So this morning we went down early to the Festival headquarters in the Roosevelt Hotel and picked up our souvenir program. We had almost an hour to go before the start of the film we were planning on seeing so we sat down for a minute. I decided to check my social media feed and there was a tweet from one of my on line friends saying that the line for Shanghai Express was already around the corner from the theater. We hustled our tail ends over there and got queue cards just in time. The screening was packed.
I'm pretty sure I have a copy of this film on VHS somewhere in the garage, where it has lain dormant for more than 25 years. The screening today was a restoration that was stunning. The images are crisp and the black and white photography looked wonderful. There was an introduction by writer Jeremy xXxX, who wrote the Lawrence of Arabia book that came with my Bluray a couple of years ago. He introduced Josef Von Sternberg's son who shared some great stories about his father and his early career. The fact that as a boy he often sat on Marlene Dietrich's lap made him an expert in most of our eyes.
The movie is a drama set in civil war torn China, before the Japanese invasion a few years later. A motley crew of travelers is taking the train from Peking to Shanghai. On board are a British Military Doctor and a woman he once loved but abandoned, who now survives on the generosity of the men in her life. Their reunion is an awkward one since he has learned that she is the notorious"Shanghai Lily". There is a drama played out involving the revolutionary group and a hostage situation with the train. Warner Oland, who would go on to play Charlie Chan, is a mysterious figure with an unpleasant manner who figures into the story and he provides a great character for us to root against.
The movie is incredibly well assembled by the craftsmen of the day. The photography is gorgeous and the editing is very far advanced for 1932. The shots of the train as the passengers board and it tries to leave Peking are well staged and complex. The sounds may have been enhanced for the restoration, but they were spot on. The layering of the screen images during transitions is something that is hard to believe given the early era of the movie. The story is not a strong point but it holds the characters in place and gives us enough to care about the.Eugene Palette, who would go on to be Friar Tuck in my favorite film, is a gambler traveling on the train. He provides most of the comic relief in the film. Dietrich is spectacular as the fallen woman who still carries a torch for her lost love. The images from this film are iconic. Many of her costumes would be recognized by even casual film fans. There is a great shot with an overhead spotlight on her face that may be the defining image of her for most of the film community. If you have seen "Blazing Saddles", you will know where so many of Madeline Kahn's look from that movie came from. The frank references to her string of lovers, her slatterd morality and the obvious sexual references, all mark this as a pre-code film. It is racy stuff and it looks great. While the acting of some of the cast is old fashioned at times, the ideas hold up in the long run. This is one of the first great "directors" films. The choices in this movie are all Von Sternberg, and Dietrich is his greatest choice. I never thought I'd need to own this movie, but now I covet it and will look to add t stunning high definition version to my collection. Now a short nap and on to the next treasure.
After my Thursday evening class, I drove down to Hollywood to begin this years TCM Film Festival. I walked past the Chinese Theater, which was already dark in front but contained the opening night Gala screening of "All the President's Men". MY pass did not get me into that event but I was meeting my daughter across the street at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel for a 9:30 screening of this somewhat creaky but for it's time groundbreaking social comedy/drama.
The show was delayed by the fact that fire alarms had cleared out several other earlier films, including the theater we were supposed to be in, which was showing "Dark Victory" at the time. The hundreds of film fans milling about would get back in to see the ends of their films before the next show started. We answered a trivia question for Social media producer Jeff and had our picture taken for his Instagram feed. After a longer wait in line we got into the theater for the film
Katherine Houghton who starred as Sidney Poitier's love interest in the film, was there to greet us with a short set of stories about the making of the film and the accidental way in which she was cast. Although she was Katherine Hepburn's niece, the real reason she ended up in the film was that Carl Reiner didn't think she was Jewish enough for the film he was making, and suggested that his friend Stanley Kramer should use her in this picture instead.
Now a pretty dated film and one that modern audiences might see as condescending, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" was controversial in it's day and also very entertaining. Amanda had not seen it before and she laughed quite a bit at the facial performances and timing of stars Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn. It's also nostalgic to look at the city of San Francisco in the mid 60s to see what once was.
The film did not get done until after midnight and we got home at 1 am, so I'm a little toasty and the post here will be a bit thin. We are back on our way this morning to the Festival, but we have L.A. traffic to fight for a couple of hours sio not as much rest as I might have wanted. An exciting day is ahead but our long awaited weekend has arrived and there will be plenty of films to dive into with a little more analysis.
There are many in the film community who will deride the idea of remakes, live action or otherwise. It seems to suggest a shortage of creativity somewhere in the script department. I understand that feeling and I myself often hesitate to venture into a new version of an old film. You don't want to be disappointed or have your fond memory of the original besmirched. At the same time, if the movie touched you in some way the first time, there may be something to the subject that can affect you again, and why someone would not want that is hard for me to fathom. Of course it is also a money issue, but every movie is a money issue and remakes and sequels do not always guarantee results despite the hopes of producers everywhere. The new version of "The Jungle Book" is a live action remake of the last film that Disney himself oversaw. The animated version is a different take on Rudyard Kipling's stories from the 1942 version. So we have been here before. I was encouraged to go by word of mouth and several sources insisted that the 3D version is the one I wanted to see, so I used up all my accumulated AMC Stubbs points and pulled the trigger on a 3D IMAX (FAUXMAX) screening this morning.
It was a delightful experience and lived up to most of my hopes and it included a couple of surprises as well. The story closely follows the tale as it was told in the animated version, and here is the surprise, they even included a couple of songs. Admittedly the animals in this version are as animated as they were in 1967, but since they are photo-real, it was still a little bit of a shock that they spoke and sang. One of the best things that the film has going for it is the voice casting. Bill Murray as Baloo just about perfect. He is not a singer and the presentation of "The Bare Necessities" is not a show stopping moment but rather a casual way of telling us who the character is supposed to be. Similarly, Christopher Walken as King Louie is no Louie Prima but he gives an engaging almost rap like delivery of his signature song. The film has humorous moments but it does not have the comic visuals that would go along with this sequence. Probably a good choice.
The most valuable addition to the story here is the integration of the wolf pack into the story. There is a code that they live by which becomes a turning point for the animals in the story, and the family development makes Mowgli much more a part of the pack. That also makes what happens in the climax of the film more satisfying and exciting. We got a little bit more about Mowgli's background and a clearer sense of what it is that drives the villain of the piece, Shere Khan. Idris Elba does a menacing voice that has authority, but it lacks the snarly sophistication that George Sanders brought to the role. Bagheera is voiced by Ben Kingsley and he is wise and loyal without the fussiness that Sebastian Cabot added. The changes are subtle ones and they seem to be designed to make this more "real" version of the story work for the universe that is created here.
Obviously, the real stars of the movie are the technicians who have brought the jungle to life. They make all the animals real, in spite of the size perspectives and physical details that have to be worked out. It is a complicated job and if you look at the credits for the film, you will see hundreds of names, most of whom I'm sure Director Jon Favreau never met, much less spoke to on a daily basis. There was an interesting location id in the final credits saying the film was shot entirely in the City of Los Angeles. Guns and Roses may think of it as the jungle, but the closest it comes in looks are some bad neighborhoods, there are no cliffs, rivers, or lush Savannah anywhere around here, this was all created in the computer.
Young Neel Seethi is the star of the film. He is credible in the action sequences but a little stiff in the dramatic scenes. Child actors are tough, they have great presence sometimes but they may have limited range at their young age and I think that this is the case here. The action scene at the end is pretty spectacular, although there are several scenes where the visuals impress, including a mudslide/stampede sequence. The fire effects and the the trees in the last action scene are rendered in a way that makes the #D investment worth the price, but there were dozens of shots like that throughout the film, so I will add my voice to those who say go 3D. Stick around for the credits and you get Scarlett Johanson's version of "Trust in Me", which did not make the film but does play and remind us of the character and the earlier movie, without having it's specter hanging over this film the whole time.
This is what happens when I am kept out of a movie theater for a month. It's the kind of thing that happens to addicts of all kinds, when their supply is back, they OD. Fortunately, I have not yet heard of anyone dying from seeing too many films in a short amount of time. That means that instead of turning up naked on the floor of the bathroom as a corpse, you get to encounter me in a good mood with nice things to say and great films to share. Comments might be a little briefer than usual because you don't want to come down from your high to fast or hard.
Everybody Wants Some
We start with this Richard Linklater comedy which is billed as the emotional descendant of his classic "Dazed and Confused". A movie like this should be playing on 3000 screens in the summertime, not 400 in the spring. The world however has changed and a raunchy comedy with sex, drugs and Rock and Roll, is not as welcome at the cineplex as it once was. Maybe the art-house reputation of Linklater from his last film, "Boyhood" scared the marketing and distribution divisions of the studio and they decided to play it safe. With a $10 Million budget and no stars, it begs for a wide and quick release with a front loaded marketing campaign featuring the hi jinks and nudity that the younger audience would want. Treating it as an art house release (we saw it at a Laemalle Theater) with a platform release, I'd be surprised if they get their money back. It's entertaining enough and provides the requisite laughs, but it is not going to have the word of mouth that builds it into a cult favorite like the earlier films of Linklater in this genre.
A cross between "Animal House" and "Dazed and Confused", "Everybody Wants Some" doesn't knock it out of the park, but it does score from second base on a long flyball to the outfield. In case you were unaware, the film focuses on the antics of a championship caliber baseball team at a Texas University in 1980. The movie is filled with wall to wall references to the times, including the changing music scenes and the college culture of the day. The jocks occupy two adjoining houses near campus and enjoy many perks afforded star athletes on a campus like the one depicted here. The rampant sexism is played off as a symptom of the times and since there is ultimately a sweet story to go along with at least one character, it seems to be forgivable to me. Having lived through these times and been a coach on a college team debate, not anything sports related) i can say that the "in-group" mentality of the team is pretty accurately portrayed. Everyone wants to be the top dog, everyone wants to fit in, and the older members of the team, take it as the gospel truth, that the new guys don't know anything.
I already have all the songs that appear on the sountrack, so I don't need to rush out and get the song score for the movie,in fact, most of the music here I owned originally on vinyl. If you come from a more recent generation, just be assured that it is an accurate reflection of the musical tastes of the day. This includes early rap, pop country, the last vestiges of disco and of course the straight forward rock catalogue of the day. The characters are familiar but they all have a shiny veneer that makes them seem fresh. The main protagonist is a decent guy for the most part, but capable of being a pig on occasion. There are locker room philosophers and pig headed bullies and sluts and "nice girls" all over the place. As an example of a culture it is a microcosm of every stereotype about jocks and drama kids you can imagine. It's a lot of fun but not as deep ans some people who smoked from a two chambered bong want you to believe it is.
So I mentioned that I saw this at the Laemalle in Pasadena, I just want you to know how art house this theater is. The bathrooms are decorated. That's right, there is art in the john. I liked it but I also thought it was indicative of how isolating the experience is going to be for our first movie.
You just don't see a lot of classic film poster reproduction above the urinals these days.
Sing Street
Much more in keeping with the surroundings was the second feature of the day, another music centric film from writer-director John Carney who brought us "Once" and from a couple of years ago "Begin Again". If the baseball college comedy we started the day out with was a combination of "Animal House" and "Dazed and Confused", than this film is an amalgam of "The Commitments" and "Billy Elliot". Just as the American film is set in the early eighties and features a song list that could be found on any jukebox in the States in 1980, this movie set in Dublin in 1985, features a mix of pop, new wave and rock that could have easily been played on a continuous loop on MTV. It also features some smashing songs that mimic the styles of the times and show exactly how music can be infectious and viral, especially at a creative level.
One of the things that perhaps differs my blog from other movie sites is that I have a very personal take on the experience. While I do sometimes comment on film making techniques or performances, more than anything, I try to share my feeling for the movies that I see. My experience is informed by my personality and history. I am a sentimentalist and I did live through these times. I can see some flaws in this film. There is a too pat plot line that follows a dozen other movies. It is a coming of age story with rebellion, a seemingly hopeless romance and a "let's put on a show" mentality. All of it will strike you as derivative. What won't however feel that way is the cast and the songs. The young actors here don't feel like cardboard characters. The two brothers in the film are oddly different enough from each other that they are more believable as brothers as a result. The girl is lovely but I'm not sure that the "model" tag she puts on herself works, but video vixen does. The jump to songwriting perfection comes too smoothly for the lead and his musical partner, but since the songs are so winning and perfectly cast in contrast to the latest musical style the band adopts, you can forgive that story telling misstep. I loved this movie for it's sincerity and for it's heart. There is a perfectly realized music video that appears in the lead's head as he plays at a video rehearsal which matches the opening sequence in "Begin Again" for imagination and looking inside of a person's head.
It will be fun to revisit this movie at home because then I can rewind all the bits that were incomprehensible to me due to the local vernacular and accents. The film does not shy away from showing some of the grimmer elements of life for these kids trapped in a place that they see as hopeless. The bleakness of life and the break up of the families that form the background of the story are passing references, not the main focus of what is going on. This is the first film I can remeber seeing a disclaimer for in the credits that apologizes for the way things might have been in the past. The real Synge Street School seems to be acknowledging that it was not a very forward thinking institution in 1985. It was an odd finish to a terrific film that lifted my heart with music and the kind of passion that everyone ought to feel about something in their life. That this fish out of water romance is also about the love of two brothers is just extra cream in the coffee.I'll be looking for these songs on-line, to add to my library,
Here is just a little taste of the joy you have in store.
Elvis & Nixon
If the first two movies from this orgy of film were music centered, the third manages to be so without featuring the actual songs of the music icon named in the title. Elvis Presley, the greatest entertainer to ever touch the stage, does not have a song of his featured in the movie bearing his name. The soundtrack of the movie is brimming with music acts from the 1970 year that the film was set, but the King is not one of them. A Elvis movie without Elvis songs is one thing, but how about an Elvis movie without a guy who looks much like Elvis? Michael Shannon is an actor with a character face. He is not pretty in any way, certainly not in the way that the real King was. He makes up for it with personality and performance. After ten minutes you'll stop thinking about how little he looks like Elvis, but rather how much he seems to embody the weird things that we have heard about Presley. By the way, Kevin Spacey doesn't look much like Nixon, but he might want to brush up on his awards speech because he may very well be next years winner for Best Supporting Actor. His is more than an impression, he manages to get under the skin and show us the contradictory Nixon that has baffled his friends and opponents alike.
This film is based on the unbelievable but still true meeting between two of the most recognizable people on the planet in 1970. Such an unlikely duo just tickles the funny bone thinking about it. These may also have been two of the quirkiest people on the planet in 1970. Elvis may very well have been spaced out on some prescription meds when he decided to try to help America fight the scourge of drugs. Nixon was never a lovable teddy bear of a figure, but he comes off here as one of the more likable characters on screen this year. Nixon is a power figure, flummoxed by his inability to wield power in the presence of the King's monomaniacal vision. Almost all of this had to be imagined because no recording exists of what the two spoke about, but there is enough detail in the personal recollections of the parties involved who are still alive to construct a reasonable semblance of the events as they played out, at least chronologically, if not completely historical.
In case you have not guessed, this movie is a comedy. It is not a slapstick take on the delusional quest of a mythic figure to conquer the dark side of one of the most complex figures of the twentieth century. It is a comedy of manners. Two completely different worlds collide, the self important musical entertainer, used to getting what he wants because of who he was, and the shrewd political Machiavelli, who is thawed and ultimately charmed out of his natural persona to reveal a human with the same needs as the rest of us. I don't want to dismiss the work of Joey and Hanala Sagal, who are listed as the primary screenwriters, but having read his recent memoir about making "The Princess Bride" and listened to him at a screening/book signing, I can say that actor and co-producer of this film Cary Elwes, brought some comic perspective to the story as well. Joey also has a cameo as an Elvis impersonator in the film, so he gets to show a little of his comic flair on screen as well as on the page.
Many people can take credit for turning this odd piece of history into an amusing film of less consequence than many but with a couple of huge belly laughs. Colin Hanks, plays Egil "Bud" Krough, the aid to the President that talks him into meeting with Presley and later was a key figure in the Watergate scandal. His comic double takes and perfectly placed exclamations of the "F" word, will bring a smile to your face. Johnny Knoxville shows up as Sonny West, one of the Memphis Mafia that were pals and employees of the King. He does not have a lot of dialogue but his slack jawed expression says volumes at times. The deadpan faces of the Secret Service guys trying to screen Elvis and the fan dazzled eyes of the women working in the Narcotics Bureau and the White House, also make this movie a lot of fun.
It's been a month since i saw a film in the theater, and that was "Batman v. Superman", a bloated but spectacular super hero film that does everything to show how epic it is except entertain us. These three movies don't have a tenth of the budget of that film, but each one supplied so much more pleasure that it should be embarrassing to Hollywood.
So our passes arrived a week or so ago, and information about the programming has been trickling out ever since. Each time there was a new update I started shivering with ...(say it) anticipation. Now the full schedule has been released and of course there are so many events I'd love to see that are in conflict with some other event I want to go to.
I may have to forgo "The Way We Were", "Club TCM's Dogs in Film", so I can watch "The Conversation" both the movie and the actual conversation with Francis Ford Coppola.
It looks like I can cheat a little and just watch the miserable parts of George Baily's life before strolling over to catch the screening of the silent version of "Joan of Arc". That means I will miss "Brian's Song" and Mr. Billy Dee Williams, Damn It!
Amanda and I will split up in the morning on Saturday, she needs the "Bambi" screening to be part of her life and I want the Vitaphone program, [Field of Dreams and Ace in the Hole get bypassed, I may cry.]
Not sure yet how to get to the Burt Reynolds Conversation at the Montalban Theater unless we skip out on the end of "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid". Somebody hold the back door open so we can get in late please.
Maybe Phillip Marlowe can investigate the crime of scheduling "The Long Goodbye" opposite of "The King and I". Yul (get it?) find me at the Elliot Gould film, cursing under my breath that I can't be two places at once.
I don't think I can talk myself into a Mid-night screening of "Gog" even if it is in 3D.
"The Longest Yard" with Burt will get precedence over Marlee Matlin and "Children of a Lesser God", although if we get into that earlier Reynold's conversation, maybe we will switch. [I'm kidding, "The Longest Yard " has football.]
"Fat City" or "The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming", probably the Stacy Keach film because I am a 70s guy.
"Cinema Paradiso", "Network" and "The Band Wagon" all will duke it out for my eyeballs. I'm inclined to take Amanda to the Italian film, just to watch her weep at the ending.
Hope to run into many of the friends I have made on line during the Festival, certainly we can connect at the closing party and at least say Hi!.
So this is the first draft of my plan, I expect God will be laughing somewhere and saying" I don't think so."
What do you all think. I could be talked into changes, how about a little advise?
We live in a binary world. At least we do in the current times. People play games like "Would you Rather?" or they swipe left or right. With the rise of social media, the desire for instant gratification has encouraged the most extremes of views to be the ones we pay the most attention to. The whole idea of social comparison has been reduced to "It's Awesome" or "It Sucks." Well my friends, on this blog we don't play by simple binary rules. Even though the title of today's subject seems to suggest we come down on one side for one hero or the other, the world is more complicated than that, and so is this movie. If all you are looking for is an instant up or down, prepare to be disappointed. "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice", is not the holy grail that comic book fans would hope for, but it is also not the POS that so many haters on the internet are willing to tag it as. As a story it is something of a mess, as a movie it is a puzzlement, but as a spectacle it is pretty impressive and there are some other small things to recommend it.
Here is another example of the twofold choice that is foisted upon us by our social peers: D.C. or Marvel? The success of the Marvel Universe in the movie theaters over the last few years is a credit to patience and planning as well as good writing. Starting with "Ironman" the comic worlds of the Marvel stories have been brought to life and linked very effectively. Even though there are glaring failures with Marvel Product, that can usually be attributed to rights issues which have resulted in three different studios trying to manage the comic universe. Disney now owns the most successful of these and with "The Avengers" has merged them together into the kinds of elaborate story lines that readers of the comics have enjoyed. Cross pollination has produced some fun moments and at least two great films, "The Avengers" and "Captain America: The Winter Soldier". Certainly, the D.C. comics, with the most iconic Super heroes of all times could do the same. The Christopher Nolan Batman films are pretty much a separate property that Warner Brothers would like to merge into a cohesive Universe with Superman. 2013's "Man of Steel" was an attempt to restart that franchise with an eye to building a comparable comic universe to the Marvel films.
One of my major complaints about the new version of Superman is that the story and the character are so serious as to lack any joy at all. Henry Cavill has a sly smile that could be used effectively if the screenwriters and the director choose to do so, if any of you saw last year's "Man From U.N.C.L.E." you know what I am talking about. There is really only one moment when Clark Kent/Superman seems like he might be enjoying his time her on Earth, of course if you came home to Amy Adams sitting in the bathtub, you would smile too. That's about it though. There should be more by play between the main characters and there is not much. The only other time a smile might cross your face when this film is running is when Wonder Woman shows up and the two guys simply look at each other and "wonder" where she came from. Superman gets duped a couple of times in the film and that feels like a problem also. Cavill's best scenes are with his co-stars from the original film he appeared in, otherwise he seems to be brooding and angry most of the time.
Now you expect Bruce Wayne/Batman to brood, after all he is "The Dark Night". One of the things that should surprise the pessimists about this film is the performance and portrays of Batman by Ben Affleck. A redeeming feature of this film is that it accurately suggests that there is an aftermath to the wanton destruction that took place in the earlier film. This story connects Bruce Wayne to those events as an eyewitness and a victim. Batman's frustration with taking down criminals is exactly right, they are like weeds, as soon as you pull up one, another rises to take it's place. This Bruce Wayne is suspicious of Superman and willing to try to take a stand, even though Alfred and the rest of us can see that it is a little bit driven by tunnel vision. Affleck does a good job playing a conflicted and grim Bruce Wayne as he tries to figure out what plots are afoot and what role Superman plays in them. There is a scene at a fancy reception given by Lex Luthor, that allows Afflect to play detective and try to flirt a little. Just like Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne is given an insufficient amount of time with his personal life to feel much of a stake. Jeremy Irons is a great choice to play Alfred, but he is very under-utilized in the movie and that is a pity.
Neither character gets much of a chance to make an impact on us emotionally because so many things are happening in the story it is hard to keep track. Kryptonite is being discovered, as is Wonder Woman, and Lex Luthor is plotting three different things at once, some of which feel unnecessary in the long run. There is an investigation into Superman's intervention in a terrorist camp and a disgruntled victim of the war with Zod is part of the intrigue. In the course of two and a half hours, there are a half dozen story lines and they are interspersed with flashbacks and dream sequences so often that it is sometimes difficult to tell how it all fits together and what actions really are supposed to be taking place. It does not help that Jesse Eisenberg has been directed to play Lex Luthor as a victim of ADHD with a touch of paranoia. Comic book fans who complain about the villain monologuing the hero, should appreciate the frequency with which Eisenberg simply can't complete an idea out loud, or in one very obvious case, coherently. This film is really a straight drama with very little in the way of heroics. The drama is complicated and the characters are shown in such murky circumstances that it is hard to fathom motive even when the actions are explained. One person in our group put it in a straight forward way, "Why can't Superman and Batman see that they are being manipulated and simply kick Luthor's ass?" That's a good question and it is not an easy one to answer.
So, at this point we have that the tone is grim, the plot is convoluted, the characters lack much character, and it is long. So whats there to recommend? Well, the look of the film is impressive in scope and original in conception. Batman's toys are integrated into the story well and as I've already said, Afflect does a fine job with an older, discouraged and angry Batman character. There are two sequences with Superman's family that are pretty solid, and Amy Adams is naked in the bathtub. So that's an inventory of what's good about this film, is there anything great in it? The best element of the film is Wonder Woman, who is kept mysterious for the most part and arrives on the scene in a moment spoiled by the trailers for the movie but still able to give us a thrill. Gal Gadot was in four of the "Fast and Furious" movies and I don't remember her at all [OK, I've only seen three of them myself, but she was in all three of those], here you will definitely remember her. She is shooting a stand alone "Wonder Woman" movie and her presence in this film, makes me want to see that. I also like the seeds that have been planted for future films featuring characters from the Justice league. The problem that I foresee is that the tone of each of those stories will be as down as these first two films have been.
We need a little less sturm and drang, and a lot more character. The central characters don't have to be cartoons but they could be more human by having some emotion other than being pissed off. Two charismatic actors are being played with by director Zack Snyder. He has them as his action figures to move through an afternoon of a child's version of a story, "fight-explosion-fight-chase-fight." The screenwriters need to take a lesson from the films from the past that used these characters. We should like them because they have strength but also personality. A shot like Michael Keaton in gravity boots or Christopher Reeve discovering that phone booths have become phone kiosks, would go a long way in creating some goodwill for these projects. Spectacle is enough for now, but if you want people to stay engaged for a dozen more films from this universe, you better give us more to care about.
It was just two years ago that I went to a screening of "The Ten Commandments" at this same theater. That showing was not a Fathom event but rather part of a series AMC Theaters did that year running a whole variety of older movies. It was not particularly well attended in part I'm sure because of a lack of promotion. Today, I returned to the Red Sea with Charlton Heston and because the screening was a Fathom Event in conjunction with TCM, the theater was quite full. It was not a sell out but it was impressive for a Sunday afternoon screening of a sixty year old film.
Once again the film was spectacular, and although the special effects are six decades behind today's digital technology, it still feels more than impressive. TCM Host Ben Mankiewicz pointed out that much of the exterior work was shot in Egypt and that there were enormous sets to complement the camera trickery that makes the city of Goshen appear so impressive and of course the parting of the Red Sea so notable. The photographic effect of the final plague on Egypt looked like God's green fingers were coming from the sky and that the fog which clung to the ground was his breath, turning Ramses edict on itself and slaying the first born of Egypt while passing over the Israelites who marked their thresholds with lambs blood.
The style of the dialogue sometimes provoked a bit of laughter from the audience. Let's face it, half of the time anyone says the name of Moses, they repeat it a second time in the script. The things that are most believable in the filming are the impressive use of the extras, especially in the Exodus scene itself. The geese, and goats and camels and cattle all interact in a very realistic way with the impressive cast of thousands. Still none of it would matter if Mr. Heston and Mr. Bryner were not convincing in their parts. While much more theatrical in nature than most of us are used to in acting today, both the leads are effective with their faces, body movements and voices. Both of them make large public pronouncements that would sound silly coming from today's leaders but are sincere in the context of this film.
So many character actors are in the film that it is a wonder that they could keep them for as long as it took to shoot the film. I've heard it said that Edward G. Robinson was miscast in the movie but his slight NY accent did not seem to be a distraction to me. Vincent Price was suitably slimy and hearing John Carradine's sonorous voice backing up Heston was a delight. The only performer who seemed slightly awkward at times was Anne Baxter, but her scenes near the end of the movie were far more effective than the love scenes in the first hour.
It's Easter season so this film is a perennial and it made sense for TCM to schedule it during the Holy Week. If you are looking for some easy way to commemorate the Holiday, the nearly four hour investment in this movie is probably worth your time. It is also playing again this Wednesday, so play hooky and go, you will be glad you did.
The movie is a drama set in civil war torn China, before the Japanese invasion a few years later. A motley crew of travelers is taking the train from Peking to Shanghai. On board are a British Military Doctor and a woman he once loved but abandoned, who now survives on the generosity of the men in her life. Their reunion is an awkward one since he has learned that she is the notorious"Shanghai Lily". There is a drama played out involving the revolutionary group and a hostage situation with the train. Warner Oland, who would go on to play Charlie Chan, is a mysterious figure with an unpleasant manner who figures into the story and he provides a great character for us to root against. 
