I fell behind this week, had six films to catch up with. After writing about two of them, I thought it was time for a change of pace. I went to a Friday Double Feature and a Sunday Double feature at the Paramount Theater here in Austin Texas. The programming had some horror themes, I especially liked the idea of "the fun ones". So here is my video commentary on the four films.
Friday Nights they'll be Dressed to Kill, down at the Paramount.
The drinks will flow and the blood will spill.
These two were horror adjacent films but still fit the "fun" description. Looking forward to a NYC trip next year to catch the musical stage version of
"Death Becomes Her". If it doesn't open with "Songbird" I will be befuddled.
The Paramount Summer Classic Film Series finishes off with another presentation by Robert Rodriguez, of the film "What's Up Doc?" This is the same film that finished the summer series last year, and it was hosted by Rodriguez then as well. His presentation before the film continued to be interesting but it was not as elaborate as the introduction he gave last year, but it was just as enthusiastic. This is clearly a movie that he loves and is happy to share with the audience. While sitting in the theater which was packed, I listened to the sound of laughter coming from several hundred audience members, I was reminded about why seeing a movie in a theater with an audience matters. This kind of experience reminds us that we all can find something in common, and that we are human beings capable of enjoying a shared experience, even without interacting with one another. Of course since it was the closing night film, there were some special events that went along with the evening, and that did encourage us to interact with one another. Two guys we had met in the garage elevator of the parking structure across the street, were seated right behind us. There was a trivia contest going on and we teamed up with them to participate. I know I had a lot of fun, and I think they did as well. The fact that we came in second place was only mildly disappointing because we were one wrong answer off, and we'd guessed ourself out of the correct answer on one of the questions. Oh well, we still had the movie to look forward to.
At the time this movie was made Barbra Streisand and Ryan O'Neal were huge stars in Hollywood. O'Neill was coming off of "Love Story" which was the biggest Blockbuster of 1970, and Streisand was an academy award-winning actress who also had huge successes with a variety of films in the previous four or five years. Director Peter Bogdanovich was also on a hot streak. This film he made to explicitly be a screwball comedy in the mode of the great 1930s films that he loved. Rodriguez told the story about how the original script ended up being rewritten, by Buck Henry, who apparently had a pretty good idea about what makes something funny.
The movie introduces us to Madeline Kahn, who would become a comic icon for the next 20 years. Her role in this part might be thought of as thankless, because her character is such a wet blanket. But she turns out to be a wet electric blanket, shocking us with how funny she could be while playing a drudge. She gets a surprising number of laughs as the straight man in the story. Of course she is surrounded by a cast of secondary characters who are equally good at getting laughs from some of their few moments on screen. Austin Pendleton and Kenneth Mars both delight us with their ridiculous delivery of some of Buck Henry's lines. Mars uses an accent that seems like it will show up again in "Young Frankenstein" a couple years later.
The slapstick in this film centers around four identical suitcases that all have varying degrees of valuables in them. One suitcase contains nothing but rocks, but they are important rocks. One suitcase is full of secret government documents revealing a scandal. Another suitcase is loaded with jewelry that belongs to a wealthy visitor to the hotel where everyone is staying. The final suitcase simply contains the personal items of our leading lady. The pursuit of these various suitcases, and the comedy of changing hotel rooms, opening and closing doors, and hiding under beds, in closets, and on window sills, is exactly the kind of humor that you would find in one of those old movies. Here it is just multiplied.
The climax of the film is a street chase thru the city of San Francisco. O'Neal and Streisand are on a delivery bicycle, careening down the hills, crashing through a Chinatown street parade and generally causing havoc. Of course in the 1970s, there have to be car crashes, and there is an abundance of them from all the pursuing vehicles. The bit with the giant window pane is staged beautifully so that the payoff is much funnier than it would have been in someone else's hands. The rapid film style follows the same pattern as the patter in the first section of the film, with multiple points, finished off by a topper. Bogdanovich was a film scholar who understood how to read a scene.
I saw this movie years ago on television, but I had very little memory of it. I have seen it the last three times, in a theater, with a packed audience and it is such a treat. I'm sad the Summer season is over but I am grateful for all the movies I saw at the Paramount in the last three months. This cherry on the top will have me thinking about next years programming, all Fall and Winter long.
Let me Begin by telling you how excited I was to see this movie. When it showed up in the schedule for the summer series, I wrote it down in pen on a calendar, and put it in all of my electronic calendars, with a heavy emphasis on the date. I was not going to let anything else interfere with my ability to see this on the big screen. Since 1984 I have loved this film, for a whole variety of emotional issues. There is of course the nostalgia factor, because 1984 was not only one of the great years of film, it was my greatest year of films. I saw more films that year that have influenced me and made me want to go see another movie, than I have ever seen in any subsequent year. A second reason that I was so anxious to see the film, is that the music of the band in the movie, is mostly attributable to the late Jim Steinman, a writer and composer of epic rock arias. I've been a fan of his style of music since the original Meatloaf album "Bat Out of Hell". Finally one other reason that I was so anxious for this screening was that it was to be a 70 mm presentation at my favorite theater here in Texas. So that's how anxious I was to see the movie. Now I had bought tickets for a concert that was scheduled 2 weeks before. That show got postponed... to this date. I basically had to choose, and I chose this film.
It's not that the story is so fantastic, or that the performers are so compelling, since everybody is talking about the "vibes" in the world today, I will honestly say this is a vibe movie. The film is loaded with the kind of imagery that movie fans love. There is a combination of wet streets and neon lights, there are shadowy alleyways and gleaming diners, and everybody in the film is dressed in a way it is stylish as hell. And some of those styles look like they came right out of hell. This is a movie that thrives on its looks. The opening of the movie is a flash cut concert video which feature that driving propulsive song from the damsel in distress in this story. As she's singing in a near hypnotic state, we see the ominous motorcycle gang arriving in their town, entering the auditorium, and lurking in the shadows waiting for their moment. When Willem Dafoe is backlit and we can't see his face but only the ominous silhouette, we know danger is coming. When the light finally hits his face and reveals a demonic expression, we know that danger has truly arrived. This is the kind of visual artifice that director Walter Hill uses to tell his story throughout the film. The hero Tom Cody, arrives alone ss the sole rider on an elevated, train. Later in the movie, The Sorrells, a singing group who gets hijacked by the rescue team, perform an acapella song on a dimly lit bus. Hill knows how to take the environment and make it a character in the story, that happens repeatedly in this movie. There are two different bars, a diner, an auditorium, and a street, that are all important characters in the narrative. The fact that these sets sometimes outshine some of the actors is a deliberate choice to emphasize style. And boy is this movie stylish.
Most of the background characters in the film, dress as if it's 1955. They do it up with pizzazz. Bill Paxton plays a feckless character named Clyde, but regardless of whether he is a wimp or a stronger than expected person, he knows how to dress and put his hair up in a pompadour that would do any Elvis fan proud. This is a little ironic considering that last night I saw him dressed down as a punk with spiked hair in "The Terminator". His character could have been the same person, but just dressed differently. The costume of Willem Dafoe in the last half of the movie always gets a laugh, but as the movie goes on, it feels more and more ominous. Who needs a high-waisted vinyl set of waders? What the hell was he doing at Torchy's that required such an outfit? We never figure that out, but we do know that his character might very well have just been described as Satan.
The film also features actors Rick Moranis and Amy Madigan as members of the rescue team. Madigan is great, as a soldier out of the army and looking for any kind of work that might fit with her skill set. She plays a tough character, with a no-nonsense attitude, but she never is going to be a threat to the relationship between the two separated lovers at the heart of the story. She might be a better match in temperament with Tom Cody, but is she makes clear he is not her type. The coded implication that she has a different sexual identity is not particularly subtle and probably fulfills a few too many stereotypes. Speaking of stereotypes, poor Rick Moranis is trapped as the belligerent buffoonish and nebish manager of the kidnapped singer that everybody is trying to free. He's also supposed to be something of a romantic rival to Tom Cody. That is just laughable on its face. He does what he can with a thankless role, but it is grating every time we have to listen to him b**** about something. If this film has a flaw, is the amount of time granted to his character Billy Fish.
If this were a straight action film, the fight near the end between Cody and his nemesis Raven, using sledgehammers, would be the climax of the movie. As I've already said though, the narrative here is less important than the emotions and the style. So it is the final song performed in front of a large audience as Cody makes his farewell from the scene, that is really the centerpiece of the last Act. "Tonight is What it Means to be Young", turned into the tagline for the movie, and it is a perfect summary of the attitude the film is taking. We see nobody in the film who looks like they're over the age of 30, or under the age of 20. This is a rock and roll fable designed to specifically stimulate the emotions of people in this age group. I'm happy to say that although I'm 30 years over that demographic, I still feel the way I did when I saw this movie in 1984 and I was in the prime age that it was shooting for. Once again I'll just say I love this movie and the vibe that it exudes. I'd watch it again tonight, because it makes me feel young.
Every time I see this movie I am floored by the accomplishment of the technicians, craftsmen and especially the director of this film. I have written about the movie a couple of times before. You can read my comments from last year's screening at the Paramount Theater here. I have a more extensive look at the film from a screening I took my daughter to at the Egyptian Theater in 2016. It still befuddles me how she can love movies, the way I do, but not love this film. As the programmer mentioned in his introduction, everyone will see something different in the movie, and probably different every time they see it.
This time around, I thought I might talk a bit about 2001 as a horror story. It may not be a slasher film in the traditional sense, and there is no monster per se in the film, except for the A.I. at the heart of the main part of the film. The HAL 9000 is the apex of computer technology in the era of the film. Referred to as "Hal", it really feels like a crewman aboard the Discovery. Along with Dave Bowman and Frank Poole, Hal works and interacts with the team onboard like any other soul. In fact at times, his warm voice and cheerful demeanor in playing chess, doing his psyche profiles of the crew and diagnosing problems with the telecommunication array, Hal can feel less mechanical than the speech and appearance of his human compatriots. We realize however, in the first inkling of the horror to come, that Hal has his own agenda, when he eavesdrops on Frank and Dave when they isolate themselves in one of the pods. This perfect intermission pause lets us ponder the danger ahead.
Hal turns out to be a spree killer. There is something wrong with him despite the vaunted reputation of the 9000 series of computers. His protestations that he is only acting in the best interest of the mission by preventing Dave and Frank from shutting down his higher level capacities, is really just a cover for killing to protect his self image. He cannot accept the fact that he has made a mistake somewhere, and that it is not human error that accounts for that failure. He does not need to kill the three crewman in hibernation to prevent his shutdown, and they are an essential part of the mission. So his action is a reflex to being discovered as a fraud. The AI in Hal has become a little too human.
The dramatic sequence where Hal shuts down the life support for the sleeping crew is horrifying without any overt violence and no blood at all. The more direct murder of Frank Poole is more visually engaging and intellectually cruel, but the starkest element of the whole thing, which really turns this section into a horror film, at least for a moment, is when he is confronted by Dave in the excursion pod. Not yet realizing what Hal has done, Dave attempts to rescue Frank, and learns upon his return to the ship that Hal will no longer cooperate with him. By letting Dave remain stuck in the pod without any recourse, it is as if he has buried him alive and he is walking away without a second thought.
Hal once again tries to gain back some humanity, when Dave finds a way to defeat Hal's attempted murder. Hal grovels and pleads for understanding. In essence he is begging for his life. Dave becomes a vindictive avenger, but it is only an act of self preservation. He won't kill Hal without at least allowing him a human moment, like the one Hal tried to deny him. If this interpretation seems unreasonable to you, contrast this movie with Kubrick's version of "The Shining". Hal Kills more people than Jack Torrance does, and he is as evil in his banality as Jack was in his fever dreams.
Like I said, there are a myriad of ways to see this film, I just thought I'd take a different journey for this screening. I had a marvelous time, in part because I received several comments from other audience members on my shirt. In fact, the compliment I received allowed me to engage in a nice conversation with Mark and his daughter Nari, who were seated right behind me. He asked if he could take a picture on my shirt and I asked him to take one for me. Mari had not seen the whole film before last night. Her previous attempt did not make it to the intermission and the home viewing experience according to her was marred by her own cell phone distraction. She seemed sufficiently satisfied at the end of the movie, so it's likely Mark will get the pleasure of seeing this again with his daughter. I wish I could say the same about my own kid. Oh well, be your own person, but you are missing out on something here.
We missed "The Searchers" at the TCM Film Festival this year because it was opposite to "Chinatown". I am so thankful that Steven Jannise and the Paramount Programmed it for their 70mm week, because that was the format we missed when we were in Los Angeles. This iconic western has one of the all time great John Wayne performances, and it is another of his many collaborations with the great John Ford.
Ethan Edwards (Wayne) is a returning Civil War vet, from the losing side, who reconnects with his brother's family in Texas. Ethan is a hard case in regard to an adopted nephew, who has some of the Native American blood that ran through the veins of the Indians who killed Ethan's parents. Marty, has been considered a brother and son to Aaron and Martha and their children. Marty is played by Jeffrey Hunter, who I knew best as Captain Christopher Pike in the pilot for Star Trek. His easy going manner and sincerity become a counterpoint to Ethan during the film. Ethan is wise and sly and plays his cards close to the vest. Like Sonny Corleone, Marty sometimes lets people outside of the family know what he is thinking, resulting in complications.
The thing they are searching for is the remaining sister of the family, everyone else having been slaughtered in an Indian raid while Ethan and Marty were with a posse pursuing a false lead. The young Debbie has been taken by a Chief they learn is named "Scar", and for five years, they pursue rumors, stories and tips about the white girl and the Indian Chief who has taken her into his tribe. Wayne's performance is frequently grim for several plot related reasons. It is strongly suggested that he carried a torch for his sister-in-law, and one of the reasons he was slow to return after the was was this unstated love. It also appears that he has been a bit of a tough guy on the trail, maybe benefiting from some less than savory means of making a living, although he does seem to have a code which would preclude anything we might thing of as unethical.
Most of the movie is filmed in Monument Valley and it looks spectacular in color. Ford seemed to really love that part of the country and made it the backdrop in several of his films. The hostility of the Indian tribes is not the only problem that Ethan and Marty face on the trail. In addition to inclement weather, they encounter bushwhacking merchants, overzealous Texas Rangers and domestic conflict at home. It seems that Mary and Laurie, from the neighboring homestead, have a less than well defined romantic relationship. Each of them finds themselves involved with a different partner that they truly don't want. There is a lot of humor in the film, and most of it comes from their tempestuous long distance love affair.
Ethan and Marty are also at cross purposes in regard to Debbie. Both of them want to save her from captivity and sexual slavery as one of Scar's wives, but they have completely different ideas about what that means. Ethan's bitterness at the loss of his family drives hatred toward the Indians and their path. There are two or three action sequences where a fight between the Searchers and Indian warriors take place. Ethan is in his natural environment in those moments. He lets his hatred overcome him when plotting against Scar. Marty is the hopeful optimist who wants to reunite his sister with the homelife that he knows. The main conflict in the end is between he and Ethan and also Ethan's inner selves. At the resolution, Ethan remains an outsider, in spite of the ultimate decision he makes.This is a deep thought western, not just a shoot'em up. So glad to see it on the big screen and in 70 mm.
When I first saw this movie in 2001, I thought it was a fantastic satire of pop culture and consumerism. My opinion was not widely shared, as the film was a big flop and to rub dirt in the wound, prominent critic Roger Ebert gave the movie half a star as it's rating. I think after losing Gene Siskel as a partner, Roger got an inflated opinion of his own opinion, and drifted from the audience a little to often. This movie is a pop confection with a nice subverted message about pop culture, and the most well known film critic of his time, missed the whole point.
Rather than rebut the review of the long gone Mr. Ebert, I plan on explaining my point of view, right here, right now. There are several ways that you can process the film, and I am going to talk about three of them. The first and most elemental take on the movie is that it is a teen comedy, made primarily for young girls and enlightened boys. Josie, Val, and Melody are three girls from a midwestern town, dreaming of rock stardom but fated to play at the bowling alley, mostly on spec. Josie has a crush on longtime guy pal Alan M, but is flummoxed about saying anything, just as he is. This is your usual case of pluralistic ignorance in a romantic comedy. By the end of the story will they overcome their mutual intimidation and get together? Of course they will, but guess what, this is barely the C plot in the story. If you are focusing on romantic comedy, you are going to miss the point of the film. Mel and Val don't get romantic counterparts, Alan M is mostly superfluous to the story, the usual rom-com tropes are missing, deliberately so. That is so not what the movie is about.
The second way of looking at the film is as a rags to riches rise of a pop band. "The Pussycats" struggle to find a place in the music industry, and break through the barriers they encounter with gumption and talent. This is a little closer to the real story of the film because so much of the movie involves the songs and performances that the band create. There are recording sessions, promotional videos for MTV, and stage shows for audiences primed by their love of the music. Anyone who says the songs are not good enough to produce success, much less be entertaining, has not heard any pop music since 1962. Maybe every song is not a banger, but "Three Small Words", "Pretend to be Nice" and "Spin Around" are the kinds of tunes that could easily form the backbone of an album. Each of those tunes could be the encore song for a popular girl band at the turn of the century. Song writers Adan Schlesinger, Adam Duritz and Kenneth 'Babyface' Edmonds are all part of the ensemble of producers, writers and music professionals, who made sure that the songs of the Pussycats were credible pop tunes. I will put their credibility and my personal taste, up against any of the naysayers out there.
Still, in spite of the fact that the rise to stardom plotline is substantial, it is not the main paradigm by which the film can be judged. The third and maybe most important element of the film is the satire on consumerism and the influence of the media on teen culture. This film suggests a secret cabal of product manufacturers, government, and technical media wizardry could drive the economy with the money from teens. This is before Facebook, You Tube, and Twitter existed. The writers of this film saw that the rise of media influence would be the strongest force for consumption in the future. Everyone out there making a career as an influencer, can look at this movie and say, "that's how it starts". Replace the Head of the Record Company, Fiona, and her toady assistant Wyatt, with some You Tubers and a couple of media analysts, and you have the world of today. (Of course none of them are as much fun as Parker Posey and Alan Cummings)
The whole opening segment with the boy band is a commercial for dozens of products, satirically. That joke is extended through the whole movie. Amazingly enough, these were not paid placements, like they would have been in a hundred other movies, they were targets (Including Target) of the film makers suspicion of consumer manipulation. If you think "Smells Like Teen Spirit" from Nirvana was cutting criticism of youth consumerism, how could everyone miss the savagely aggressive takedown of product placement, teen fashion trends and celebrity worship that this movie took on? I don't know, but somehow they did.
If the rise of Boy Bands, manufactured by record companies and supplemented by autotune and other technologies is a sore point with music lovers, why is it that the "DuJour" song "Backdoor Lover" from the fictional band in this film, not become a rallying cry against manufactured music? It is a great takedown of the form, and it is also hysterical. There might be some PC resistance to it these days, but a quarter of a century ago, it would be embraced by hipsters as ironically ideal.
The three girls in the power trio that make up the Pussycats are spot on. Rachel Leigh Cook has that punk girl next door quality. She has attitude but not bitterness and she is cute as heck. Rosario Dawson has been the thinking mans sex symbol for two decades now. She is smart, tough and attractive and her character is in tune with what is going on from the beginning. Tara Reid, was the staple hot chick of 90s movies and she is delightfully dingy and sweet as Melody, who loves puppies and plays the drums with gusto.
"Josie and the Pussycats" has all the markings of a cult film. It was a flop initially, it has undergone re-evaluation and it has a devoted following of fans who are willing to humiliate themselves to show their love. That was evident Sunday Night as the audience was full of people wearing their cat ears through the whole movie. Me Included. I am not a late arrival to the cult, I could easily be the founder. I have shouted praise for this movie for a long time. Back in 2013, I featured it in one of my posts "Movies I Want Everyone to See".
We are heading into the final week of then Summer Series and the Double features are piling up. Friday featured two teen films from different decades. "The Breakfast Club" is a Gen X staple from 1985 and "10 Things I Hate About You" is catnip for millennial girls. The show was well attended and the audience stuck around for the second movie.
The Breakfast Club (1985)
I must have seen this movie a couple dozen times over the years. That is largely because I used a section of it in my Small Group Communication Classes and my Interpersonal Communication classes. Regardless of how credible the personalities in the film are, the process by which they interact is a good illustration of several communication concepts I was trying to teach my classes. Most of the students I taught were not too distant from the high school experience in the film, so some of the instigating events would likely feel relevant to them.
How do you see yourself as a person? Are you capable, a clown, superior, a leader or a toady? Why do you think of yourself that way? In the film, the strongest influence that writer/director John Hughes came up with is the power of the family and parents to shape who you see when you look in the mirror. Emilio Estevez as Andy, sees a jock, who must live up to the experience of his father. Anthony Michael Hall as Brian, is the smart kid, who has never failed a class, is an A student, and who has a family that expects him to excel. Molly Ringwald is Claire, a princess, who has been pampered by her parents and coddled through life,, with unhappy role models. John Bender played by Judd Nelson is an anti-social misanthrope, who has been formed by an abusive set of parents, and Allison, the introverted outsider is ignored by her family and craves the love she doesn't get at home. True, they are all stereotypes, but they clearly illustrate some of the principles that our self concept derives from.
When they finally break down some barriers, the subject of self-disclosure becomes the focus of the film. You can see each of the kids testing the safety of the group when thinking about honestly sharing something about themselves. Bender is slower to share because he fears a loss of power in the relationships, Claire on the other hand is concerned with status. Brian and Andy disclose to the group as a form of catharsis, trying to lessen the burden they carry on themselves. Allison shares false information to manipulate the others and then reciprocates with some truth when she knows that others have made themselves vulnerable. I would run these scenes in class and usually, someone would pick out something connected to what we had talked about and for a few minutes, there would be some actual conversation.
The movie is also filled with entertaining moments, sometimes the kids dance, sometimes they obfuscate with the vice principal monitoring them during their detention. Paul Gleason was maybe tied with William Atherton as the go to actor for the asshole character in a film. Mr. Vernon is mostly an adult, who resents the kids for putting him in the position he is in. Although in the closing essay that Brian wrote for the group, where they mock his assignment and assumptions about them, it is in fact the assignment that they have been completing in the whole film. Maybe they will never use algebra, but they will use these lessons in life. There are some very funny moments and some painful ones. They may not always be credible, but they work for the most part.
10 Things I Hate About You
One of the many films that updates stories from William Shakespeare in the 1990s, "!0 Things I Hate About You" would be a film I saw multiple times twenty four years ago, because I had teen and tween daughters who loved it, and we had a DVD player. This movie was a go to for gatherings with their friends, rainy Saturday afternoons or days spent home when they were sick. Heath Ledger planted the seeds of his future fandom and legacy in the hearts of girls everywhere with this movie. Julia Styles may very well have turned one of my daughters into the heinous bitch version of her character simply by presenting that attitude as being so cool.
If you are familiar with "The Taming of the Shrew", you will recognize how closely this hewed to the original plot structure. There are occasional names, and lines that will connect the film to the play as well. While this is still a teen romantic comedy, it is one that goes much deeper than usual in those types of films. The nature of popularity is not just treated as a joke, but as an actual dilemma that teens must confront in some way or another. The two male leads find that truth is a better path to happiness than pretention, and of course the pretentious one gets a comic comeuppance.
Larry Miller plays the father of the two female leads, and he has had a prolific career in film and television as a character actor. This role may be his most memorable because of the way he plays his scenes with star Julia Stiles. He goes from comic foil to supportive father in one really memorable scene. Allison Janney is about to start her time on "The West Wing" but the goofy, wannabe romance writer as vice principal was a fun role in just a couple of brief scenes.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and David Krumholtz are a terrific comic duo with great timing in their scenes together. Krumholtz probably steals more scenes than he should, but he does pay for it when he has a penis drawn on his face, and Andrew Keegan may have typecast himself perfectly with his performance as the self centered antagonist in the film. If you are a fan of indie's rock music of the 90s, you will find it in abundance on the soundtrack of this film.
In the packed audience last Friday, it was clear there were a number of women reliving their youth. Every time Heath Ledger did something in the film that was charming or cute, you could hear sighs and cheers throughout the auditorium. If I was thirty years younger, I might have considered it a prime situation for hitting on women who liked the film and wanted to experience the exuberance of young love once again. I'm not that young or stupid, but I smiled every time some woman let out a small moan of pleasure during the film.
Jimmy Stewart returns to the Paramount with another Hitchcock thriller, a very rare remake of his own work "The Man Who Knew Too Much". This is an international intrigue with a political assassination as the MacGuffin. The settings include London and Marrakesh, and there are authentic location shots mixed with rear screen projection. Most of the interior shots were done in Hollywood on sound stages, but the film has an international flavor to it because of all the extras and the supporting roles.
The title gives away just enough to let us know that it is information which drives the plot. Stewart and Doris Day play the married couple, Doctor and Mrs. McKenna. He worked in the army Mash unit in North Africa during the war, and she was a well known pop singer when they met in London. They are returning to those haunts on a medical junket/vacation, with their little boy. They get connected to a man, Lois Bernard, who speaks Arabic as well as French and English, when he helps them with a cultural misunderstanding on a bus ride to Marrakesh from Casablanca. Bernard turns out to have been some sort of spy, who for is not clear, the local French authorities are suspicious of the Americans having any contact with him. It turns out there is a conspiracy, and the son of the nice American couple is used as a tool to keep them from sharing what they know.
Maybe the idea of an Indiana Doctor and his pop singer wife, turning into spies who travel to London, seems far fetched. The real strength that drives them is their love for their little boy and the animosity they feel toward those who betrayed them and threaten their son. Stewart gets tense in some scenes, clutching his fingers in anger below the surface of a table, struggling to contain his frustration. Day is more openly desperate and the scene where her husband has to sedate her before he can reveal their son's abduction is frightening and sad.
The British security authority who wants them to trust his agency, is incapable of following up on their promise. The bureaucratic mind of the police officers who could potentially have stopped the plot by taking an active crime as enough justification to enter a building is almost as infuriating as the assassination plot. Of course, social niceties are also why Jo McKenna and the Doctor, don't disrupt a concert performance where the murder is supposed to take place. The final scream of warning comes at the last minute, which is thrilling for a drama, but makes little logical sense.
Having seen "Notorious" just two nights earlier, it is striking how much the descending staircase image dominates the climax of both movies. It seems to be a Hitchcock trope so when you watch "Psycho" remember, he has done this before. I think this is one of the few Academy Award winning songs that is actually relevant to the plot. Doris Day was a crossover star of the era, a singer and actress, and she took a simple little sing along tune and turned it into a moment of tension during the final act. She was famously uncertain about how she was doing in the role, but when you watch the screen, it is clear, she has command of her part.
This is another mystery thriller that mixes murder, espionage and ordinary people together in a well written script. The execution of the drama and suspense cannot be faulted, and the performances are top notch. If you ever get a chance to see this on the big screen, take it, you will be in the hands of a master.
A double dose of Hitchcock last Friday night, with two films based on plays that take place in a limited setting. First up, the star studded "Dial M for Murder" from 1954. Ray Milland, the Academy Award winning actor from a decade earlier in "The Lost Weekend", plays a retired English tennis player, married to a socialite American played by Grace Kelly, who would win the Academy Award this same year for another film. There is however a love triangle going on as she is still emotionally involved with a former paramour, played by Bob Cummings.
The plot involves an elaborate murder plot that goes awry and deepens the sinister nature of the crime. Tony is a conniving dilettante, who is unsatisfied with his life as a married man who has retired from his sport. He maneuvers an old school acquaintance into his plot through a blackmail threat. His goal is to do away with his wife, inherit her money and be safely alibied by his wife's former lover. Things don't go according to plan but Tony is a clever man if not an ethical one, he improvises a scenario that results in an even more solid cover for his crime.
The Paramount Program Director, Steven Jannise, correctly lauds Grace Kelly as the victimized woman in the story, but I am not sure you can say she steals the picture because Milland as the villain, is unctuous, quick footed, and capable of making the most seemingly innocent things look bad, while also explaining away his own bad actions in a reasonable manner. The part is very cleverly written and Milland handles it with aplomb. Kelly does the distraught wife and victim role well, but there needs to be a little more to her indignance at what transpires.
There are two supporting performances that deserve some attention away from the shade of the stars. John Williams portrays the suspicious Chief Inspector Hubbard, who follows a false trail at first and then doggedly pursues the truth on a last minute bit of subterfuge. Williams is brilliant in the part, side eying everyone and smiling at his own suspicions. It is exactly the kind of performance that makes a movie special. Also deserving some kudos is Anthony Dawson, who plays the shady schoolmate recruited by Tony to be his weapon. I hadn't recognized him immediately, and I should have, perhaps the moustache was in fact a perfect disguise. Dawson is the actor that plays Professor Dent in Dr. No. He is on the receiving end of James Bonds Walther, when his Smith and Wesson runs out of ammo. As
Charles Alexander Swann/Captain Lesgate, Dawson is sinister and charming as he loses a battle of wits with the well prepared Tony.
The film is set largely on the apartment of Tony and Margo, with brief exteriors in front of their building and a couple of scenes set in the police headquarters of Chief Inspector Hubbard. The part with the key switch was a memorable moment in "The West Wing" one of my favorite TV series. The President is screening "Dial M for Murder" and trying to connect with his middle daughter Elle, who is resisting his fatherly sense of humor. The resolution of the scene with the Hitchcock film in the background is one of the warm moments from the series.
Rope
The second feature was another movie based on a play, and it is a grand experiment for the master of suspense. Set entirely in the apartment of the two killers, "Rope" is a psychological tug of war between the killers and their former mentor, the head of their house at prep school. Jimmy Stewart was a frequent star in Hitchcock films, and this was his first foray into the thriller territory that Hitch was the ultimate authority in.
The movie is shot in continuity, as if it is all one take. The transitions between the film cuts, necessitated by the limit of ten minutes worth of film at a time, are covered by fades into someone's back or shots cast into a shadow. The movie also plays out in real time, a brief eighty minutes of tense talk and camera movements limited by the setting. The conclusion is a little melodramatic but the film is a fascinating experiment and it features an interesting set of performances from the two villains. The idea that they are superior to a character like the decent Mr. Kentley , played by Cedric Hardwicke, is ultimately laughable. Their twisted self rationalizations are thin and not even convincing to the man they think they are taking inspiration from.
I've seen the film a couple of times, including a theatrical experience at a revival house back in the 1980s. I can't quite remember if it was at the Rialto in South Pasadena or at the New Beverly in West Hollywood. Regardless, it is a great way to see the film, but it may be one Hitchcock that is not diminished by viewing on a TV.
It's Hitchcock Week at the Paramount Theater and last night was a chance to see one of the best from the master of suspense, "Notorious", the 1946 spy thriller starring Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, and Claude Raines. Set mostly in Rio after the war, "Notorious" is about an attempt to penetrate a Nazi spy ring, operating in South America. Grant plays Devlin, an equivocating intelligence agent, who recruits the daughter of a German Spy, convicted of treason in Florida. For the romance element of the story to work, we have to believe that he is in the dark over exactly what his superiors want from Alicia Huberman.
The world of espionage is particularly dark in Hitchcock's films. Although we want the American agencies that he vaguely refers to to succeed, they do so through one of the most unpleasant means available. In both "Notorious" and "North by Northwest", party girls with emotional vulnerabilities are asked to seduce the targets in order to gain intelligence. With Eva Marie-Saint we don't get a lot of backstory, but Ingrid Bergman's character is all backstory, especially for the first act of the film. Alicia has rebelled against her Nazi father and in drowning herself in booze, she has become a loose woman, who is taken advantage of by a variety of men. At the depth of her humiliation, Devlin, the character played by Grant, insinuates himself in her circle of friends and begins the process of luring her into an assignment in South America. I find it interesting, that Grant is the man who falls for the loose women turned spies in both films. In "North by Northwest" he is an innocent, caught up in plans beyond his ken. Here, he is a calculating cad, who learns the dangers of his own callousness.
"Notorious" is at heart a love triangle, the third party being the erudite Alexander Sebastian, a key member of the Nazi group. It seems that years earlier, when Sebastian was friends with Alicia's father, he had a massive crush on her, and the U.S. and Brazilin intelligence group wants to take advantage of that by inserting her into his life. In essence, pimping her out for Uncle Sam. The fact that Devlin has fallen for Alicia and she for him, is a big complication. Devlin is cold to Alicia, as a way of distancing himself and her from the unpleasantness of her activities. Regardless of what Devlin says to her however, he is defensive on her behalf with the intelligence group in private. In an excellent illustration of true movie dialogue here is an example:
Paul Prescott: [about Alicia] I don't like this, I don't like her coming here.
Walter Beardsley: She's had me worried for some time. A woman of that sort.
Devlin: What sort is that, Mr. Beardsley?
Walter Beardsley: Oh, I don't think any of us have any illusions about her character. Have we, Devlin?
Devlin: Not at all, not in the slightest. Miss Huberman is first, last, and always not a lady. She may be risking her life, but when it comes to being a lady, she doesn't hold a candle to your wife, sitting in Washington, playing bridge with three other ladies of great honor and virtue.
Devlin gives himself away to his superior Paul Prescott, played by veteran actor Louis Calhern, with a dash of charm and a bureaucratic mind. Prescott has a clever scene revealing a little of his humanity when Devlin comes to him worried about Alicia, and the discussion takes place while he is prone in bed, eating cheese and crackers. Not the tightly controlled mission boss, but a man who has to kick his shoes off an dine alone in bed sometimes. He knows what he is doing with Alicia, but he is not the monster that he could be. A decade later, Leo G. Carroll will fill a similar role in the other spy film I mentioned.
My admiration for Claude Rains as an actor has been expressed before. In "Casablanca", "The Adventures of Robin Hood", and "The Invisible Man", Rains has been one of the consistent lights of the golden age of Hollywood. He is the sweetest and most vulnerable Nazi in films, as a besotted member of this cabal, he is both murderously awful and sympathetic. That is a piece of cognitive complexity that only an expert performer like Rains could pull off. The defeated resignation of his denouncement is perfect for the character and the film.
There are several moments of tension in the movie. Bergman's acquisition of a key without her husband discovering it is one of those sequences. Of course the search for the secret in the wine cellar is gripping as well. You could hear the audience last night, collectively inhaling and holding their breath, as a wine bottle teeters on the edge of a shelf. Finally, the elegant bluff and turning of the tide with Grant rescuing Bergman from the clutches of Rains, and his loathsome Mother. The mother, played by actress Leopoldine Konstantin, is one of the Mother's that Hitchcock used as a tool for manipulating his male leads in the movies. While not as famous as Norman Bates mother, Mme. Sebastian, would certainly belong in a rogue's gallery of villains.
As usual with a Hitchcock film, the production design is impressive. Although the scenes set in Rio rely on rear projection, they still look convincing. Alicia's house in Florida, and her apartment in Rio, swim in the deco elegance of the era and her outfits do the same thing. The camera work is impeccable, I liked the trick with the coffee cup in the foreground as Alicia is in the background, both in focus. There are a number of moments shot from above that also establish the pecking order of power in the household, but allowing us to track the activities of the characters as well. The final descent on the staircase is an excellent visual complement to the plot tension in the script.
From 1945 to his death in 1980, Alfred Hitchcock made 24 films and in that thirty five year period, a dozen of them are essential and another half dozen are excellent. "Notorious" deservedly belongs on the top shelf with a cast of stars that were at the height of their powers. A big screen visit is always called for when a Hitchcock film is involved. Tonight, two more of the top tier films.
Robert Rodriguez is a local Austin hero. As a film maker, he has worked extensively in the Austin area and used local crafts people and locations for his films. He has been able to select a group of movies for the Summer Classic Film Series, and present them to the audience with a live introduction for a few years now. This last Sunday, he had three films that he wanted to talk about that featured Mexican Actor/Director Alfonso Arau. Rodriguez was inspired by Arau when he was just starting out and he got a break, which allowed him to spend a week or so as a young man, assisting and hanging out with Arau. They have since become friends and it is fitting that Rodriguez selected his friend to feature in this summer's presentations.
There were actually three features on Sunday that concerned Arau, unfortunately, we could not stay for the film he directed "Like Water for Chocolate". I have it in my collection and we will catch up with it soon. The two films we were able to see were movies that Alfonso Arau had an acting role in. He is not the star of the films but he is an important featured player in both of them
Romancing the Stone
"Romancing the Stone" was 20th Century Fox's entry into the Indiana Jones clone films. Everyone was looking for an adventure film with comedy, romance and stunts, to pull in audiences the way the Steven Spielberg films had done. The movie was a big success and it cemented the stardom of Kathleen Turner and created a partnership with Michael Douglas that would continue up to today. If you are interested in a more detailed look at the film, let me direct you to my post on the30 Years On Project. This movie is a delightful summer entertainment, and holds up pretty well.
First lets talk about Alfonso Arau's part in the film. He plays the role of a drug smuggler, who controls the local area that Romance Writer, Joan Wilder (Turner) and her guide/partner, Jack Colton (Douglas) find themselves stuck in. Through one of those wonderful movie coincidences, he knows her work and becomes a quick ally in her goal of escaping from the evil pursuers that are hot on their trail. The vast majority of his role involves him grinning as he drives them in his off road truck through the fields and jungles as they are chased by jeeps with machine guns. Arau is probably not in the movie for more than seven or eight minutes, but like most good character actors, he makes those minutes count.
I also have to say that Kathleen Turner was the draw in the film. Douglas was the producer and first listed star on the film, but Turner is the character that we spend the most time with. She starts off as a mousy pawn in the story, but as her successes in confronting complications grow, so does her self confidence and natural beauty. By the end of the film, she has truly become the heroine of her own romance novels. It's pretty obvious that Michael Douglas also worked in the film as adventurer Colton. This movie set him up as a romantic lead for the next twenty years, in thrillers and dramas as well as comedies.
The cast also included Danny DeVito, who was a buddy of Michael Douglas after appearing in the Academy Award winning "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" which Douglas produced. He later directed both of the stars in the excellent but sometimes forgotten "War of the Roses". So it was a fortuitous collaboration for all involved. Director Robert Zemeckis had had a hand in three films that had bombed for Steven Spielberg and his production company. He took this job to try and get a hit outside of the Spielberg umbrella, so his career did not dissipate. Robert Rodriguez told us as part of his introduction to the film that Zemeckis had said this was the hardest location shoot he had ever done, and that he instructed his agent that if ever he was given a script that started "Exterior: A vast Jungle", the agent should just automatically pass.
The Three Amigos !
The second of our Double Features includes a much bigger role for Alfonso Arau. He is the antagonist in the story, a bandit named El Guapo, modelled after the character played by Eli Wallach in "The Magnificent Seven". Of course this is a comedy, so the character will have a number of features that would not likely appear in a real bandit of this ilk, including a love of sweaters. John Landis directed this film and it is a loose adaption of "The Magnificent Seven" and "The Seven Samurai". A village, terrorized by a gang of bandits, seeks outsiders as defenders. The conceit in this film is that the woman who contacts the supposed heroes, has misunderstood what a movie is (the film is set in 1916). The three actors who star in a series of Westerns set in Mexico during the silent film era, are playing landowners who are heroically on the side of peasants in many of their films. When the actors lose their jobs at the studio, they take up an ambiguous offer from the woman in the village, a heavily edited telegram leads them to think they are putting on a show, not that they are confronting real criminals.
Of course the film is pretty silly at times. There is a singing bush, a singing tortoise and singing horses in the film. There is also an invisible swordsman, and the actors skills as action stars in the movies, turn out to be useful. The cross cultural jokes are not offensive, and it's hard to be put off by anything the three leads do. Steve Martin, Chevy Chase and Martin Short are the three actors who get in over their heads. The sequence where they realize the reality of their situation is quite amusing, and they do a nice cowardly retreat that will provoke a smile or two. The consistent smile generator however is the Amigos salute, you can probably do it yourself if you have seen the movie.
Alfonzo Arau gets to ham it up as the leader of the bandit gang, and he gets a lot of mileage out of his broad smile and subdued line readings. If you have seen this movie before, you will probably remember the dialogue that features a "plethora" of jokes about the meaning of the word. Actor Tony Plana plays "Jefe" the second in command to "El Guapo" and he and Arau have some nice timing in their scenes together.
This is a lightweight movie, that has nothing on it's mind other than making us laugh at some absurdities, and it does that just fine. It is the only screenwriting credit that composer/songwriter Randy Newman has, that may be in large part because of the songs he contributed to the story, although he is also credited as contributing to the payoff joke of the birthday presents for El Guapo, so I won't say he was not writing outside of the songs.
It was a minor hit at Christmas time in the year of it's release, but it has never been a critical favorite. It is probably fair to say, that like a lot of other 1980s movies, it achieved a reputation because of repeated cable showings and now has a cult following. It's nonsensical and sweet, with enough energy for it's running time.
I never thought of myself as the biggest fan of "The Goonies", in spite of the fact that it came out in the mid 80s, and was directed by Richard Donner from a script by Chris Columbus, and produced by Steven Spielberg. Those would all be things that would be going in its favor, and seem to make me the target audience for the film. The big exception being that I was probably 10 years too old to experience the movie the way it was meant to be consumed. This is a movie for kids and teens, and although my adult self often feels nostalgia for adventure stories like this I've always been a little detached from it. After today's screening, I'd say that's a little less true, I liked it a lot but it still seems slightly off base to me.
The biggest problem for me is that the kids who star in the film are made to be overly loud, and talking over each other constantly. This was a choice that was done I'm sure to create energy for young people, but it had the opposite effect on me. I have the same problem with Steven Spielberg's "Hook", too many Lost Boys yelling over one another. However when we do get to moments where Sean Astin's character is trying to figure out a clue, or young Josh Brolin is engaging in some physical activity designed to show his alpha male status to a bunch of kids, the film works pretty well.
Corey Feldman and the other two kids who form the core of the Goonies are the most fun characters, but they are also the ones that do the most shouting and that's really what puts me off a bit from the movie. Chunk, the pudgy kid who makes friends with the giant member of the bad guys family, is pretty sympathetic as the conduit between "Sloth" and the rest of the characters. The late John Matuszak manages to give a sympathetic reading to the misshapen Fratelli brother. The make up overwhelmed his face but the small movements combined with some animatronics made it work anyway.
A lot of the cast went on to solid careers in film. Astin starred in the "Lord of the Rings" films as everyone's favorite Hobbit, Josh Brolin has been nominated for an Academy Award and played the ultimate antagonist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Martha Plimpton continues to work and had her own TV series. The great surprise in the group is Ke Huy Quan who plays the 007 inspired "Data". He was largely absent from the screen after his child roles in this and the "Indiana Jones" film, but made a big screen appearance and won an Academy Award for "Everything, Everywhere All at Once". So whoever was the casting director for the film, seems to have done a good job in assembling child actors.
The treasure map, pirate ship and the booby traps are the things that make this movie worthwhile. Kids on a treasure hunt is a fun idea, the traps are all Rube Goldberg style setups that give the movie some visual excitement. The production design for the caves and the pirate ship in a hidden cove look great. The backsrory about the homes of the kids is a little clunky, and the performances of the adult parents was weak. Robert Davi, Joe Pantoliano and Anne Ramsey are a bit over the top, but the tone they set is right. It's a solid and fun film. Maybe not the classic some of it's fans think it is, but definitely worth a watch. Oh, and I got to wear my shirt.
Let's get this straight off the bat "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" is a terrific film, hugely entertaining, written in a style that was fresh and well researched. There is nothing about this film that is problematic. Which makes it so much easier for me to spend this post focusing on just a single element of the film, instead of finding a new way to evaluate a movie that people already love. So this post will be dedicated to the consistent crime that is committed by one of the world's greatest character actors, he not only steals the scenes he often steals the movie, Strother Martin.
It should be tough for an actor like this to make a big impact on a movie that is over 2 hours long and in which he appears for only about 10 minutes. However, when William Goldman is the screenwriter and the actor is the late Strother Martin, it's easier than a pickpocket lifting a wallet from an inattentive subway rider. Martin plays Percy Garris, the mine operator who hires Butch and Sundance to be payroll guards while they are down in Bolivia. This sequence takes place more than 80% of the way into the film, but it has the consistent humor, and dramatic heft that the film has sustained up to this point, and the gets elevated by the Percy Garris character. .
Percy Garris is diminutive fellow with an ill-fitting vest. a military style hat and a habit of burying his hands in his pockets when he's not quite sure what to do with them. However, when he is sure what to do with them, Strother Martin uses them like instruments to pull us into the story. When trying to test Sundance to see if he really can shoot accurately, he first asks to see the firearm that Sundance wears on his hip. Garris handles it efficiently, but without the flourish of a gunfighter or someone who knows how to brandish a weapon effectively. He takes the gun admires it and hands it back to Sundance, but puts his hands up in the air and pushes down when Sundance tries to put the gun back in his holster. All Garris wants to see is whether or not he can hit a target. He then reaches into his own pocket, pulls out what looks to be a small package, maybe of chewing tobacco, and tosses it about 20 ft away. Nothing flashy is being done here, but Martin actually dominates the scene when he is playing against Robert Redford and Paul Newman. The character constantly spits, and frequently without the force necessary to hit a target himself. When he does however hit whatever target on the ground he is eyeing, Garris announces "bingo". We never see exactly what it is he hit, we just know the satisfaction that he gets from saying the word.
When Redford misses, Martin gives us a bemused look, when Sundance wants to draw on the target down on the ground, but he also gives a look of amazement as Sundance moves quickly and hits the target twice. Garris announces immediately "you start tomorrow". Martin's timing on all the comedic lines in the scene is perfection
As they begin their Journey down the mountain, Garris on a mule and Butch and Sundance behind on their horses, Garris sings a song full of innuendo, and old-fashioned cadences. He leans back in his saddle, comfortable and confident because he knows no one is going to rob them going down the mountain. Which is why he thinks of Butch and Sundance is being morons when they are being overly watchful on the trip to the bank. As he puts it, "I've got morons on my team". This is his key line in the movie. He is an old hand in Bolivia and feels superior to the two rookies he is hired to prevent a robbery. Of course later on, we do discover that he is capable of making a mistake. That mistake comes immediately after he explains to the two, that he's not crazy, he's just colorful.
This is a 55-year-old film so it's probably too late to worry about spoilers, but Percy Garris does not make it to the end of the movie. He is the one character who dies, before the end of the film, that we care anything for. He's hired our anti-heroes, he's passed on some wisdom, and he's engaged in some jocular conversation with the two outlaws he has hired to guard against robbery. This makes it a poignant moment when he is killed so suddenly, without much of an exit line. The character is well written, but it is the delivery of those lines, and the unique voice of Strother Martin that makes these scenes work. Martin worked with Paul Newman a half dozen times or more, this was his only collaboration with Robert Redford. He almost certainly would have been in "The Sting", had he not been shooting another picture. That's because he also worked with director George Roy Hill multiple times. Having an acting ensemble is one of the things that made these movies from 50 years ago so much more memorable.
Oh yea, he is fourth billed, right after the three stars.
Two of the most pleasant surprises I've had at the Paramount classic film series over the years have been films from India. Last year it was "RRR", a rousing action film that got the audience shouting out encouragement laughing uproariously, and generally rooting for the heroes. This week a film with a very different tone joins my list of films from India that I have enjoyed greatly, "The Lunchbox" from 2013.
I wish I could say I knew the actors in this film well, but as far as I can tell I've only seen the lead actor in a couple of movies before, Irrfan Khan was in "Jurassic World", "The Life of Pi" and "Slumdog Millionaire". They were all terrific. Khan plays the lead, a man nearing retirement, somewhat unwillingly. He doesn't seem like he would be a romantic leading man but that's how deceptive looks can be. The real heart of romance lies in the ability to understand and relate to another human being, and this character, Saajan Fernandes, manages to do that, although very tentatively.
For those of you not familiar with the story, which I assume is most everybody reading this site, "The Lunchbox" concerns the developing relationship between two strangers through a series of notes that are delivered via a lunch box delivery service, which is noted for its accuracy. The twist in this film, of course, is that the service is not infallible. The lunch box order of our widowed soon to be retiree is mixed up with the lunch sent by a woman to her husband. She is attempting to keep her marriage together by preparing meals with love and care and the right amount of ingredients. She succeeds in her meals with the advice of an older woman who we never see, but who shouts advice from an apartment upstairs, and sends spices and special ingredients via a hanging basket to the leading lady's kitchen. I don't know how typical this is in India, but it makes it feel like a pretty friendly place.
At the workplace of the soon to be retired accountant, we see that he is a circumspect man, who doesn't exude much outward warmth and appears to have closed himself up after the death of his wife. A young man, played by Nawazuddin Siddiqui is supposed to replace him, and the older man is expected to train him in the job but he is clearly reluctant to do so. It looks at first like the younger man will be annoying and a character that we will look down on. The joy and clever script writing, comes when characters are revealed to us slowly and in interesting ways, and the young apprentice accountant certainly turns out to be more interesting and more appealing than initially thought to be.
The woman in the story, lla, played by Nimrat Kaur, is a loving mother, and a wife who wants to make her husband's life better, but who seems to be ignored by an indifferent spouse. As the lunches travel back and forth, she finds the older man an outlet where she can share her thoughts in a way that is a little bit more honest than she is able to manage with her upstairs neighbor. He also begins to reach out a little more and it is his tentative connection with her that allows him to create a stronger connection with his younger coworker. Of course there are complications, and some dramatic turns in the story, but they are all reasonable and set up with plenty of legitimacy.
The actors in this film are all perfectly cast. The older man is handsome but clearly feeling the years. The younger man seems eager and a little naive, but he is also so politely brash that he's hard to resist after a while. I think when I read about this film that everyone received some awards for their performances in the film and as far as I'm concerned they deserved them. The part of the woman is difficult because she is so conflicted. There is a terrific sequence where she finds the dress that she wore on her honeymoon, and models it for her husband, hoping for some attention from him that she clearly needs. You can see in her acting the heartbreak that comes from being ignored. In another scene as she sits in a restaurant waiting for her anonymous correspondent to meet her, we can see the anxiety and confusion on her face when he is not on time. This was a very subtle performance but still very effective.
This is an unexpected love Story, with a fantastic premise, in a world and culture that I know little about but could appreciate from the distance that I have from it. The characters all have good arcs to make us interested in following them, and there is a great deal of humor as the story plays out. This is the kind of charming foreign language film that I have fallen for over the years. I would compare it to a film like "Eat, Dink, Man, Woman", or "Shall We Dance?", two films from the '90s that I still count among my favorite romances. It's nice to add another film to that list, and one that comes from a different culture it helps give me a little insight into the rest of the world.
I looked, and it is hard to believe, in the fourteen years I have been writing on this blog, there is not a post solely devoted to the movie "Blade Runner". This film came out 42 years ago, and I saw it on opening night. I have seen it several more times on the big screen since then, but apparently not once in the last decade and a half. I do remember going to a screening at the Archlight in Hollywood with my daughter while she was still in college, so that must have been 2009 or 2010 early on. This is one of the most influential films of the last fifty years, in spite of it's commercial failure. The version we saw last Saturday was the "Final Cut" which looks like it will really be the last version of the movie, at least from Director Ridley Scott.
This version of the film is the most coherent, and the plotline is clear. One of the things that has changed about the film in the last forty years is the narration. When the film came out, there was a narrative track by Harrison Ford as the character Deckard, and it contained exposition that tried to clarify characters and plot. In reality, it only cluttered things, although it did add a noir style trope to this dark future noir story. Ultimately, no one will miss it. The ending has also been altered, in the original release, there is a more upbeat is not entirely happy ending. The ambiguity of the "Final Cut" ending is a lot more in line with the questions raised by the film's premise.
Over the years, there has been controversy about whether or not Deckard, Ford's character, is actually a replicant himself. Ridley Scott has asserted that he is, and some of the additions to the film have tried to hint at that. The insertion of the unicorn flashback/dream, is meant to suggest that Gaff, the nominal partner working with Deckard, has knowledge of his thoughts, as exemplified by the unicorn origami found on Deckard's doorstep near the end of the film. I have a couple of problems with this approach. First of all, it undermines the romance between Deckard and Rachel, who is in fact a replicant. The value of the emotional theme is that a human can fall in love with a product and it can be meaningful. If it is simply two manufactured beings, it doesn't mean anything. Also, as Deckard fights with Roy at the climax of the film, it is clear that he is a superior physical specimen. Why would the inferior model be the one set upon the rogue replicants? It makes no sense. One last thought on this point, Rick Deckard returns in the sequel set 31 years later, and if he is a replicant, there would have to have been some planned obsolescence because Deckard has aged substantially.
Scott and the screenwriters were a little optimistic about some technological elements of the future. We are not operating colonies off world, we still don't have flying cars, and although AI is getting dangerously close to sentience, we don't have slave labor replicants. However, most of the dystopia about Los Angeles is spot on. Homelessness is rampant, languages are not shared, and advertising dominates the vista. I left California in the middle of a multi year drought, but in the last two years, the precipitation seen in the movie appears to have overwhelmed the people still living there. The models of the buildings seen in th film are shot in a spectacular manner. I remember going to a museum exhibit in the early 90s, where the police headquarters building from the film was on display, it was incredible. The visual elements are the thins that make this movie such a touchstone for modern film makers.
Regarding the plot, there is a dilemma that I was reminded of as I watched the film. We are clearly supposed to have sympathy for the replicants who simply want to live, but we are conflicted by the brutality they show to all humans, even the ones who assist in their cause or at least sympathize with them. The four replicants seem to be irredeemably vicious. Chew, the clueless Eye engineer is murdered for no reason except spite. Tyrell is murdered out of frustration, and Sebastian, the kind but naive human who has assisted the remaining two replicants, is killed for no reason at all. The replicants seem to have been designed with no empathy neural patterns, only rage. Only at the very end, do we get a sense of progress when Batty spares Deckard with his final gesture. I don't know if it is enough to redeem the more than two dozen people they killed in the course of the story. I want it to mean something, and Rutger Hauer's performance and final monologue is almost enough.
The theater was packed for the show. We had been to the "Dick Tracy" screening earlier, but I was able to go back to the car and pick up my Blade Runner shirt for the evening film. I wore it over my long sleeve shirt because it was very chilly in that first show, and the lightweight material would not have kept me warm during this film. Every actor in the movie was excellent, but Rutger Hauer and Darryl Hannah are the standouts. It is for good reason that this is probably the late Mr. Hauer's signature role.
