AMC Best Picture Showcase 2015 Day One

I still can't talk everyone into doing the one day version of this, even though there were only eight films nominated this year. This is an extremely rare year for me, in that I have seen only two of the nominated films this year. I combination of circumstances kept me away from the movies when they were first released and then as it got closer it just seemed to be a better idea to wait and see them all at the annual showcase at our AMC theaters.

Today the first two films that ran were the two that I have previously written about. Both films were in my top five for the year and one of them was my favorite film of last year.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

This marvelous Wes Anderson film is a joy to behold. Filled with eccentric characters, an outlandish plot and a story structure that allows dozens of actors to pop in and out of the film, it is hysterical and very well put together. A combination of miniatures, process shots and fantastic set design takes us through a pre-World War Two , Eastern European country with Ralph Fiennes as M. Gustav, the concierge at the Grand Budapest Hotel and his faithful Lobby Boy.

Whiplash

If you have not seen this film yet, prepare to be shocked. It is one of the most intense experiences you will ever have at a movie and there is virtually no action and with one mild exception, no violence. This is a game of mental torture and artistic chess played by two unlikable characters, both of whom need each other in the worst possible way. Expect J.K. Simmons to walk away with the Best Supporting actor award. Terrence Fletcher is a nightmare of a teacher but a driven artistic taskmaster may be what is needed to push someone to greatness. Just be aware that there is a huge amount of collateral damage along the way. My Favorite film of the last year.

Birdman : (or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

This one has been discussed a lot since it came out and it may be one of the favorites to win the big award next week. I was aware that it was a surreal film that uses off camera voices, strange visuals and an unusual set of actors who at times seem to be mining their own experience for the purpose of making this movie.

It is largely a one man show although there is an outstanding supporting cast, including two actors nominated for their roles in the film, but Michael Keaton is the show here. As an actor who make a series of highly successful films in the early 1990s but now is struggling to find artistic and financial success in a Broadway show, Keaton is "Batman", sorry, "Birdman".  The character he plays reflects every insecurity an actor is likely to feel. He has written an adaption of a story by Raymond Carver, and id directing it himself. The voice he hears is his alter ego from the successful film series, both spreading doubt about the current undertaking but also bolstering his confidence at key moments.

As the film starts, I noticed several trademark Keaton mannerisms in the performance. He pauses in mid sentence, he shakes his head and holds up his hands as we have seen in several of his earlier works, but the longer we watch, the less we see of the familiar "movie Star" and the more we see of a troubled performer at war with himself and the world. Despite the shots that Hollywood takes from the script, Keaton shows that he has mastered the art of screen acting. He underplays scenes at times and makes the grand gestures at just the right moments. If he wins the award, it will not be some lifetime achievement honor that is catching up with him. He will have deserved it.

The movie also skews Broadway, rehab cliches, reality TV, critics and modern social media. While less focused on the narcissistic fantasy of love that "Her" projected last year, "Birdman" shows us how shallow comments and accidental video can build up a personality. The fact that a man not schooled in these techniques manages to make them work in his favor is part of the joy of this movie. It is very cleverly shot, suggesting a continuous point of view through out the movie. There is an occasional passage of time but the camera always picks up at the last spot that it left us. This does mean that the photography is sometime a little frenetic, but you probably don't need to take any Dramamine.

This picture is a chance for director Alejandro González Iñárritu, to show off a little. The only other film of his that I have seen is the multistory culture clash movie "Babel " which was not nearly as visually accomplished but was a lot more coherent. "Birdman" is jarring in it's oddness but very interesting and thoughtful. It reminded me of a less irritating version of "Black Swan", without the "Twilight Zone" twist.

Selma

The story of the civil rights movement continues to be an important one to this country. It is hard to imagine that the events depicted here happened in my lifetime. It is also hard to believe how much the film makers tried to turn the passionate Martin Luther King Jr. into a different kind of hero. There rational and compassionate minister gets a steroid injection by the cutting together of many of his words into a series of sermons and speeches that shown in this manner, make him more belligerent than the times called for. So much of the story is on point that it seems like a cheat to shoehorn in some of the extra drama.

I have read that former members of L.B.J.'s administration are offended at the way their President was depicted in this movie. Johnson may have prioritized things but he was not an impediment to the Voting Rights act. In fact he had authorized a stringent attempt to create a bill that would be as strong as imaginable. Despite having 68 Democratic Senators he feared that the Southern democrats would block the legislation so soon after the Civil Rights Act had been passed the year before. The movie attempts to show how the violent tactics used by the authorities in the South, spurred Johnson on to support the legislation. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen was particularly moved to push the legislation through because of the Selma March and the tactics used by the Alabama authorities to stop it and it is one of his legislative legacies.  the problem was very complex and this film focuses on the infighting of the different supporters of the legislation in the Civil Rights movement and an occasional appearance by intransigent  Governor George Wallace. The performances by Tom Wilkinson as Johnson and Tim Roth as Wallace are good side lights to the story but the main focus of course deserves to be on Dr. King.

David Oyelowo plays King with a great deal of dignity and authenticity. His cadence and voice range seem to fit the part perfectly. He has several opportunities to channel Dr.  King at the pulpit or the podium, and he comes off effectively at both. If there is a weakness to the film it is that it is so dependent on exposition that it seems as if it is a series of endless conversations. Sometimes they take place in the Oval Office, while others are in a bedroom or in jail. Regardless, there is a lot of talking going on and it seems like it is all written as a history lesson rather than a drama. The most compelling parts of the film are the recreations of the racial confrontations with police and state troopers. These are the events that manage to spark some life into the movie.

"Selma" was the longest film we saw today, and unfortunately it felt like it. The movie loses it's pacing every time another meeting takes place and there are a lot of meetings in this story. Still it is a compelling story because of the events that it depicts if not the scenes that dominate the film. The set design and costuming are effective at evoking the time and place for these events. Right up until the unfortunate rap tune that is used over the closing credits, the movie felt authentic. When that tune started, it felt like the film became polemic instead of enlightening, and that was a turn off for me.

Next Week Part Two: The Final Four Best Picture Nominees.

Fifty Shades of Grey

OK, this is clearly not a film made for me, but I do know some of the people it is made for and they will mostly be happy to have it to go with their copies of the book. You know , the one that started off as fan fiction porn inspired by "Twilight" and then pulled from on-line and published in traditional form so that all the Moms who don't have access to the internet can perv out on it as well. After all the hype about the percentage of time the film spends with the leads naked, I'm afraid I found it a lot less enticing than I expected. I also found it less laughable than most of the reviews and comments from skeptics make it out to be. This is not an endorsement, just a recognition that this film works pretty much the way most "romance" films do, only with an over-hyped sense of kink.

There is not really much point in belaboring the issue, the reason people are going to see this is the BDSM angle the film has on the story. The rest of what you get is standard romance novel plotting about a girl from modest means falling for a rich guy who is really good looking. That's it. They have the usual slow build up to sharing their feelings, the one where we see them meet, do a little social tangle, push back against the feelings, and then give in to them. This is the stuff of a thousand books and movies. It is sprinkled here with the elaborate lifestyle that a billionaire can lead, so the wooing includes helicopter flights, luxury cars and the freedom that comes from being able to buy whatever you want. Sometimes that includes trying to buy the attention (not love) of the girl you are smitten with.

People who are deriding the film as amateurish and the dialogue as laughable , are simply taking a position. The movie is competently made with some very standard scenes of budding romance and some deliberately silly humor. It does not rise to any great levels but it is certainly not the steaming pile that it is accused of being. I thought it felt over long and I was surprised at how long it took to get to the "good stuff". When the sex scenes show up, there is barely a sense of eroticism in the start and by the end of the film, it was sort of dull that we get another round of whipping, this time destined to create a cliff hanger for the next film in the series.

I don't want to get into the sexual politics that a story like this invites. I just saw a rant from my daughter on tumblr concerning Anne Rice's defense of the film, and I really don't want to get involved. My kid is smarter than I am and very articulate and also full of opinions that I don't agree with. Instead of spending time discussing a piece of pop ephemera, I'd rather just avoid the subject and let those with passion on the subject have their say. I don't feel passionate about this film one way or the other, that should be enough for anyone to make a judgement about whether they want to see it.

SPECTRE Vlog

Just Sharing some stuff you all might want to see.

Seventh Son

Fifty or sixty years ago, this movie would have featured the stop motion animation of Ray Harryhaussen. It would have been made with elegant sets made on a limited budget and it would feature actors not entirely familiar to American audiences. Times have clearly changed. This movie is packed with CGI creatures and sets, it has a cast headed by well known Academy Award winners and nominees. Marketing and production priorities have clearly evolved. There is one thing though that has not altered in all the time passed between "Jason and the Argonauts" and "Seventh Son", fantasy adventure movies still work based on simple story premises and the right attitude by the film makers. The people behind this movie have exactly the right attitude.

This film is a throwback to weekend afternoon matinees and more innocent adventure films of the past. This is not a reinvention of a well know story like "Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters" from a couple of years ago. That film turned CGI into the main reason for seeing a film. It was loaded with violent destruction and blood delivered in 3D. "Seventh Son" also features the destruction of witches, but not by decapitation or Rube Goldberg weapons. This is old fashioned hero magic against the dark forces of the world. With the exception of relatively mild conflagration of witches, the violence here is on the PG level. You could safely take a couple of bright eight to twelve year olds and not have to worry about nightmares or turning them into gore hounds.

I hope that doesn't sound like a knock on the movie because it is far from it. This is a recommendation for people who are looking for a movie with tradition adventure elements featuring monsters and brave men fighting the odds, but can do without the viscera flying off the screen in their faces. There are five or six witches featured in the story and they all turn into some kind of monster. All of those monsters are of the 50s flavor, they are inventive, dangerous and unlikely to rip people into small pieces just for fun. The sensibility of this picture is light and fun in spite of the dark themes and characters.  Julianne Moore is a witch who turns into a dragon but was caged and banished for many years by a knight with special gifts. That knight must be the seventh son of a seventh son, who becomes what is referred to as a spook, a wandering hero who tames all sorts of dark magic and evil in the world. Jeff Bridges is Master Gregory, the knight who contained her and he is training an apprentice to take over his job. When she finally manages to escape, complications arise and we get a another young hero emerging from the shadow of an older master, the hero with a thousand faces has returned. The Lebowski reunion of Moore and Bridges has none of the knowing self satisfaction of that Coen classic. This movie plays all the characters straight.

When I first saw the teaser for this movie it was almost two years ago. Jeff Bridges had made a similar film that was pretty sad called R.I.P.D., where he is mentor to a dead Ryan Reynolds. I did not hold out much hope for this movie, it looked like just another CGI crapfest that would be as disposable as this morning's diapers. Imagine my surprise when it turns out to be a simple popcorn story with a fun sensibility that could have been written five decades ago. The look of the monsters is fun rather than gross and the story is pretty easy to follow and includes a little romance, a little revenge and a few secrets along the way.

The very first thing that grabbed my attention and made me have hope for the film was the score by Marco Beltrami. The sound is swashbuckling light at the start. It does not try to overwhelm us with brooding power. Instead it builds the characters and sets a tone that suggests something fun rather than something solemn. While there is a lot of CGI, it did not feel like it was constantly used just to make us gasp, rather it brings the world of the story to life but never ignores the characters. The work is also stylized enough to make it seem like a movie rather than absolutely real. That may sound like another criticism but fantasy films need to be a bit unreal at times to help us suspend our disbelief in the right way. There are nearly a billion people living in India, and from the credits, nearly half of them worked on the special effects for this movie.



If I have negatives they are limited. Bridges is channeling the same character voice he used in R.I.P.D and it sounds too garbled at times. Young star Ben Barnes has a haircut straight from 2015, which seems at odds with the dark ages settings and costumes. Other than those minor quibbles, I found this to be a delightful surprise. What could have been a total waste of time turned out to be a fun time at the movies. If your kids are too old for Sponge Bob, this is the one to take them to this month.

Oscar Blogathon--Neglected Supporting Actor Performances of 1975

This  is my entry into the 31 days of Oscar Blogathon hosted by Paula's Cinema Club, Outspoken and Freckled and Once Upon a Screen. This week focuses on Oscar Snubs. For forty years I have been stewing on this injustice and I am thankful to have an opportunity to vent. Please be sure to check out the other posts on this project at the sites listed above. I have also included links to relevant posts of my own in this entry.




I have always maintained that 1975 was one of the great years in American movie history. Along with 1939 and 1982, this year from the middle of the last golden age of cinema had a plethora of worthy films. I would never denigrate "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", or "Dog Day Afternoon". "Barry Lyndon" is lovely but I despise "Nashville". The picture that deserved to win the big award is featured on the masthead of this blog so it is no secret that I harbor an admiration for Steven Spielberg's "Jaws". It was an oversight to neglect that movie but it was understandable given the fine work done by all in the eventual winner.
What I do find unforgivable however is the negligence of the Academy's Actor's branch to include two performances from that year in the supporting actor category. Not only were the two performances I want to highlight for you ignored, they were far more deserving than any of the roles that did receive nominations. Just to refresh your memory, in case you don't carry that sort of trivia around in your head for just such a discussion, the nominees in the Best Supporting Actor category were, Brad Dourif as Billy Bibbit in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Burgess Meredith as Harry Greener in "Day of the Locust", Chris Sarandon as Leon in "Dog Day Afternoon" and Jack Warden as Lester Karpf in "Shampoo". The eventual winner was sentimental favorite, comedian, vaudevillian, and TV personality George Burns, as Al Lewis in "the Sunshine Boys". All of these men did fine work, and no one should be embarrassed to have been included, but the five selected did not include career defining work from two other well known and worthy actors.


Let me start with the performance that is least likely to be remembered by today's movie goers. Brian Keith was maybe best known as a Television actor. He starred in two separate successful series, one in the 1960s, "Family Affair" where he played Uncle Bill, the bachelor guardian to his brother's orphaned children. In the 80's he costarred in Hardcastle and  McCormick, he had two or three other series that did not last more than a season or two as well. He made an appearance in many films since he started in the business but worked most consistently in TV. In 1975 he showed up and off in the John Milius written and directed "The Wind and the Lion".

Keith played President Theodore Roosevelt, perhaps the most accomplished man we ever had in the job of President of the U.S.. It is also a role that is parodied in films, depicting Roosevelt as a reckless headstrong cowboy, whose bellicose manner was defined as the "Big Stick" policy. What may not be said as frequently is the first part of the policy, "speak Softly". Keith manages to to convey this dual nature of Roosevelt in this adventure film inspired by a real historic incident.

In the story, Sean Connery is a Berber brigand who has taken an American woman hostage for political purposes in Morocco. As he is preparing to run for the office he inherited, Roosevelt seizes upon the event as a potential campaign issue. Keith never raises his voice or shouts. His whole performance is level but with a lot of vocal nuance. Keith had a naturally gruff voice that fits with our image of the Rough Rider Teddy. He uses tone and pacing to emphasize some deep philosophical ideas well at the same time laughing at himself for taking things so seriously.

Keith has a bit of an advantage in his performance by playing opposite Director/Actor John Huston who plays Secretary of State John Hay. Huston had another one of those great voices and the two of them crossing swords in the White House or out on the shooting range made for some wonderful scenes in the movie that contrasted nicely with the action adventure scenes set in Northern Africa. Keith gets some nice moments of power conveying the certainty of his foreign policy. Roosevelt was know as a man of action and that's exactly how he is represented here. Not by having him run around in circles crying Bully every five minutes but by speaking forcefully and decisively. His actions are not shown to be short sighted or politically motivated but rather, that he understood the political advantage his manner and policies provided him.

The closest the film comes to mocking Roosevelt is in a scene where he tries to describe to a man from the Smithsonian, how he wants the grizzly bear he shot to be displayed. He poses with hands up and growls, and encouraged by his daughter, repeats the pose and growl on a table. Part of it is political theater, but mostly it comes across as the enthusiasm of a man who knows what he wants. Keith's jovial nature in the scene contrasts effectively with an earlier scene in the wilderness with an entourage in tow as he speaks about the taking of the bear with a magnificent vista behind him. He is proud of the accomplishment but also sad. He expresses an admiration for the grizzly that seems heart felt and warm, again mostly because of the vocal variety he uses. He smiles with his voice and speaks wistfully about America's place in the world.


Connery and Keith never shared any scenes in this film. Their characters are an ocean apart but very similar in nature. In the closing of the movie is the closest we come to an interaction as Roosevelt, suffering from blindness in one eye, sits at the foot of his bear and reads a note from the Rasuli, describing their places in the world. The two actors would share the screen a few years later in the execrable "Meteor" but nothing there matches the power of Connery's voice over narration as Keith sits in silence and acts with just his shoulders and hands in the scene.




While Brian Keith being ignored is a disappointment since he never had another part equal to that role, the second actor ignored is a crime beyond my comprehension. If you were to ask almost anybody in the movie business, what are the most culturally influential films of the 1970s, there are really two main answers. "Star Wars" is a juggernaut that turned the geek audience into the main driving force of popular culture today. All the comic book movies that dominate the screen these days are descended from that George Lucas film in 1977. Yet it was two years earlier that the ground began to shift, the blockbuster mentality began to rule, and the talent of Steven Spielberg was recognized by the world. The failure to nominate Steven Spielberg for the best film he ever made is probably a result of jealousy by other Academy members and hubris by Spielberg himself. The failure of the actors branch to mention Robert Shaw is inexplicable.

"Jaws" is a film that everyone who watches movies knows about, and anyone who loves  movies cherishes. The story behind the making of the film has been told before. So has the story of the impact of the film. This is not the first time I have complained about the neglect of Robert Shaw either. As a vocal advocate of this movie I will freely admit that this is not an unbiased opinion. I consider it a duty to remind the world on a regular basis of the greatness of this film, and this post gives me the opportunity to do so through the means of promoting a great screen performance.


I have done maybe a dozen posts over the years on some aspect of this film. It is a film I know I can say I have literally seen at least a hundred times because every year since it has been available to rent or or buy on VHS, watch on cable or on laser disc or DVD, or Blu ray, I have done so approximately four times a year. It is downloaded on my Kindle right now, waiting for an opportunity during a long wait in line or a medical appointment that is taking too long to get to. One of the reasons that it is so repeatable is the performance of the aforementioned Mr. Shaw. It is a part that is fascinating every time I watch it and there is always something new and amazing to discover.


To begin with, the character of "Quint", although introduced in the first act of the film, doesn't reappear in the story until halfway though the movie. That first introduction is incredibly memorable, with Shaw scraping the chalkboard and chewing his food during the town council meeting. He condescends to everyone in attendance and then walks out of the scene. The force of his personality lingers over the meeting and the rest of the film. We know this smug, superior fisherman in the ancient sweater jacket and muttonchops is going to return and be a pivotal player in the story.
While he does pop up in one brief moment, chuckling to himself over the amateurs who think they can bring in the shark, his return to the story takes place on his ground. The business he runs is filled with stewing cauldrons of shark cartilage and homemade liquor.  His self assurance is spat out at the way he mocks Richard Dreyfuss's characters attempt to provide some credentials by mentioning the America's Cup. Shaw's English background helped make the flinty New England  accent more realistic. His devil may care costuming impresses us with his working class manner of thinking. He is a man who knows his place in the world and is completely confident in it up to the end. Look at the body language as he surveys the equipment that Hooper is bringing aboard, he might just as well have spit.

The on set legend is that Shaw disliked Dreyfuss and that dislike carried over to his performance. Shaw was also an alcoholic who needed just one drink to turn mean. It sounds like he was the perfect fit for the role. I recently saw "The Godfather" and Sterling Hayden who played Captain McClusky in that film was originally supposed to take the role of Quint, but tax complications kept him out and fortuitously put Shaw in. I can imagine Hayden fitting the part with his haggard look and somewhat raspy voice, but the character would have played very differently. I think he would have come off as an old man set in his ways and believing in them. Shaw provides some of that, but he also manages to suggest that he is just a little off hinged.

For example, the Limerick he recites as Mrs. Brody is dropping off her city slicker husband to go on the shark hunt, sounds so much more snarky and odd coming from a younger man and one who is taking such glee in sharing it out of nowhere. Quint projects it across the sounds of the Orca being loaded and he smiles knowingly as he gets to the somewhat dirty payoff. Shaw almost puts a chuckle in his voice but stops just short of being cloying. Shaw plays Quint as if he is tickled at the chance to show up all these land lubbers. Of course he is also the master of his own boat and while Brody does complain back at one point, Shaw makes it clear in near silhouette and with a frozen posture, that he is having none of it.

Carl Gottlieb, the credited screenwriter along with book author Peter Benchley, largely gives credit to Shaw for the most famous monologue since Shakespeare. The story he shares is a ghost story about the demons who have haunted him and turned him into the character he is. The fact that Shaw sells the story makes it all the more jaw dropping. This one scene would have won the award for any number of actors. The five minutes in this scene trump the whole five minute performance of Beatrice Straight in "Network". Of course the role was not limited to that one scene and just about everywhere else, he burns up the screen with his stare, his grin or his hat. The by-play with Roy Scheider as Chief Brody, exists in a friendly but condescending universe.
The three leads are all well cast and well played, but it is the prickly off-kilter Quint who gets the best scene and makes the most memorable impression. Robert Shaw played a series of tough guy roles over the years. Some of them steely like Red Grant in "From Russia With Love", or Doyle Lonnegan in "The Sting". Others were playful and heroic like the pirate in "Swashbuckler". "Quint encapsulates both spirits and puts a haunting backstory in the mouth of a master actor. It's nice that George Burns got an Oscar and a new career from his role in "The Sunshine Boys", but history shows that the Academy can make a mistake in the interests of sentimentality. It is my opinion that they did so in 1975.

Star Wars Poster Finally Ready

Way back in 1987, I visited my favorite store in Hollywood, "Hollywood Book and Poster". At that time they were located on Las Palmas, just North of Hollywood Blvd. It was a cavernous room with high ceilings which made it possible to display all the cool new posters that were for sale. I'd purchased a number of items over the years, usually in the $10-$40 range. The most notorious find was the original "Revenge of the Jedi" poster I bought when the movie was still called "Revenge of the Jedi" in December of 1982. Last year I took it to a screening of the Drew Struzan Documentary and the artist signed it for me. If you click on the image it will take you to my story about that day.


1987 was the Tenth anniversary of  the original release of "Star Wars". When I walked through the store that day, I spotted a beautiful lithograph poster on a thick piece of paper stock that took my breath away. It was a pricey item, at $120. I'd not seen anything like it and because I am a geek, I decided I had to have it. It became one of many Christmas gifts to the family that were a tradition between my wife and I.

It was much too nice to put in one of the standard poster frames you can get at Aaron Brothers or other stores, which I use to display many of my other posters. The idea of having to bend a corner to fit it into a prefabricated frame was an anathema to me. We decided to wait and get it custom framed. Flash forward twenty-five years: we were moved into our house for about eighteen years and I decided to do an inventory of my posters.   One of the things I find is that poster I bought back in '87 and I had done nothing with it, time to remedy that. After having had several pieces done at a local business that specializes in framing (Richards Framing), I knew that the project would not be cheap. So again I bide my time and wait for an opportunity to splurge.

The opportunity came up as I am celebrating my 57th birthday this year. There is a new Star Wars movie coming, and it turns out, as I expected, that the poster I bought a print of in 1987 was painted by Drew Struzan himself. It was a print run of 3000 and he had signed them all. I suspect this was one of the projects that ended up unhappily with the agent he worked with at the time and was mentioned in the documentary. I sure hope he got paid because the image is fantastic.

I just returned from my friendly locally owned and operated business, where Karen, the owner, has done a fantastic job on the project. I have several images to share of the project.
We picked out the matting based on the colors in the poster and she has a very sharp eye for color. This is a perfect match of the blue and orange hues found in the art work.

I tried to get a slightly different view with this second shot and I turned off the flash. Although neither of these images does justice to the poster itself, the mat and framing work is pretty evident. At the moment I don't have it up on the wall but I expect that to be remedied shortly. I will include a shot or two at the bottom of this post when I get that done.




At the foot of the poster is the numbering of the lithograph and the signature of the artist, it is just below and off to the right of the image of Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia. I tried to get a close up, but I'm working with a pretty basic older digital camera and I don't always know what I'm doing.
You can see that this is number 739 of the 3000 prints in this run. It's a sweet little birthday gift that originated as an impulse Christmas gift and has germinated into one of the nicest pieces of movie memorabilia in my collection of geek worthy stuff. I hope you enjoyed the share and if you can ever make it to our neck of the woods, I'd be happy to have you come and look at it in person. It will definitely distract you from the debris in the rest of the house.


Here is a link to Struzan's site where you can pick up an Artist's Proof of this beauty.

 http://www.drewstruzan.com/illustrated/portfolio/?fa=medium&gid=1172&pri&gallerystart=1&pagestart=1&type=pri&gs=1

The Godfather Live

For many years, we have attended the Hollywood Bowl Movie nights and enjoyed the live orchestra as an accompaniment to the images that they show on the screen. Last night was a similar experience but instead of scenes or clips we got the whole film with a live symphony. 
The movie cannot be faulted in any way. Almost universally "The Godfather" is recognized as one of the great achievements in cinema. It is another reminder of the second golden age in Hollywood that lasted most of the decade of the 1970s. The music from the movie is iconic. It is immediately identifiable and has become iconic. A few notes and suddenly anyone in listening range will be transported to the violent, romanticized world of the mafia from the mid-20th Century. The sounds of the film have been used in a million parodies because everyone knows the central themes.

This was my first visit to the Nokia Theater in the L.A. Live plaza. The theater, which has been seen by many on a dozen award shows, seats over 7,000 which is comparable and maybe even a little larger than the Radio City Music Hall in NYC. We arrived early because the Will Call message said there would be line ups, but we were so early I could walk right up. With some time on our hands, the three of us walked over to have dinner at the Lawry's Carvery on the corner. This is an informal dining experience that features some of the same foods served at my favorite dining establishment, Lawry's The Prime Rib. We each ordered a prime rib based sandwich, and a drink, as well as a dessert to share. The total was just over $60, that is until they ran my VIP card and discovered my accumulated points. The three of us ended up dining on .48 cents. That was a nice treat.



We walked back to the theater and enjoyed all the lighted marquees for the restaurants and events and movies and television programs that were being advertised. The Electronic marquee of the Nokia had the logo for the event on it in dramatic red, white and black. There was a minor glitch in trying to enter the theater. I had three sets of keys in my pocket and on two of the key rings I have small tools which include knife blades that are maybe an inch long. I hardly every think of these, much less consider them as potential weapons, but the woman at the metal detector was having none of it so I sent my wife and daughter in and I walked back to the car to unload my dangerous tools.

On returning to the theater, I sought my companions but I ended up on the mezzanine level instead of the loge level and had to be redirected. The theater is impressive in size and elegantly simple. It is not overly ornamented but it has some classic lines and there are subtle colored florescent accent lights on the loge boxes on the sides of the theater.  When we first sat down, the seats were nearly empty, we were almost forty minutes away from the start of the program. By the time 8:00 arrived, every seat was filled. Seven thousand people had shown up to see a movie that is forty three years old.That is the power that "The Godfather" still holds over cinema lovers.

Instead of one large screen, there were three. One located immediately above the orchestra on stage and then one on either side of the stage. You would have a very clear view no matter were you sat in the venue. The movie would be digitally projected, which must certainly simplify the process of synching up the score as played by the musicians with the images on the screen. It was never distracting to me, but I could see that the conductor had a computer screen on the podium in front of him, with the click track imposed on top of the film images so that everything would be timed perfectly. For three hours that is exactly what happened.

The score by Nino Rota, is filled with original music but also traditional Italian melodies and American popular jazz of the 1940s. The musicians moved seamlessly from style to style and they were all excellent. Special notice should however be given to the lead trumpet, the pianist, the mandolin player, and the principle cellist. They had to work the hardest and there are several sections in the movie where they are unaccompanied by any of the other musicians and their solo work was excellent.

One thing that is very noticeable when watching a film with an orchestra playing the music, is the number of times that there is no background music. The dialogue in so many scenes weaves a musical tapestry all by itself. At the convocation of mobsters, the voice of Marlon Brando, and the words that he speaks, flow smoothly through the scene as if they were a music passage. The sounds of gravel and crickets in Sicily, and the noisy children and gunfire on the New York City streets also fill the atmosphere a number of times with any musical sweetening. Of course when a dramatic act takes place, there is a powerful punctuation of the emotion with a fanfare or motif that fits just as it should.

One of the first dates I took my wife on, was a double feature of "The Godfather" and "The Godfather Part II", at the State theater in Pasadena, California. Together, the two films are almost six and a half hours long. At that distant screening way back in 1976, as the first movie ended and we stood up to take advantage of a break, the lights suddenly went down again and the second film stared almost immediately. We sat right back down and made it through both movies without a break. Last night, the screening inserted an intermission right after Michael assassinates Sollozzo and Captain McClusky. I know all too well that there was no intermission in the original film, but it worked well last night and I'm sure it was as much for the musicians benefit as it was for the audience. That gave us an opportunity to narcissisticly  have our picture taken in our seats. Those are very genuine smiles because we were having a wonderful time. The love song from "The Godfather", "Speak Softly Love" was the music we played at our wedding back in 1980. The minister at my childhood church questioned us about it a little but she understood that it was a love song and not really an endorsement of the gangsters in the film and she went along with our preference very easily.  

At the end of the film, when I was waiting in the lobby for my companions in the ladies room, I checked my phone and saw there was a message on my Facebook page. I'd posted that we were attending and an old high school friend messaged me that he was there as well. I would have loved connecting with him for a few minutes, we haven't really seen each other in forty years but it looks like the movies of that decade still hold sway over those of us who came of age at that time. Next time Ron.
Amanda heard someone in the bathroom suggest "Lawrence of Arabia" for a similar experience. I am already waiting for such an announcement, "long live classic movie music!". I know that this event played in New York last summer, I hope it makes it to your town so that you can share the experience of a great film with a magnificent score, performed right in front of you by professionals that really know how to bring it all home. Here in Southern California, we have the finest studio musicians in the world and they did this movie and it's score proud.