KAMAD Throwback Thursdays 1975: The Day of the Locust

Throwback Thursday #TBT

Throwback Thursday on the KAMAD site will be a regular occurrence in the next year. As a motivational project, to make sure I am working on something, even in a week where I don't see a new film in a theater, I am going to post on movies from 1975. Along with 1984, this is one of my favorite years for movies and it is full of bittersweet memories as well. 1975 was my Senior Year in High School and my Freshman Year in College. The greatest film of the last 60 years came out in 1975, as well as dozens of great and not so great cinematic endeavors. Most of the films in this weekly series will have been seen in a theater in 1975, but there are several that I only caught up with later. I hope you all enjoy.

Day of the Locust

Well it turns out there was a reason I never rushed to see this film when it came out in 1975. "The Day of the Locust" is a dour, black hearted takedown of the Hollywood Dream and by association the American Dream. It is showered in technical excellence in performances, production design and cinematography, but it is also lathered up by the most vile version of failed movie people you are likely to see this side of "Babylon". At least this film avoids the elephant shit. 

One of the reasons I never followed up on the film is that I could never get a sense of what it was about. Maybe I missed the trailers because the one above is pretty direct in saying it is the underside of Hollywood that we are going to see. Look, I know that there was a dark side to the Golden Age, there are always flip sides to any story. It's just there there is almost no one that you care about in the story, so whatever tragic outcome shows up will probably be met with indifference. Donald Sutherland is listed as the first lead in the movie and he does not appear for three quarters of an hour into what we see on screen. Meanwhile, we are introduced to a strange relationship that never takes on the quality it needs to make us want to know more about the two figures who are really at the center of the picture. William Atherton may have the most sympathetic role of his career here. He is notoriously the obnoxious prick in 80s comedies and action films. Maybe he is more sympathetic as a terrorist on the Hindenburg than here, because his character literally tries to rape a woman, and then apologize for it. So Drunken Rapist or murderer against the Nazi Airship, which one is the most appealing character? This was probably his biggest role and he is very good in it, but again, it is hard to feel sorry for people who are so obliviously self destructive. 

Karen Black, is the star of the film, playing Faye Greener, an aspiring actress who is struggling to get extra work, and lives with her aging vaudeville performer father played by Burgess Meredith. Faye is a character who seems like she could be appealing to start with, but she rapidly is revealed as a potential gold-digger,  and she certainly is aware of the effect she has on the men around her. She is self centered and leads Atherton's character as well as Sutherland and Bo Hopkins and Pepe Serna on for most of the movie. She is mercurial and insecure and thoughtless to the men in her life. You almost sympathize with Atherton's Tod when he does assault her. Maybe we could have more sympathy when she is forced to resort to prostitution, except she is such a bitch to everyone around her that it seems like maybe she has found her real niche.

Fecklessness thy name is Homer Simpson. Not the cartoon character, but the Sutherland role in the film. As a lonely man, maybe a cloistered homosexual, he has difficulty relating to others and when Faye latches on to him, it's like watching a cat play with a mouse. The incongruity of their relationship and her continued connection to Tod is simply befuddling. No one is getting what they want from any of the connections they are forming. Everyone feels like an object of pity. Little Person actor Billy Barty is aggressively confrontational in what is likely to be the biggest role of his career, and Burgess Meredith pushes the pity button but also is cloyingly cliched. 

Director  John Schlesinger has mounted a admirable visualization of old Hollywood, finding the homes in the hills to shoot scenes at, constructing moments of behind the camera elements for the work being done at a studio, and working with Cinematographer Conrad Hall, to produce a soft focus view of the corruption we are seeing on the screen. The work earned him a well deserved Academy Award nomination. Schlesinger's collaborator on previous films, Editor Jim Clark, probably needed to find a way to make the story flow a little faster, although his work on the two best scenes in the film is excellent. 

Those scenes that will remain with me, as the highlights of this movie, include an on set disaster during the making of a Napoleonic War film, and the extremely disturbing climax of the picture. Novelist Nathaniel West, on whose book this movie is based, clearly was down on the American dream and his nightmarish vision of the culture is embodied in the climax of the film where a character murders a child, is subsequently murdered by a mob, all of this taking place at the site of the most lavish of images from the 1930 depression era, a Hollywood Movie Premiere. The satire and cynicism in the two scenes is not subtle, but both sequences are staged very effectively and I think would justify a viewing of this film, if you can put up with the dark side of the Golden Age of Hollywood. 

[I watched this on a cropped laserdisc version, not the ideal aspect ratio]

Pride and Prejudice (2005)

 

When this film first came out, it was well before I'd begun blogging. So this has not appeared on my site before, a circumstance that I am happy to rectify today. This version of "Pride and Prejudice" starred Kiera Knightly, a rising young star who was blessed with talent and an aphorism that is incredibly sexist, but well remembered by me from my early years reading other people's blog pages and comments, "The sexiest Tomboy, Beanpole, on the planet." She plays one of literatures early feminist icons, Elizabeth Bennett, the headstrong and willful woman who will not "settle" for a marriage of convivence.  Her romantic counterpart is the dour Mr. Darcy, who's demeanor hides a decent man with a soulful desire for love, but one that must be contained by the circumstances of the time and the class to which he was born. 

My youngest daughter is a Jane Austen fanatic, and her sister was a fan as well, so when we saw this film in 2005, both of them were in high school and the perfect age for being enamored of the British literature as a result of English classes they were taking. The whole family enjoyed this film and over the years it was a regular spin on the DVD player. It has however been a decade or so since I have seen the movie, and this was the first time since 2005 that I saw it on a theater screen rather than at home. The experience was revelatory. This film is beautifully constructed as a story adaption and it is shot in a manner that displays the kinds of directorial touches that people admire in the best film makers. Joe Wright made a transition from directing television program in Great Britain to making films with this project. It is truly a showpiece for his skills and artistry.

The best examples to show the creativity and eye that made this film are the ball sequences. In addition to showing a complex choregraphed dance routine, the camera follows our characters through the throng and the focus moves in and out on key figures at well placed moments. This is not a result of editing but of camera movement and placement and it was so much more noticeable on the big screen than the numerous times I'd seen the same sequences on a television. There are also examples of the same eye for a beautiful image in some of the lush countryside shots. Elizabeth walking back from Pemberley after accidentally meeting with Mr. Darcy is somewhat reminiscent of the Julie Andres helicopter shot at the start of "The Sound of Music", the camera work from an aerial perspective is clever but not quite as flashy as it was in the musical.  The walk and talk sequence at the Bingley's leased home when Elizabeth is escorted around the atrium room by Bingley's sister while the two of them verbally joust with Mr. Darcy is also a nice flourish that is assured without being ostentatious. 

The cast of this movie is incredibly talented and effectively convey the attitudes of their characters and the story perspective that Austen set up. Mr. Collins is not an evil presence but he is feckless and uninteresting to Lizzie. The rest of the family sees this except Mrs. Bennett who is primarily interested in securing a reliable marriage for Lizzie. Tom Hollander is an average man in looks compared to the actors playing Wickham and Darcy. His mild deliver of his lines is completely appropriate and his obsequious attempts at impressing his benefactor Lady Katherine are very amusing. The two most valuable players however are Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn as his wife. She provides the desperate facial expressions and shrill worrying voice that make Mrs. Bennett a somewhat comical figure. Sutherland, who has never been nominated by the Academy, although he has received an honorary Oscar, plays Lizzie's father with the bemused tolerance of a loving husband and the patient but overwhelmed father of five daughters. Watch the scene where Elizabeth explains to her Father that she really does love Darcy, Sutherland's performance is primarily reacting and his non-verbals in the moment are superb. 

Knightley and her Darcy, Matthew Macfadyen, seem appropriately matched. She is bright and forceful where he is all tense reserve and disdainful looks. They manage the language of the script well and the nuance that they bring to the hesitations and cadence of the deliveries feel romantic in an early 19th Century manner. I know that Colin Firth is a favorite Mr. Darcy among those who love this material, but I thought Macfadyen was a less conventional choice with a bearing that works for the story as it is being told here.Looking back on the Academy Awards for the year 2005, the five films that were nominated, in retrospect seem to be lesser efforts in comparison to this film and some others I could name from that year. Certainly it is a matter of taste and I know that fashion plays a part in the choices that get made. It's unfortunate that the "tea on the lawn" fashion of film making had fallen out of favor to be replaced by social commentary films that have dominated the awards ever since. I think when it comes to artistry, Wright and his terrific cast stand the test of time, and I would happily repeat a theater screening of this movie anytime. 

TCM FF: Double Feature with Elliot Gould

The Long Goodbye (1973)

Even though I am a 70s guy and have seen a ton of movies from the era, and the original project here focused on those kinds of film, there are still gaps in my experience. "The Long Goodbye" is one of those films I knew about but for some reason or another, I'd just not gotten around to see. Maybe the idea of a contemporary Philip Marlowe through me off. Anyway, the film festival this year afforded me the opportunity to see this on the big screen at the Egyptian Theater. In addition, it came complete with a brief discussion with the star Elliot Gould, conducted by TCM Host Ben Mankiewicz.

The opening of the movie is a deadpan ten minutes about a guy and his cat at three o'clock in the morning. Marlowe is no great shakes at housekeeping but he is a conscientious pet owner. He goes out of his way in two very different approaches to making the cat happy. It has nothing to do with the plot, it's all about establishing the character. Another character in the movie is the city of Los Angeles in 1973. The hippie chicks in the next apartment are naked most of the time, a guy like Marlowe with limited resources can still afford a canyon side apartment and the Malibu Colony is not packed with so many celebrities that people still can't get near it.

Everybody in the story has an agenda, and some of them are so difficult to figure out that you might as well give up. Sterling Hayden is a disturbed writer that is a client, a suspect and a friend at different points in the story. His wife is cryptic and distant from both he and Marlowe. The cops are pricks and Marlowe's friend, Terry, played by major league pitcher and notorious writer Jim Bouton, disappears after his wife is murdered. Director Mark Rydell, who made "The Cowboys" among many other films, plays a single minded mobster who is also looking for Terry, and he is truly psychotic.The story involves false leads,  hangdog characters and an aura of ennui  hangs over most everyone we meet. The plot is less important than the attitudes and the setting and it is a perfect embodiment of a 1970s movie. It may have been my daughter Amanda's favorite film of the festival.


                       

There was a nice tribute clip that they showed before the interview and then Ben asked Questions but Mr. Gould went all over the place in answering. It reminded me of the old days of talk shows when the guest and host would have wide ranging conversations and take as much time as they wanted to talk about a point. 

M*A*S*H (1970)

Sunday morning found us returning to the festival after a long day before, (but not as long as Friday) and we were seated in the big house at the Chinese theater. Robert Altman really begins his esoteric movie style with this film. The rambling mostly improvised dialogue and blocking which would be a signature of his work for the remainder of his career, comes to prominence in this iconic anti-war movie. Centered on the Korean war but overtly dealing with issues in Vietnam, the rebellious spirit of 1970 is evident everywhere. This picture is the bookend for the seventies, the film it lost to for Best Picture that year, "Patton", was also a war film but much closer to the sensibilities of the 60s than the 70s.

Gould and co-star Donald Sutherland are the least glamorous film stars you can imagine. In contrast to Newman and Redford in "Butch Cassidy" the year before, these guys were unkempt and often covered in blood. Their language was salty ant heir hijinks were more schoolboy naughty than cool. Still they were very funny and the film managed to inspire the long running, much awarded television series of the same name. It is the least likely success story I can think of , trying to make this movie into a TV show. That it worked is again a testament to the fact that characters were more important than the plot.

This is a movie that is easy to watch on a regular basis. First because it is so funny, and second because you will notice new little things about the film each time. A joke or a prop that slipped by the first time will sneak in and give you another moments pleasure when you were not expecting it. The supporting cast is filled with familiar faces and accomplished actors. The last supper of "Painless Waldowski" is filled with faces that could be in a portrait of 70s film and tv stars, and it does not even include Robert Duvall, although Tom Skerritt does make the picture.

This was one of the presentations where the guest appeared after the film screened and again Elliot Gould did not disappoint. He was a little more focused but just as fun and the stories were all different from the night before.

  

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1

Well it was a sad Saturday this weekend. In addition to the mediocre effort put in by my team against their arch rivals, Katniss and Company played at only a slightly higher level. "Mockingjay Part 1 will not leave a stink in the room the way our coach did on the field, but it will be a good argument to stop splitting up books and turning a series of three into a series of four or more. [Oh, and the same might be said for turning one book into three movies, but we will have to see how that comes out next month.]

Abandoning most of the science fiction elements found in the original story and films, the new "Hunger Games" movie becomes a political science paper aimed at discussing the roots of revolution. The idea of Katniss as the face of a revolt, fomented by the previously unknown forces from District 13, is straight propaganda analysis. The committee evaluation of the video prop piece she completes encapsulates this whole movie.   Why is she an inspiration and why is she not working as one in our film? Jennifer Lawrence has been very good in the previous "Hunger Games" movies, but she is less natural and interesting in this movie than she has been in anything I have seen her in. Most of this is because she has become a pawn, like she was in the original stories, but this time the action is controlled by a group of mundane cave dwellers who's motives seem to be a bit murky. She is not called on to use her wits or overcome an obstacle, she is a piece of agitprop set decoration for a larger conflict. 

Much of the weakness in the film is directly from the weaknesses of the novel on which it is based. "Mockingjay was a limp ending to a young adult trilogy that simply ran out of steam and ended as quickly as it could. The Tributes from the first two stories are put on the sidelines while the revolution plays out between rebelling colonies and the Capital. There were some hints of the problems the rebels had wielding power in the novel. The prep team is abused and the citizens are required to live a regimented lifestyle that would deny them even the most mundane pleasures. The Castro like character of President Coin is hardly suggested in this film. All of the interesting elements of a not very interesting book are taken out when transferring it to the screen. The action in the film is limited to three or four moments when CGI battles are carried out with Katniss as the star of a recruitment commercial.

The strengths of the movie are in some unusual places. Elizabeth Banks as the frivolous Effie Trinket, gets to make a few comic moments zing without having to rely on over the top costuming and make up. Woody Harrelson's  Haymitch character is missing for most of the movie, but every time he shows up, the movie got better. The best piece of casting and the most accurately realized character is Donald Sutherland as President Snow. It is perhaps unfortunate for the movie that the highlight of the film is a skype session between Snow and Katniss at the end of the movie. Their interaction has more sparks in it than anything else that takes place in this two hour place holder.

With a nice dedication at the end of the movie to their co-worker who has passed, the film should be a fond reminder of Philip Seymour Hoffman and his talent. Watching his performance however foreshadows the plight he faced. He looks tired and flaccid in the part and there is no energy or personality in Plutarch Havensbee. His co-star from almost two decades ago in "Magnolia", Boogie Nights" and "The Big Lebowski" Julianne Moore, is a little better. As the calculating leader of District 13, she is impervious and distant in the way called for by the plot. Liam Hemsworth continues to be little more than a plot device to keep Katniss from accepting her devotion to Peeta. Gale gets some action scenes in the movie but he does little except move through the scenery.

The movie looks good and the characters are given a chance to continue their story. The problem is that the story is losing steam as it becomes less about our heroic Tribute and more about the political intrigues of Panem. The hallucinatory gas attacks and the city destroying matrix that were parts of the book are no longer present. Faceless citizens revolt in the lumber and energy districts and a jingle is all we have to show their commitment. This movie will be a box office smash, but it will not be a treasured volume in the "Hunger Games" canon.