Marx Brothers: actors who were in their prime before I was born.
An old movie stars John Barrymore, and not Drew Barrymore. But this young wannabe film student might not have been born in 1988. So given her time clock, WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT is, indeed, a vintage film.
The point here is that an older person castigating a younger one for being culturally unaware is totally unwarranted. This certainly goes for the Greenberg character: a man who is annoyed with the world, and is flailing about as he stumbles through his life.
As Greenberg offers his WALL STREET commentary, he is stripped bare, and the true nature of his character is tellingly revealed. It is one of the pivotal moments in Baumbach’s film, a generally absorbing, exquisitely detailed work that has been filtering through my mind in the weeks since I’ve seen it.
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 5, 2010: Polanski and Politicians
The most intriguing character in THE GHOST WRITER, directed by Roman Polanski and recently released theatrically, is not the title character: a successful author who finds himself playing investigative reporter upon being hired to pen the autobiography of a former British prime minister.
The character who is the most compelling is Adam Lang, the ex-prime minister.
Now on one level, Lang is not unlike the vast majority of celluloid politicians. For every Mr. Smith-like officeholder-- a wide-eyed, clear-headed idealist who goes to Washington and remains determined to honestly serve his constituents while standing up for truth, justice, and the American way-- you will find endless screen politicians who piously smile and glad-handle their constituents while merrily lying, cheating, stealing, and buying votes.
You will find them in films from the celebrated-- starting with Preston Sturges’ THE GREAT MCGINTY; the various versions of Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur’s THE FRONT PAGE; BULLETS OR BALLOTS, a rock-solid Warner Bros. crime drama; and the original ALL THE KING’S MEN-- to such appropriately-titled, long-forgotten 1930s items as WASHINGTON MERRY-GO-ROUND, THE WASHINGTON MASQUERADE, and THE PRESIDENT VANISHES.
Perhaps my all-time favorite is THE GREAT MCGINTY, an allegory about a bartender who describes how he rose from poverty to the governor’s mansion in no time at all by using chicanery, a variety of illegal tactics, and his fists. In THE GREAT MCGINTY, a city boss pays two dollars a head to bums to vote for his man. The “governor” meets his downfall only when he attempts to go straight. And a political henchman pronounces the classic line, “If it wasn’t for graft, you’d get a very low type of people in politics.”
Unlike THE GREAT MCGINTY, THE GHOST WRITER is a movie of the early 21st century. This means that Adam Lang is not being accused of stealing money from the cookie jar, or appointing his under-qualified brother-in-law to some low-level post in his administration.
Lang’s alleged misdeeds only begin with committing war crimes. And make no mistake, he is not a higher-up in Hitler’s Germany. He is not an Idi-Amin or Saddam Hussein-like tyrant. He is not an underling of Josef Stalin. He is the former Prime Minister of England. In other words, he is supposed to be one of the good guys.
THE GHOST WRITER is chillingly contemporary in that it 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.
Finally and most tellingly, THE GHOST WRITER mirrors a modern world in which the ghost writer hero just may find it impossible to emerge victorious.
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 29, 2010: Agnès Varda
Just because a film fails to receive an across-the-board theatrical release does not mean that it somehow is unworthy of being seen. A case in point is THE BEACHES OF AGNES, a deeply felt, strikingly original celluloid autobiography in which Agnès Varda, the legendary eightysomething film director, recalls moments and incidents from her life.
THE BEACHES OF AGNES recently was released on DVD. Varda narrates, and appears onscreen throughout. The film primarily consists of a blending of re-created images from her past-- images which have haunted her across the decades-- and clips from her films. These clips are clear-headed reflections of Varda’s life-- her concerns, and her priorities. And here, we are reminded that Agnès Varda is, once and forever, a film artist rather than a film maker.
Even though THE BEACHES OF AGNES is a mirror of her past, Varda lives very much in the present--- and so her film is a seamless blending of present and past, of memory and present-day reality. Now to be sure, THE BEACHES OF AGNES is seeped in nostalgia. But this nostalgia never is cloying. And in some of its best moments, the film also is playful. Some of the bits in THE BEACHES OF AGNES made me smile, and even laugh out loud.
But the operative word for the film is poignant. And THE BEACHES OF AGNES is at its most poignant when Varda ruminates on the manner in which she deals with her memories of, and feelings for, those in her life who are deceased. These include close friends and colleagues. But the person she misses the most is her late, dearly beloved husband, the film director Jacques Demy.
By the way, Varda chose to title her film THE BEACHES OF AGNES because she is drawn to the sea, and because beaches and waves crashing onto shores are timeless.
There also are two lines in the narration which sum up this extraordinary film. The first is: “It all happened yesterday, and it’s already the past.” The second is: “While I live, I remember.”
THE BEACHES OF AGNES is a fine companion piece to Varda’s THE GLEANERS AND I, released in 2001 and also available on DVD. In this outstanding documentary, Varda offers a portrait of gleaners-- or, peasants who would “humbly stoop” as they rummaged through fields for bits of food that remained after a harvest. Varda contrasts the gleaners of yesteryear with those of today, many of whom are homeless street people who scrounge through garbage for food.
In THE GLEANERS AND I, Varda explores a host of themes, ranging from aging and surviving to the manner in which individuals thoughtlessly toss away what they do not need, even if it is leftover food that someone less fortunate might crave.
THE GLEANERS AND I and THE BEACHES OF AGNES are the work of a film artist who is keenly aware of her surroundings, and in complete command of cinematic language.
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 22, 2010: Child Actors
Many of us, perhaps, like to think of Ron Howard as the happy product of the cotton candy Hollywood dream factory. Back when he was a child, and was known as Ronny Howard, he costarred as Opie on THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW. Then he was teenager Richie Cunningham on HAPPY DAYS. And today, he is a popular, Academy Award-winning director.
Howard’s pathway from child star to A-list filmmaker immediately came to mind a couple weeks ago upon learning of the sad fate of Corey Haim, another once-popular child actor. Now Hollywood is the land of make-believe and, evidence to the contrary, the naïve among us might assume that many child stars grow up to be Ron Howard-- or, Ron Howard-like. But the gloomy reality is that far more child actors suffer fates similar to that of Corey Haim.
A lack of time prevents me from detailing their stories. But one is of particular note.
On March 4, 1951, a feature in Parade magazine, headlined “Smart Boys...,” reported, “It is estimated that the 15 youngsters who today are established ‘names’ [as boy child stars in Hollywood] earn over a million dollars a year. Trust funds keep their earnings secure; studios provide tutors and medical care; State laws prevent them from overwork. It’s nice work, if a boy can get it.”
A photo accompanying the piece featured Bobby Driscoll, then a 14-year-old Disney studio contract player. A couple years earlier, Driscoll earned a special Academy Award, as outstanding juvenile actor, for his dramatic performance in THE WINDOW, which had been a sleeper hit. He also appeared in quite a few well-remembered Disney films of the period. One could not begin to calculate how many dollars Driscoll helped earn for his studio.
But when Bobby Driscoll reached adolescence, he lost his special appeal. The industry no longer wanted him, he was unable to cope with life as a has-been celebrity, and so, in October 1959, Driscoll was arrested on what the media described as “narcotics charges.” Two years later, in April 1961, he was jailed for burglary. At the time, he reported that he was employed as a construction laborer. That July, a one-paragraph UPI news item out of Los Angeles was buried in the New York Times. It was headlined “Ex-Child Star Admits Forgery,” and it reported that Driscoll had pleaded guilty to forging an endorsement on a stolen check.
The 24-year-old had transitioned from pampered celebrity to petty criminal. And this was just the start of what was to be a downward spiral.
Driscoll eventually spent over a year in a drug rehabilitation program in California’s Chino Penitentiary. After completing his parole, he moved to New York in the hope of finding stage work. But he was unsuccessful and, in early 1968, Bobby Driscoll died. He was 31-years-old, and his body was discovered by children playing in an abandoned tenement. Driscoll was penniless. At his side were some religious material and several empty beer bottles. As he was without identification, no one was able to claim his body. His identity later was determined through his fingerprints.
Bobby Driscoll, winner of an Academy Award, was buried in New York’s Potter’s Field-- in an unmarked grave.
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 15, 2010: A Prophet
What surely will be one of the very best films of the season recently was released theatrically. It is titled A PROPHET, and its countries of origin are France and Italy.
A PROPHET is one foreign-language film that deserves a wide theatrical release in the United States. This is sure to happen, if only because the film is sprinkled with Academy Award and Cannes Film Festival glitter. It also has won nine Cesar Awards, the French equivalent of the Oscar.
A PROPHET, directed by Jacques Audiard, is the story of a naive young man named Malik El Djebena. Malik is just nineteen years old, and is all alone in the world. He is barely literate, as he left school when he was eleven. And he is beginning a six-year jail term.
Immediately after his incarceration, Malik’s sneakers are stolen. And so, immediately, one might think: This film is overly familiar. There already are countless films, made across the decades, that spotlight lawlessness as it exists within prison walls. But A PROPHET is altogether different, because of its decidedly contemporary spin. That spin is linked to the fact that Malik is of Middle Eastern extraction. He is an Arab in a French prison. And because the prison is lorded over by a powerful Corsican mob, Malik will be marked because of his ethnicity-- and will be helpless to shield himself from the corrupt forces within the prison.
Now at the outset, Malik is not a killer. He is not a thug. He is not a career criminal. But while in jail, will be become all of these?
On one level, A PROPHET is a gritty, shattering denunciation of penal systems that seem to be run not by wardens and jailors but by the most powerful and influential inmates. And so, in a general way, it is a story of the pervasiveness of corruption. But the film also offers a peek into a prison whose inmates do little more than pass time. They do not come to understand the value of life on the straight-and-narrow. They do not learn to be productive citizens. All they do learn is how to commit bigger crimes.
And as Malik’s story unfolds, a question may be asked that transcends overt criminality: In order to survive, and perhaps even thrive, in the modern world, must one embrace a lifestyle whose cornerstone is dishonesty, and bending the rules to suit one’s aims?
Beyond the issues on which it ruminates, A PROPHET also can be enjoyed for its acting. While Tahar Rahim offers an eye-opening performance as Malik, Niels Arestrup-- a 35-year veteran of the French cinema-- is positively bone-chilling as Cesar Luciani, the Don Corleone figure within the prison.
Here is acting that is every bit as impressive as Christoph Waltz’s attention-getting turn as the slyly evil Nazi in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS.
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 8, 2010: Scorsese
With the Academy Awards at center stage in the media, one film which recently has been released theatrically might have been among the Oscar contenders. That film is SHUTTER ISLAND.
It is not so much that this film is Oscar-worthy. Far from it. It is because any film made by its director surely will be an attention-grabber. That filmmaker is, of course, Martin Scorsese.
Now when one thinks Martin Scorsese, one usually thinks: Timeless tales of crime and mayhem or films set in the recent or distant past, films from MEAN STREETS, TAXI DRIVER, and RAGING BULL to GOODFELLAS, GANGS OF NEW YORK, and THE DEPARTED, films that explore the actions and souls of their primary characters.
But there is one Scorsese film that stands off by itself-- up until now. That film is CAPE FEAR, released in 1991 and a remake of a film from three decades earlier. In Scorsese’s hands, what originally was a rock-solid thriller became an explicitly bloody gothic horror film that I found difficult to sit through.
Well, Scorsese explores similar terrain in SHUTTER ISLAND. What is most telling about this new film is that it originally was scheduled for release this past October. And, as any new Scorsese film, it was hyped as an Academy Award contender. But the fact that its release was postponed until now is most revealing.
SHUTTER ISLAND, based on a novel by Dennis Lehane, features Leonardo DiCaprio-- who lately has replaced Robert De Niro as Scorsese’s most favored actor. The story is set in 1954, and DiCaprio plays Teddy Daniels, a deeply troubled World War II veteran and United States marshal. He and his new partner travel to a hospital for the criminally insane, located on the title locale. Their mission is to investigate the disappearance from the hospital of a woman who murdered her three children.
At its best, SHUTTER ISLAND is a complex psychological portrait of the DiCaprio character. It is loaded with snappy visuals and camera movement, and is akin to a psychological puzzle. But it also is a deeply flawed film. The primary culprit is the screenplay, which too often meanders.
In other words, SHUTTER ISLAND is not vintage, classic Martin Scorsese. Nevertheless, in its first weekend in release, SHUTTER ISLAND earned over $40-million in domestic box office. This was the best-ever opening for a Scorsese film. After two weeks in release, its box office take topped $75-million.
Now certain conservatives will tell you that Hollywood has a strident liberal agenda. But this simply is not so. As an industry, Hollywood has one major concern. And that is to make money.
So one can imagine some honcho from Paramount Pictures gently suggesting to Scorsese that, given the big bucks earned by SHUTTER ISLAND, his next film should not be as daring or creative as TAXI DRIVER or RAGING BULL. Perhaps he might consider making something on the order of SHUTTER ISLAND II: THE RESURRECTION OF TEDDY DANIELS.
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 1, 2010: Buyer Beware
With the 2010 Academy Awards much in the news, many movie buffs take pleasure in visiting or revisiting older films: films that, once upon a time, were Oscar contenders. In recent weeks, scores of such titles have been screening non-stop on Turner Classic Movies.
If you savor vintage cinema, TCM is, quite simply, a treasure trove, a year-round necessity. Sometimes, I think it is the only reason to spend one’s hard-earned dollars on a cable television subscription.
However, there are other ways to catch up on Oscar contenders. The most obvious is DVD. But when it comes to certain older films-- specifically, titles that are in the public domain-- viewers should be forewarned: The quality of DVDs of public domain titles often is embarrassingly shoddy.
As a case in point, a four-disc DVD set has just been marketed. It is titled ACADEMY COLLECTION: THE ENVELOPE PLEASE, and it consists of eight feature films from the late 1920s and 1930s.
This set is billed as “a rare look at Best Picture contenders” from Oscar’s first decade. But the fact is that most of the titles are not at all rare. Films like the 1930s versions of THE FRONT PAGE, A FAREWELL TO ARMS, LOVE AFFAIR, and A STAR IS BORN-- all of which are in the set-- have long been available on DVD. Because they are in the public domain, any enterprising company can market them. And across the years, endless numbers of concerns have marketed them.
What interested me about this particular set, however, was one of its titles. That would be THE RACKET, a 1928 crime drama that is historically significant, and in fact is hard-to-find. I had never seen THE RACKET, and I figured that this would be my chance to do so.
But not surprisingly, I was disappointed-- not in the film, but in its quality. An older film will be a pleasure to watch on DVD if it is a first-class transfer, and is taken from high-quality source material. But such is not the case here. The words blurry and fuzzy best describe the image quality of THE RACKET.
And the opening credits of ALIBI, another gangster film in the package-- this one dating from 1929-- were even worse. As you watch them, you might think that your eyesight has suddenly and inexplicably deserted you. Then the first images from ALIBI come onscreen. These visuals are so washed-out that they look as if they were filmed in the middle of a dense fog.
And what is just as distracting is that Hollywood Select Video, the company marketing the DVDs, has chosen to place its name in the bottom right-hand corner of the picture. For every second of their screen time, you are reminded that all these films are being brought to you by Hollywood Select Video.
This is not the way to watch a movie.
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 22, 2010: Michael Haneke
Michael Haneke is one of the most consistently provocative of all contemporary filmmakers.
And with the kudos he has been earning for THE WHITE RIBBON, a frontrunner for the Best Foreign Film Academy Award-- the complex, unsettling account of the strange events that occur in a small German village on the eve of World War I, events that serve to reflect on the reasons why a generation of Germans were inclined to embrace the tyranny of Adolph Hitler-- it would be in order to examine Haneke’s films, and his cinematic aesthetic.
Let me begin with CACHE, which was one of the very best films of 2005. CACHE is a harrowing portrait of a Parisian family, and what happens when someone begins secretly videotaping their comings-and-goings. Here is a movie that is at once quiet, and subtle-- and terrifying. And its content is perfectly in line with Haneke’s earlier work.
In his films, Haneke is fascinated by the manner in which images are presented in contemporary media, and how those images impact on those who view them. His characters often are alienated. They live in cold, sterile worlds, and they have become desensitized to the horror of real violence.
All of this is depicted in a trilogy of films that Haneke directed between 1989 and 1994. The first is THE SEVENTH CONTINENT, and it also is Haneke’s theatrical feature debut.
THE SEVENTH CONTINENT is a jarring account of middle-class malaise. Here, Haneke charts the everyday lives of an ordinary albeit emotionally disconnected family: a husband, a wife, and their young daughter. The film is starkly directed, with Haneke initially, and revealingly, filming his actors’ hands, feet, and torsos-- but not their faces. Each sequence is short and abrupt, and ends in a blackout, which adds to the overall effect. The final, extended sequence is positively devastating-- and it all is based on a true story.
Haneke’s follow-up is BENNY’S VIDEO. The title character is addicted to shooting images with his video camera, and endlessly watching ultra-violent movies. While his parents are away, he brings a young girl into his home. And he dispassionately murders her.
The storyline in BENNY’S VIDEO may be obvious, but the film is a potent allegory of the manner in which watching violent images may desensitize young people and turn them into emotionless monsters.
The final film is 71 FRAGMENTS OF A CHRONOLOGY OF CHANCE. It is a challenging, tapestry-like portrayal of a host of individuals who are isolated and alienated, and whose lives are presented in snippets. They include a scruffy runaway boy, a sullen orphaned girl, a solitary old man, and an unhappily married couple. Mixed in are TV news reports involving violence and conflict across the globe, and Michael Jackson responding to his being accused of child molestation.
Not unexpectedly, these fragments are bookended by a tragedy-- and one might view the film as a celluloid dissertation on the manner in which the constant repetition of televised images numbs the senses.
As a whole, these films are the antithesis of mindless Hollywood brain candy. Each is provocative. Each builds to a shattering climax. Each deals with issues that affect us all.
Each is available on DVD. And each is the work of Michael Haneke, a world-class filmmaker.
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 15, 2010: Horror Films
With the release of the new, high-profile remake of THE WOLFMAN, which stars Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, and Emily Blunt and bills itself as being inspired by the classic 1941 film of the same name, a survey of present-day horror films is in order.
The key questions here are: Are contemporary chillers genuinely chilling? Are directors employing film language to send shivers up the spines of horror film aficionados? Or, are they attempting to dazzle viewers by combining fancy special effects, buckets of fake blood, and haphazard filmmaking?
To my mind, the majority of present-day tales of terror are less than genuinely terrifying. Take, for example, HALLOWEEN II, which came to theaters at the tail end of the summer and presently is available on DVD. HALLOWEEN II’s director was born Robert Cummings. But he is not to be confused with the popular actor who, back in the 1940s, starred in THE DEVIL AND MISS JONES, KING’S ROW, and Hitchcock’s SABOTEUR. This Robert Cummings goes under the name Rob ZOMBIE. In the PR for HALLOWEEN II, Zombie is described as a “horror master.” The film is dubbed a “terrifying sequel to Rob Zombie’s visionary re-imagining of [the original] Halloween.”
Don’t you just love spin!
Well, my take on HALLOWEEN II is that it is anything but visionary. It is, in fact, a lumbering sequel, with pitifully few genuine scares. HALLOWEEN II is only for those who relish watching people bleed and suffer, and hearing the “f-word” endlessly repeated.
If you ever wonder what happens to actors like Malcolm McDowell, Brad Dourif, Howard Hesseman, and Margot Kidder-- once-popular players who now are desperate for paydays-- well, they show up in movies like HALLOWEEN II.
While too many current horror films are as devoid of cleverness or wit as HALLOWEEN II, there are exceptions. One example is THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL, a low-budget chiller that has just arrived on DVD. THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL charts the plight of a college student, in desperate need of cash, who answers an ad for a babysitter-- much to her regret.
This film is a refreshingly old-fashioned chiller. It slowly, carefully builds up suspense. And it is a throwback to shockers of an earlier era in that it metes out its scares without depending on in-your-face gore and computer-generated effects.
Now I wonder how many moviegoers who are waiting in line to catch the new WOLFMAN are even aware of the original version. This film features a stellar 1940s cast: Claude Rains, Warren William, Ralph Bellamy, Maria Ouspenskaya, Bela Lugosi, and Lon Chaney, Jr. in the title role.
My colleague Leonard Maltin is right on target when he describes the original as “one of the finest horror films ever made.” Yet somehow, I do not think that the same ever will be said for the new WOLFMAN
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 8, 2010: The Effect of Violence
Watching the unfolding story of the recent earthquake in Haiti serves as a sobering reminder of the impact of bloodshed on individuals. Whether that bloodshed is the result of a force of nature, cruel fate, or the selfishness and stupidity of humankind, those who are victims of it end up with deep psychological wounds that may never completely heal.
Translating all this to the movies, contemporary audiences regularly sit through so many films that feature oodles of violent imagery. Yet these films rarely if ever acknowledge the effect of that violence, the emotional toll it takes on survivors.
This explains my fascination with two current films. The first is A SINGLE MAN, an eloquent drama about an English professor who must deal with his deep sense of loss upon the death of his beloved in a car crash.
Then there is THE MESSENGER. This film spotlights the U.S. Army personnel who are entrusted to inform the relations of servicemen and women that their loved ones have been killed in combat. While these GIs are the main characters in THE MESSENGER, the film does dwell on the range of reactions on the part of the next-of-kin. And it offers a chilling reminder that the victims of war are not just those who lose their lives in combat.
For this reason, THE MESSENGER is not your typical war film. Neither is it a mainstream celluloid entertainment that stresses the visceral thrill of watching violent imagery: imagery in which countless individuals are blown to bits or mowed down in hails of bullets but, at the end, in such films, all is shown to be well with the world because the hero and heroine get to stroll off together into the sunset.
A case in point: In the recent remake of THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3, a New York City subway motorman is brutally murdered by one of the hijackers of his train. The point of this, cinematically speaking, is to show the audience that the hijackers are fully capable of following through on their threat to kill their hostages.
Yet while watching THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3, I wondered: Does the motorman have a wife? Does he have children? A sequence, in which his loved ones are shown grieving for him, would have added a certain resonance to the film. But he is, within the framework of the story, a supporting player-- so his humanity hardly matters, just so long as the bad guys are taken out before the finale and the hero gets to return home to his family.
What makes A SINGLE MAN and THE MESSENGER so unusual is that they are jarring reminders that, in the real world, with action comes reaction. Whether a loved one dies in a war or a car crash, or as the result of a violent crime, those who survive feel real pain.
In this regard, A SINGLE MAN and THE MESSENGER are reminiscent of DEAD MAN WALKING, released back in 1995, the fact-based account of a nun who ministers to a convicted murderer on death row. It is to this film’s credit that there is no preaching regarding the pros and cons of capital punishment. The murderer is just that: a brutal killer. But he still is a human being. Will justice truly be served by his being put to death? Yet at the same time, what of his victims and their loved ones? The very real grief endured by his victims’ families is as much a facet of DEAD MAN WALKING as the complex, evolving relationship between the nun and the killer.
It is regrettable that, these days, films like A SINGLE MAN, THE MESSENGER, and DEAD MAN WALKING are all too rare.
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 25, 2010: Accuracy in the Media
These days, you really cannot believe everything you read in a newspaper-- even if it is a mainstream newspaper.
Several weeks ago, an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times. The headline was, “Sandra Bullock may buck Oscar history with role in ‘Blind Side’.” Its subhead began, “Popular, mainstream actors like her often miss out when the Academy Awards are handed out...”
Here are the first two paragraphs of the piece, written by Susan King:
“If Sandra Bullock is going to win a best actress Oscar for her role in THE BLIND SIDE she may have one major obstacle to overcome: She’s too popular.
“In the 82-year history of the Academy Awards, it’s been difficult for mainstream actresses (and yes, actors) to win acting Oscars. Included in that list are some of Hollywood’s greatest female stars: Barbara Stanwyck, Mae West, Greta Garbo, Marilyn Monroe, Rosalind Russell, Marlene Dietrich to name just a few.”
Now granted, none of the above won competitive Oscars. Neither, for that matter, did Cary Grant, Edward G. Robinson, John Barrymore, and other male stars. But the fact is that plenty of popular actors-- actors who were beloved by the masses of moviegoers-- are Oscar winners.
This list only begins with Clark Gable, Joan Crawford, James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, James Stewart, Paul Newman, Gregory Peck, Henry Fonda, Audrey Hepburn, Bing Crosby, and John Wayne. Such mainstream performers as Gary Cooper, Bette Davis, Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Jack Nicholson, Elizabeth Taylor, Jack Lemmon, Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, and Tom Hanks even have earned two or more Academy Awards.
In her article, King notes that popular stars had to deglamorize themselves to win Oscars. She cites Ginger Rogers. After “tripping the light fantastic” in musicals with Fred Astaire during the 1930s, Rogers “darkened her blond locks to play an unwed mother in [the] 1940’s melodrama ‘Kitty Foyle’ and won the best actress Oscar.” King observes that Grace Kelly “frumped it up in 1954’s ‘The Country Girl’ and picked up the golden statuette. And more recently, Charlize Theron packed on the pounds to play murderess Aileen Wuornos in 2003’s ‘Monster,’ winning a richly deserved best actress Academy Award for her effort.”
Well, way back in 1947, Rosalind Russell-- a popular performer in comedies from HIS GIRL FRIDAY to AUNTIE MAME-- earned a Best Actress nomination for her dramatic performance in Eugene O’Neill’s MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA. This is a serious film, an adaptation of the Greek tragedy ORESTEIA. Suffice to say that MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA is not mainstream fare. But prior to Oscar night, Russell was the Best Actress frontrunner. However, the eventual winner was Loretta Young, for playing the title character in THE FARMER’S DAUGHTER: a film that one might accurately label as totally mainstream.
But this or similar tidbits are not cited in the article.
In another example of media shortsightedness, CNN’s Reliable Sources recently aired a piece on a biography of Warren Beatty, written by Peter Biskind. Howard Kurtz, the show’s host, not only mispronounced Biskind’s name but described him as an “obscure biographer.” Well, Peter Biskind happens to be the former executive editor of Premiere magazine. He is a contributing editor of Vanity Fair, and has authored a number of highly regarded books on film history.
“Reliable sources” indeed...
Now granted, show business stories are trivial when compared to, say, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, health care reform, or global warming. But one should not change history, ignore facts, or mislabel individuals, whether one is reporting on war, health care, global warming-- or show business.
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 18, 2010: From Page or Stage to Screen
Some high-profile films released near the end of the year are based on material that had been previously published or dramatized.
And with this in mind, questions arise: How accurately, for example, does NINE reflect the Broadway musical on which it is based? How true is THE ROAD to Cormac McCarthy’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel? Is SHERLOCK HOLMES an honest reflection of Arthur Conan Doyle’s original stories?
But, just perhaps, the real questions should be: Does any of this matter? Should a film that is based on previously published or dramatized material stand on its own, and be judged-- and enjoyed-- solely on its own merits?
My answer to the last question is a resounding yes. All that really counts is if the film works, or does not work. Is it entertaining and/or provocative? Or, is it a misfire?
Now for me, one of these new films is deeply moving. That would be THE ROAD: a grim but compelling story, provocatively told, of love and survival in a post-apocalyptic world. The film’s impact, as you sit in a movie theatre and watch it, has nothing to do with the quality of its source material.
Meanwhile, NINE is a dismal failure, a choppy concoction whose storyline and musical numbers awkwardly fit together. Its director, Rob Marshall, seems more interested in impressing the viewer by the mere presence of his stellar cast. NINE is more like a fashion shoot than a film. It is not so much about storytelling and characterization as it is about beautiful people being beautiful. Having an opinion about the 1982 Broadway musical that is the basis for the film is irrelevant to the content or quality of the film.
And SHERLOCK HOLMES is nothing more than a standard contemporary Hollywood product: a cookie-cutter special effects extravaganza that will appeal to audiences with short attention spans. Robert Downey, Jr. plays a title character who is, in essence, an action hero, a Superman or Spider-Man clone who employs his fists as much as his brains to battle criminals.
Now in the case of SHERLOCK HOLMES, it would be valid to compare Downey’s interpretation to that of Basil Rathbone, who famously played the detective in fourteen feature films released between the late 1930s and mid-1940s. An even more interesting contrast is Jude Law’s characterization of Doctor Watson to that of Nigel Bruce, who co-starred with Rathbone. Law’s Watson is fine-looking, and engaged to be married, while Bruce’s Watson is no romantic hero but rather a comically fumbling, bumbling Brit.
A viewer who is familiar with the earlier Holmes films, or with the popular 1980s and ‘90s British television series featuring Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes, may-- or may not-- prefer either to the new film.
But the manner in which their characterizations of Holmes reflect on Doyle’s original has nothing to do with one’s gut reaction to any screen adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.
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 11, 2010: Ten Worst Films of 2009
In recent weeks, I have been discussing current films that are good films. They may be the best films of the year, or the best films of the decade.I also have been citing the top performances of the just-concluded year. So it seems that some commentary on the year's worst films is in order.
In general, bad movies, 2009-style, feature paper-thin characters and paper-thin plots that have as many holes as Swiss cheese. Now granted, the same may be said for the awful movies of 1989, or 1959, or 1929. But what distinguishes the bad films of today is that many of them are gratuitously violent, or pointlessly noisy. They may feature oodles of images that look pretty, but mean nothing.
Another distinguishing characteristic of a contemporary bad movie is that its soundtrack may be padded with popular songs: songs of the Golden Oldie variety. This way, if you find yourself suffering through the film, you just may think that you are enjoying it even though it has no storyline or character development.
But you are hearing songs that are familiar and pleasant-sounding, so you must be having a grand time. But to cut to the chase, what are the worst movies of 2009?It would be a challenge to come up with a ten-worst list, because there were so many films that either were disappointing or downright dreadful.But one at least can cite examples of typically bad films.
Take, for instance, something titled NINJA ASSASSIN. This film tells the story of a young man who has been trained since childhood by a villainous clan to be a killer ninja, but he breaks away after the murder of his sweetheart and plots bloody revenge. This mindlessly gory martial arts mishmash is about what you would expect from a film with this title.
Then there is WHITEOUT, which like so many current films is based on a graphic novel. WHITEOUT is a paper-thin thriller starring Kate Beckinsale as a U.S. marshal, stationed in Antarctica, who struggles to exorcise her demons while investigating some gruesome killings. Even though her character is constantly in danger, Beckinsale always is perfectly coiffed. Early on, she even has time to peel off her clothes and take a steamy shower. Only in the movies...
But if I had to cite an absolute worst movie, that would be SURVEILLANCE, which is directed and co-scripted by Jennifer Lynch, the daughter of David Lynch. Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond play federal agents who are investigating a grisly crime in a rural stretch of America. This film is an odious, one-note, RASHOMON-influenced hodgepodge that is atrociously directed and scripted. It is Jennifer Lynch's first film since BOXING HELENA, which came out in 1993-- and which is as equally repellent. BOXING HELENA is the story of a surgeon who is so obsessed with a beautiful woman that he holds her captive and amputates her limbs. Upon its release, I wrote that BOXING HELENA tries to be provocative and shocking, but the result is unintentional laughter-- when it is not downright monotonous.
Such might be a description for dozens upon dozens of truly awful contemporary movies.
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 4, 2010: New to the Spotlight
In the new year, with the awards season fast-approaching, the lists of performers up for acting prizes surely will be comprised of the usual suspects. Such worthy but familiar names as George Clooney and Morgan Freeman, Jeff Bridges and Meryl Streep, are not just earning critical kudos for their performances. They are winning Golden Globe nominations and Screen Actors Guild Award nominations, and they likely will earn Academy Award nominations.
Indeed, what would any year be without an award-caliber performance from Meryl Streep-- who, next to Bette Davis, surely is the all-time-greatest American screen actress? But what interests me each year are the performers who are unfamiliar to me, and who are lucky enough to win eye-catching roles-- and talented enough to take full advantage of that good fortune.When I see such an actor on-screen, I ask myself: Who is this performer? Have I seen this performer in other films? If so, what are they?
And, most tellingly, I wonder: Will this performance be the performance of a career? Will this actor be a one-shot, a flavor of the month? Or, will this performance be the first of many memorable performances? For after all, 30 years ago, the same might have been asked about Meryl Streep when she appeared in KRAMER VS. KRAMER. Almost 40 years ago, the same might have been said for Jeff Bridges when he appeared in THE LAST PICTURE SHOW.
This year, three actors-- each one a different age, and each from a different part of the world-- deservedly have merited attention for their screen work.
The first is Carey Mulligan. The British-born, 24-year-old Mulligan has made a splash in AN EDUCATION, playing a teenager who becomes romantically involved with a much-older man. Since 2005, Mulligan has appeared in a several British television series. In the just-concluded year, she also had supporting roles in BROTHERS and PUBLIC ENEMIES.
Next is Jeremy Renner, a native Californian, who offers a riveting performance in THE HURT LOCKER as a professional soldier, a bomb disposal expert serving in Iraq. The 39-year-old Renner has approximately three dozen movie and television credits, dating back to 1995.
Then there is Christoph Waltz, who is chillingly memorable as a slickly evil Nazi in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. Waltz is no youngster. The Austrian-born actor is 53, and has appeared in dozens of mostly German-made films since the late 1970s.
But now, Waltz, Renner, and Mulligan find themselves in the international spotlight, earning acclaim for their breakout performances in high-profile films. How long they remain there is anybody's guess.
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 28, 2009: Ten Best Films of The Decade
It seems incredible that we now are completing the first decade of the 21st century. This also means that it is time to cite the very best films of the decade. This is no easy task, because there are so many exceptional films from which to choose. But here is one person’s ten-best list-- for the past ten years.
This chronological list begins with:
- NO MAN’S LAND, released in 2001 and directed by Danis Tanovic, one of the all-time great anti-war films.
- FAR FROM HEAVEN, from 2002, directed by Todd Haynes, which is craftily designed to look and sound like a 1950s Douglas Sirk film-- and, which forcefully deals with issues of feminism, racism, and homosexuality in ways that never could have been explored during the Eisenhower era.
- MYSTIC RIVER, from 2003, directed by Clint Eastwood, a complex, suspenseful, and haunting story of friendship, murder, and community ties in Boston.
- PARADISE NOW, from 2005, directed by Hany Abu-Assad, a chilling drama about two young Palestinians who have volunteered to be suicide bombers. This film asks some pertinent questions about the nature of terrorism, and the true impact of terrorist acts.
- SARABAND, from 2005, Ingmar Bergman’s final feature, is a sequel to his 1973 classic, SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE. And, it is every bit as intimate and devastating as its predecessor.
- THE LIVES OF OTHERS, from 2006, directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, a quietly powerful drama about the East German secret police in the 1980s.
- In THE DEPARTED, from 2006, Martin Scorsese exudes an intensity and immediacy while exploring themes and milieus that date back to such classics as MEAN STREETS and GOODFELLAS.
- PAN’S LABYRINTH, from 2006, directed by Guillermo del Toro, is the story of a little girl who clings to her innocence in time of war.And, it is a definitive statement about the nature of innocence and evil, and what happens when these two powerful forces collide.
- Two more Clint Eastwood films make the list. And, because they are related, they count as one entry.They are FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA. These 2006 films chronicle the deadly American attack on the Japanese at Iwo Jima from the point-of-view of both sides. Both are staggering achievements. Now in his late seventies, Clint Eastwood is aging like the finest of wines. He has evolved into a truly great American filmmaker. And-- he is the filmmaker of the decade.
- And finally, PERSEPOLIS, from 2007, directed by Vincent Paronnaud and Marjane Satrapi, is the stirring, politically loaded account of a spunky female who comes of age in Iran, starting in the late 1970s. It also is animated. And despite all the superlative animated features coming out of Hollywood, PERSEPOLIS is the decade’s top animated film.
A short list of films that come close to making the top-ten starts with last year’s SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. It ALSO includes:
- From 2000, TRAFFIC, directed by Steven Soderbergh
- From 2001, CODE UNKNOWN, by Michael Haneke; THE GLEANERS AND I, by Agnes Varda; MEMENTO, by Christopher Nolan; and MULHOLLAND DRIVE, by David Lynch.
- From 2002, TALK TO HER, by Pedro Almodovar
- From 2003, 21 GRAMS, by Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu; LOST IN TRANSLATION, by Sofia Coppola; and CITY OF GOD, by Fernando Meirelles.
- From 2004, FINDING NEVERLAND, by Marc Forster; THE SEA INSIDE, by Alejandro Amenabar; and SIDEWAYS, by Alexander Payne.
- From 2005, CAPOTE, by Bennett Miller; GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK, by George Clooney; and CACHE, by Michael Haneke.
- From 2006, VOLVER, by Pedro Almodovar.
- From 2007, AWAY FROM HER, by Sarah Polley; JUNO, by Jason Reitman; and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, by the Coen brothers.
- From 2008, THE EDGE OF HEAVEN, by Fatih Akin.
- And, from 2009, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, by Quentin Tarantino; THE HURT LOCKER, by Kathryn Bigelow; and UP IN THE AIR, by Jason Reitman.
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 21, 2009: Ten Best Films of 2009
Each year, most of the best films-- the award-caliber films-- are released in the fall.However, 2009 was different. Now granted, there are quite a few fine films presently in theaters.But quite a few of the year’s top films came out earlier in the year.
In no particular order, they are:
- PUBLIC ENEMIES, which offers an illuminating portrait of John Dillinger, the notorious Public Enemy Number 1 of the 1930s. This film deftly depicts Dillinger as a populist public enemy-- as well as a celebrity, whose notoriety mirrors the era.
- These days, Hollywood consistently excels in the production of animated features. And UP easily is the year’s best animated film. It is wonderfully inventive and entertaining, and is a shoo-in for the Best Animated Feature Academy Award.
- Not all the films on this list played in theaters. One of them, GREY GARDENS, is an HBO production that premiered on television. It is the story of Big Edie and Little Edie Beale, who, back in the 1970s, were featured in the documentary of the same name. This GREY GARDENS is a story of two women who are stifled by both the conventions of their class and life in a pre-feminist America.
- JULIE AND JULIA, which also centers on two real-life women, is a witty, enormously appealing film about the title characters, who come of age professionally in different eras but are linked in that they both are aspiring professional chefs.
- THE HURT LOCKER is a shattering study of men in combat, men under stress, and the insanity and stupidity of war-- any war, not just the one in Iraq, which is the film’s setting.
- Speaking of war films, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is a deliciously entertaining, unashamedly escapist concoction. Those who appreciate the unique sensibility of its creator, Quentin Tarantino, and his pop culture-inspired world view, will find this film a sheer delight.
- UP IN THE AIR pungently explores a contemporary corporate culture that coldly dispenses with dedicated employees as if they are yesterday’s leftovers. It makes its points in swift, devastating strokes, while at the same time telling a story that is tremendously entertaining.
- A SERIOUS MAN, an autobiographical film by Joel and Ethan Coen, examines a dysfunctional 1960s American family, and religion.This is a challenging film, a knowing black comedy about a world that is superficially orderly but is, in fact, crumbling to the ground.
- KATYN, directed by Andrzej Wajda, the eightysomething dean of post-World War II Polish cinema, is a heartbreaking, fact-based account of Poland during and immediately after the war, when the country was swallowed up first by Germany, and then by Russia.
- These days, many films spotlight characters who must struggle for survival in a foreign land, an alien culture. One of the best is SUGAR, the well-told tale of a Dominican baseball player and his experiences upon signing a professional contract and coming to the United States.
In 2009, I’ve also seen one film that is a sure bet to earn a spot on my 2010 ten best list. It is titled A PROPHET. It is the story of a young Arab man who finds himself incarcerated in a French prison, and it is set for theatrical release in February.
And finally, I would like to heap praise on the Spectrum movie theater in Albany, and other, similar venues.
These movie houses bring audiences foreign-language films, independent films, documentaries-- in other words, the non-mainstream fare that will be overlooked by the mall theater chains. Venues like the Spectrum should be vigorously supported by one-and-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 |
|
Support for WAMC comes from
|
|
