Category: Film Page 64 of 101

100 Reasons I Love the Movies

A few people I know have done this ambitious meme that highlights not your top 100 films, but 100 things you love about film. I’ve mostly interpreted that as “100 moments or scenes that I love”, but it varies from a single shot to whole films to certain tropes or techniques found in lots of films. Here’s the original directive:

Rather than posting your 100 favorite films (which has been done and overdone), you simply post your favorite things about movies. I dig the concept, because instead of obsessing over whether the films you put on a list are “objectively good enough” to put on said list, you simply jot down 100 moments/lines/visuals that have made a lasting impression on you or sneak their way into running gags between you and your friends.

Mine aren’t in any order. I tried that, but really, these are too varied and too personal at times to rank. So this is just a jumble of things I love in film, things that remind me why I’m a cinephile and why I spend so much of my time watching, thinking about, writing about, and talking about film. And I could come up with another 100 in a heartbeat. (But it would take me longer than that to make another post about it…I think I could’ve MADE a film in the time this took to put together!)

The 400 Blows – the messy notebook

I love almost every scene in The 400 Blows, but this one especially delights me, and it doesn’t get nearly enough press. This random kid who doesn’t appear much in the film (he’s also got a funny couple of seconds when all the kids are peeling off from behind the teacher when walking through town) can’t quite seem to get his ink pen and notebook to play nicely together.

Singin’ in the Rain

“Dignity. Always dignity.” Really, I could’ve picked any scene from Singin’ in the Rain and it would’ve fit the criteria for this list. Every moment in this film is perfection. So why not the moment when Don Lockwood proclaims his motto in life while the montage shows us quite the contrary? Perfection.

True Romance – the theme and voiceover

Sure, this music is based on Carl Off’s Gassenhauer, but it’s beautifully rendered by Hans Zimmer. And sure, the dreamy, poetic voiceover is an homage to Terrence Malick’s Badlands (which also used Gassenhauer-like music). But for me, these two things together made me fall in love with True Romance instantly, even more so than Badlands. The clip contains spoilers for the end of the film. Sorry about the aspect ratio. YouTube should be banning bad-aspect-ratio uploaders instead of legitimate fair use uploaders. But I digress.

The Thin Man – Nick and Nora’s marriage

It is my studied opinion that Nick and Nora Charles are the greatest married couple ever portrayed on film. As Anjelica Huston stated when presenting Myrna Loy with an honorary Oscar in 1991, Nick and Nora showed that there could be life after marriage. Indeed, in the Thin Man movies, they present a marriage that works on every level – they joke and kid and drink like the best of friends, but drop everything else when the other truly needs something. They’re spouting some of the most witty and sophisticated dialogue ever written, but when either of them are threatened, the concern is palpable. When Nick jokes about his relationship with a pretty girl, Nora matches him, clearly so sure of his love that no other woman holds any threat, and she’s right. It’s wonderful to see.

From the Annals of Bad DVD Art – The Mechanic

This phenomenon seems to happen so often I’m going to start keeping track of it. Movies that have stylish, attractive, even innovative posters get the blandest, most boring and same-old DVD covers. The latest offender goes from a Saul Bass-esque throwback that’s eye-catching and intriguing to a cover that looks like a straight-to-video reject from the ’80s, right down to the italicized cast names and tagline. I just don’t get why they go to the trouble of getting really nice poster art and then throw it away for the DVD.

TCM Film Festival 2011

Once again I am heading to the TCM Classic Film Festival, and I couldn’t be more excited. It’s such a great opportunity to see classic films the best way possible – on the big screen with audiences who love them. The overall theme of this year’s festival is Music in the Movies, with sidebars on George and Ira Gershwin, Bernard Herrmann, Disney, and Roy Rogers. The largest groups of selections, in the Essentials and Discoveries categories, are not just about music, though, but cover everything from little-known pre-Code films to beloved classics like All About Eve to what many consider the greatest Hollywood film of them all, Citizen Kane.

You’ll find me mostly haunting the Discoveries screenings, though – many of those films are rare and hard to find, so this might be the only chance to see them. Of course, seeing anything on the giant screen in Grauman’s Chinese Theatre, one of the few remaining true movie palaces in the country, is tempting, so I’ll sneak in there for some of the big-name screenings.

I’ve posted the full full lineup at Row Three, and my reviews and reports on the festival will be going over there too (under the TCM Film Festival tag). But here’s a quick rundown of what I’m planning to see over the weekend, and I’ll try to post some casual updates over here, too. I’ll be updating Twitter regularly @faithx5 as well.

Thursday

LaughOGram.jpgLAUGH-O-GRAMS
Walt Disney

Before he started the studio that would bear his name, Disney started the Laugh-O-Grams studio in Kansas City, Missouri. This collection of recently discovered and restored works heralds the earliest days of Walt Disney’s career. When I first saw this on the program, I was really hoping I’d get a chance to see them – the festival is also screening a set of Silly Symphonies, which would be great, but I’ve seen a bunch of those before. These I hadn’t even heard of and with my growing interest in silent film and animation history, the opportunity see something like this is pretty cool. TCM Festival.

Under-Western-Stars.jpgUNDER WESTERN STARS (1938)
Joseph Kane; Roy Rogers, Smiley Burnett, Carol Hughes, Guy Usherf

I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen a Roy Rogers film; I was afraid at first I wasn’t going to be able to get to any of the series celebrating his 100th birthday, but it turned out that scheduling allowed this one, his first starring role. No Dale Evans yet, but Roy and Trigger are already going strong. It’s also the only Rogers film in the National Film Registry, so there’s that. I also love that they’re showing this and several other films with accompanying shorts, this time the cartoon Deputy Droopy. That’s what I call a good old time at the movies. TCM Festival.

The-Devil-is-a-Woman.jpgTHE DEVIL IS A WOMAN (1935)
Josef von Sternberg; Marlene Dietrich, Lionel Atwill, Edward Everett Horton, Alison Skipworth, Cesar Romero

It’s been weighing on me pretty heavily lately that I’ve never gotten around to seeing any of Josef von Sternberg’s collaborations with Marlene Dietrich – in fact, my exposure to both von Sternberg and Dietrich in general is pretty meager. Apparently this film is a controversial one, too – got into trouble with both Production Code head Joe Breen and the Spanish government for the unrepentant sensuality of Dietrich’s Concha Perez (and the depiction of the Spanish police). It will hopefully be the first of many Dietrich-von Sternberg films I see this year. TCM Festival.

Friday

Taxi.jpgTAXI! (1932)
Roy Del Ruth; James Cagney, Loretta Young, George E. Stone, Guy Kibbee

This one stuck in last on my schedule when I realized that I had somehow left an empty spot early on Friday. Of course, early is 8:15am, so we’ll see if I actually make it down there in time for it. Anyway, I have never heard of this film, but it’s just after James Cagney’s star-making turn in The Public Enemy, placing him as a cab driver fighting the mob. So, like, still a gangster picture but he’s not a gangster. Loretta Young is his love interest; she impressed me in Platinum Blonde, another early sound picture (where I liked her more than in her later films), so I’m hoping for the same result here. Also of note, this is apparently the film that Cagney’s “You dirty rat” misquote comes from. TCM Festival.

The-Constant-Nymph.jpgTHE CONSTANT NYMPH (1943)
Edmund Goulding; Charles Boyer, Joan Fontaine, Brenda Marshall, Alexis Smith, Charles Coburn, Dame May Whitty, Peter Lorre

Choosing this over A Streetcar Named Desire (which is on my List of Shame of unwatched films) was one of the hardest choices I had to make. But The Constant Nymph has been caught up in legal battles for ages, which has prevented its release on DVD and even, I think, kept it from playing on TCM. It’s been one of their most-requested films for years. So I had to go with the one I may never get a chance to see again (and that garnered and Oscar nomination for Joan Fontaine) rather than the one that’s easily available on DVD. TCM Festival.

Bigger-Than-Life.jpgBIGGER THAN LIFE (1956)
Nicholas Ray; James Mason, Barbara Rush, Walter Matthau, Robert F. Simon, Christopher Olsen

I became a huge Nicholas Ray fan after seeing In a Lonely Place, but I haven’t gotten around to this one yet, which was rejected by its original audience but championed by Cahiers du cinema writers Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut. I agree with like 90% of their taste, so I’m really looking forward to checking out this tale of disquieted middle America, with a teacher’s prescription drug addiction turning him into a modern-day Jekyll and Hyde. The widescreen, Technicolor cinematography looks luscious as well. TCM Festival.

The-7th-Voyage-of-Sinbad.jpgTHE 7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD (1958)
Nathan Juran; Kerwin Matthews, Kathryn Grant, Richard Eyer, Torin Thatcher

This is part of the Bernard Herrmann series; I had no idea he had written the music for this, but that’s just icing on the cake. I’ve got a real soft spot for stop-motion effects, and I’ve sadly not seen very many films by the master of stop-motion effects, Ray Harryhausen. This is one of his best-known, and I’m really looking forward to getting a chance to see it on the big screen. TCM Festival.

Design-for-Living.jpgDESIGN FOR LIVING (1933)
Ernst Lubitsch; Fredric March, Gary Cooper, Miriam Hopkins, Edward Everett Horton, Franklin Pangborn, Isabel Jewell, Jane Darwell

One of only two or three films I’m catching that I’ve seen before, but it’s been so long and I remember so little of it that it’ll be like seeing it for the first time. Lubitsch is always a fantastic director (well, almost – I’ve got no love for Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife) and the pre-Code era really let him indulge his European sensibilities, as in this film about a trio of Bohemian artists; even toned down a bit from the original Noel Coward play, it’s far racier than the screen would allow only a year or two later. TCM Festival.

Spartacus.jpgSPARTACUS (1960)
Stanley Kubrick; Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Jean Simmons, Charles Laughton, Peter Ustinov

I’m only planning to see a few in the classic Chinese theatre this year, and this is one of them – a sword and sandal epic from Stanley Kubrick, Kirk Douglas, and Dalton Trumbo, all powerful personalities fighting to get their vision on screen. I’ve never seen it before, but I’m really looking forward to it. It’s been on my list for a looooong time. Plus, Kirk Douglas is gonna be there. TCM Festival.

Saturday

This-is-the-Night.jpgTHIS IS THE NIGHT (1932)
Frank Tuttle; Lili Damita, Charles Ruggles, Roland Young, Thelma Todd, Cary Grant

Cary Grant’s debut film! That’s all you need to say to perk up my interest, even though he’s fifth-billed and ends up having his wife stolen by Roland Young (!). In any case, the double-crossing plot to get her back sounds entertaining, and seeing such a young Grant will be a treat. This is newly restored by UCLA, too, so the print should look gorgeous. TCM Festival.

Hoop-la.jpgHOOP-LA (1933)
Frank Lloyd; Clara Bow, Preston Foster, Richard Cromwell, Herbert Mundin, James Gleason

My second hard choice was The Outlaw Josey Wales vs. this film, which is Clara Bow’s final film performance and a difficult one to find. Again, I had to go with the rarer film, since Josey Wales is readily available and even plays rep cinemas with some frequency. Whereas I might never get to see this again. Still a very difficult choice. But I’ve never seen Bow in a sound film, so I’m curious about that as well as the tension between her trying to move beyond her It Girl persona and the studio very much wanting to keep her in it. TCM Festival.

The-Man-with-the-Golden-Arm-2.jpgTHE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM (1955)
Otto Preminger; Frank Sinatra, Kim Novak, Eleanor Parker, Arnold Stang, Darren McGavin

The program had me on this one when it mentioned there was a jazz trumpet over the opening titles. For some reason, 1950s and 1960s films with jazz scores are totally my thing right now, and I know Otto Preminger used jazz perfectly in Anatomy of a Murder; I’m hoping for the same thing here. Oh, and it’s also the film where Sinatra proved (again) that he had real acting chops, playing a drug addict trying to stay clean. Add in a new restoration print, and I have high hopes for this one. TCM Festival.

Pennies-from-Heaven.jpgPENNIES FROM HEAVEN (1981)
Herbert Ross; Steve Martin, Bernadette Peters, Jessica Harper, Vernel Bagneris, Christopher Walken

I initially wrote this one off my short list because 1981 is a stretch for me as a “classic”, and because I distrust musicals from the 1980s, but then I noticed it has Bernadette Peters in it. And that put it right back on the list because Bernadette Peters is awesome. The program describes it as a “mash-up of two popular Hollywood genres of the ’30s — the glamorous musical and the gritty social problem picture,” and with that, I’m fully on board. Looks like it’s a definite throwback to the old-school musicals I know and love, and I’m excited to discover it. TCM Festival.

gaslight.jpgGASLIGHT (1944)
George Cukor; Charles Boyer, Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten, Dame May Whitty, Angela Lansbury

This was a really tough choice because it’s up against La Dolce Vita and Shaft – I’ve seen all of these movies (plus the other two in the same slot), and would’ve loved to see them again. Gaslight barely got the nod because I remember it the least well of the three, making it due for a rewatch, plus Angela Lansbury is going to be here talking about it, and she’s a treasure. TCM Festival.

The-Mummy.jpgTHE MUMMY (1932)
Karl Freund; Boris Karloff, Zita Johann, David Manners

The original 1932 version of The Mummy has been on my October horror to-watch list for at least two years now, and I’ve never managed to fit it in. So happy to have the chance now, and at a midnight screening no less. Last year the midnight cult screening was Bride of Frankenstein, which I’d seen before – it’s gonna be fun to share a new one (to me) with a midnight audience, who are always rowdy fun. TCM Festival.

Sunday

Night-Flight.jpgNIGHT FLIGHT (1933)
Clarence Brown; John Barrymore, Helen Hayes, Clark Gable, Lionel Barrymore, Robert Montgomery, Myrna Loy

The program is calling this “the Grand Hotel of adventure films,” playing off the star-studded ensemble cast that both films boast. Apparently this one is a little more disjointed (one criticism is that the superstars are rarely in scenes together), but I’m still looking forward to seeing them. Both male Barrymores, plus Gable, plus Loy, plus Helen Hayes, plus ad nauseum…yeah. And produced by David O. Selznick is not usually a bad thing. Plus it’s been out of circulation since 1942 (why? I don’t know), so it’s pretty rare to get a chance to see it. TCM Festival.

Bright Boulevards, Bold Dreams: The Story of Black Hollywood
The festival has a number of panels with academics, historians, or filmmakers discussing specific topics; I try to make it to at least one of these, and this year I’m pretty sure it’s going to be this one, with historian Donald Bogle talking about the history of African-Americans in Hollywood during the studio era. Last year he curated and introduced a program of Warner Bros. cartoons that were pulled from circulation because of racist content in the 1960s, and he had some really helpful and perceptive things to say; I’m looking forward to hearing more about the topic in a less specific context.

Nicholas-Brothers.jpgA TRIBUTE TO THE NICHOLAS BROTHERS
The Nicholas Brothers

If you watch many 1940s musicals, you’ll become acquainted with The Nicholas Brothers before too long, as they’re responsible for some of the most down-right incredible dance numbers ever put on film. They also had stunning careers on Broadway, television, vaudeville, and nightclubs, and it’s not hard to see why as soon as you see them perform. On film, all you see of them is specialty numbers – this tribute will I’m sure fill in the blanks of their lives and careers. TCM Festival.

Fantasia.jpgFANTASIA (1940)
various; Leopold Stokowski, Deems Taylor

The Closing Night Gala is a brand-new digital restoration of one of Walt Disney’s crowning achievements. I’ve seen this before, obviously, but only on television. Seeing a restoration print, in Grauman’s Chinese theatre? Yeah, that’s not something I’m going to pass up. TCM Festival.

What I’m Missing

Even with all those fifteen or so films listed above that I am planning to see, there are dozens more I’m having to skip. The most painful are the aforementioned The Outlaw Josey Wales and A Streetcar Named Desire, both ones I passed over in order to go to harder-to-find films, but that are very high on my personal to-watch list. Also, I’m skipping An American in Paris, but mostly because it’s the Opening Gala and I didn’t want to go to the hassle of getting the additional credential required for that. I would’ve loved to have seen Gold Diggers of 1933 on the big screen with an audience, but I’ve seen it a dozen times and I couldn’t justify it over one I haven’t. Ditto lots of others, including Girl Crazy, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, All About Eve, The Third Man (which is still tempting), Carousel, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Goldfinger, La Dolce Vita, Manhattan and West Side Story. There’s also Citizen Kane, Taxi Driver, and The Godfather, all great films I think are swell, but are up against things I haven’t seen and lost out. So many others, really, I could list the whole schedule. There’s enough incredible films here to fill up three or four festivals. I hope they saved some good stuff for next year!

Fifteen Favorite Musical Numbers…in Non-Musicals

Cross-posting alert! I just posted a list of some of my favorite musical numbers from non-musical films over on Row Three, and wanted to make sure anyone over here knew about it too. Here’s just a couple from the post to tease you, but come over and see the full list, with videos for all.

14. O Brother Where Art Thou – “The Man of Constant Sorrow”

There’s so much music scattered throughout O Brother Where Art Thou that the soundtrack has almost overshadowed the film in some ways. But it’s still not really a musical, or structured as such – instead this musical interlude as our three convicts try to get a few coppers to continue their journey comes as a great old-timey surprise. I also like their interrupted reprise of this at the rally later in the film, but couldn’t find a good YouTube copy of it (without a lot of extraneous stuff included).

7. Who Framed Roger Rabbit? – “Why Don’t You Do Right”

Ah, remember when mixed live-action/animation films had hand-drawn animation, zany stories, and were awesome? Yeah. Here detective Eddie Valiant gets a surprise when he first sees Jessica Rabbit, who does a spot-on imitation of every sultry 1940s nightclub number, with particular reference to Tex Avery’s Cinderella/Red Riding Hood set of cartoon shorts. Plus a great cameo from Betty Boop. Va-va-va-voom!

See the rest on Row Three

Multiple Possibilities at One Time

A few weeks ago I was talking about Christopher Nolan’s Inception with a friend who had just seen it (this is a common occurrence – kudos again to Mr. Nolan for making a blockbuster film that is so imminently discussable and compels people to want to think about it and talk about it after seeing it). I haven’t seen it since opening weekend in theatres, so in some ways I’m not as well-equipped to discuss the question of the ending and what it means for the reality or non-reality of the rest of the film as those who have seen it more recently or more often, but even from the first time I saw it I found the question of “which parts were a dream” and “whose dream was it” and “is he still in a dream” interesting not because I enjoyed trying to figure out the answer, like a puzzle, but because I think the film invites multiple interpretations that are all supportable. Close reading the film, studying each frame, etc. to try to figure out what really happened is far less intriguing to me than the multiple possibilities the film seems to allow.

I was trying to explain this to my friend, that I thought it was less interesting and perhaps not worth it to try to answer those questions, but in the discussion I almost inadvertently allowed that yeah, there probably was one real answer, though we couldn’t really know what it was, because the film is so well constructed for ambiguity that at least three or four interpretations are supportable. I want to take that back, maybe not for Inception, because Inception is also constructed as a puzzle film and Nolan is enough of a left-brain filmmaker that a determinable answer isn’t out of the question, but for film in general.

I ran across the two-paragraph quote below on Jim Emerson’s excellent scanners::blog, always a great source for in-depth film criticism, talking about the recent Abbas Kiarostami film Certified Copy. For context (and this description has spoilers, but the film doesn’t depend on its secret), the film is about an author, James, who wrote an art criticism book. While on a promotional tour in Italy, he meets Elle, a woman who has read the book and wants to discuss it, but doesn’t totally agree with him. They meet to talk, start getting to know each other, and then suddenly in the middle of the film start acting like they’ve been married for several years. The film never reveals whether they’re really strangers or really married, and Emerson suggests that trying to figure out whether they are or not is not useful. The comments to his post have people both adamantly sure they are strangers and adamantly sure they are married. I prefer Emerson’s stance – focusing on the facts of their particular relationship distracts from focusing on the truths of relationships and art that the film is really about (my full review is here). Here’s the relevant quote:

So, I’ll just chime in here to say that I think these are both good answers to the wrong question. Or, one that isn’t worth answering definitively, because it offers only binary options, and the movie requires that you hold multiple possibilities in your head at the same time. What you see is what happens in the movie. There is no “reality” apart from what is there. (Mr. Scorsese, please: “Cinema is a matter of what’s in the frame and what’s out.”) You don’t look at Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and say: “Well, that dinner party is real, but when they’re walking down the road it’s a fantasy.” You don’t look at That Obscure Object of Desire and say, “The scenes with Carole Bouquet are the real ones, and the scenes with Ángela Molina are imaginary.” Where would that get you? You would be denying the essential movieness of the experience.

Sicinsky has his reasons, well-argued, for his point of view, but I think he’s closer to the mark when he cites Bordwell and says that the events depicted in the movie just don’t rigorously correspond to what we experience as viewers watching the movie. Look at James’s entrance: Late for his own lecture, he enters from the rear of the room and is immediately stopped by a woman and a boy, for whom he stops to sign a copy of his book — until the host asks people to hold off until afterwards. That woman is Elle and the boy is her son. How do we square that with the moment in the trattoria when James grills Elle (both of them adopting new, amped-up, soap-operatic acting styles) about the road accident she almost had when she dozed off at the wheel while their son was in the back seat? Well, we don’t. How can we? Why should we? They are married and not married, strangers and intimates. What’s unknown — that is, what is deliberately left out of the movie — is as important as what’s known. Perhaps, like Billy Pilgrim, these characters have come unstuck in time, or have slipped into multiple alternate universes (Glenn Kenny said the movie “can be seen as the first great science-fiction film of the year”).

The point is that cinema is what is on the screen. If it’s not on the screen, if it’s not ensconced in that frame, it doesn’t exist. You can conjecture, you can guess, you can infer, but in a very real way, especially in films that so carefully construct what they do and don’t reveal, you’re conjecturing about something that doesn’t exist in the film – not simply something that isn’t definitely knowable, but something that is not there. Film is not life; it creates its own frame of reference. It’s still fun to talk about what might be outside the frame, and some films are more amenable to such conjecture than others (for instance, many people conjecture that Sammy Jankis in Nolan’s Memento is, in fact, Leonard, and that conjecture, while probably not provable, is certainly believable and adds a layer of meaning to the film). Maybe Inception is one of these. But I find it more interesting to “hold multiple possibilities in your head at the same time,” even about Inception. The film may mean different things depending on which interpretation you choose – why can’t it mean ALL those things? That seems much deeper and richer to me than having to choose one and disregard the others when Nolan has done such a careful job of making multiple interpretations plausible. Is he just throwing red herrings at us, when he has one single interpretation and meaning in mind? Maybe. But I feel no call to match my mind to his. I think it’s great that his film has made me and so many other people think. But I have no desire to reduce those thoughts to a single “answer,” nor debate which answer is the best.

Page 64 of 101

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén