In a complete turnaround from the previous night's Rocky Horror extravaganza, the Paramount had this Walt Disney Classic Scheduled, complete with Princess Aurora in the lobby to take pictures with for all the little princesses who came to the screening. Amanda was wearing her Sleeping Beauty dress, but I could not convince her to pose with Aurora.
Disney's Sleeping Beauty was the last of the strictly hand drawn animation films, other processes using different technologies have followed. It is a fabulous looking movie with vivid colors, detailed backgrounds and characters with very distinctive features. The three fairies Flora, Fauna and Merryweather are delightful in their differences, and the color scheme becomes a running joke in the film, which ties them to the vision of the movie as well as the plot.
In fact, the good fairies are really the main characters in the movie even though there is a love story and a hero. Merryweather is able to change the evil spell that Maleficent, an evil fairy has cast, so that it is sleep rather than death which ensnares the princess. The fairies are the ones who take the princess as an infant and hide her. When they discover that the young man that Briar Rose (Aurora) has fallen in love with, it is they who come to his rescue when he is captured by Maleficent. They give him weapons to fight her and cast spells to assist him. Aurora and Prince Phillip are almost secondary characters to the story of the fairies.
The film uses a score adapted from the Tchaikovsky's ballet "Sleeping Beauty." The music then feels completely familiar. The main theme which becomes the song "Once Upon a Dream" is lovely and very recognizable, even for neophytes of the ballet world. The style of the castles seems to be authentic of mediaeval European eras but my guess is that is was most closely based on the castle that was already at Disneyland and called Sleeping Beauty's castle, even before the film was finished.
Maleficent is an evil and compelling villain and her look was so effective that when the reimagining of fairy tales fad took over a few years ago, she was a natural. I did not really think it was needed, and I am happy with this iteration of her character. The animals in the film are well used, including three birds who reflect the colors of the good fairies and the raven which is Maleficent's familiar. The two kings are great contrasts visually, one being stout and the other quite lean.
Just as an aside, this is one of the most beautiful LaserDisc packages of a movie.
The greatest cult movie of all time was featured in the Summer Classic Film Series at the Paramount Theater in Austin last night. The theater was packed with over 900 unconventional conventioneers.
It may have been almost forty years since I saw this in a theater with an enthusiastic crowd. Thank goodness for this opportunity, because I'm not sure I will ever make it to a midnight screening again. Last night's show was at 9 pm, and I don't think waiting another three hours would have made the crowd any less raucous.
Almost a third of the crowd had some kind of costuming. Some were quite elaborate and accurate to the screen characters, others just went with the spirit of the film without trying to do literal cosplay. I myself has a medical coat, I could just not bring myself to only wearing my underwear underneath. I think I spared the rest of the audience some trauma as a result.
The Paramount is an older Movie Palace, so in deference to maintaining her condition, many of the props I remember from my days of Midnight screenings were missing. No Cards, Toast, Rice, Squirt Guns were present, and I did not see a Janet Umbrella, although it would be fine to use those. Maybe the fact that no one reads newspapers is the explanation for that.
Many of the call backs, shout outs and interjections that were from my days, were still being used. Brad is still an Asshole, Janet is a Slut and Rocky Responds "What!" at several points. There were new comments being shouted as well, and a few audience members were over doing it because they insisted that everything have a commentary. That might have been a little irritating if not for the fact that the audience also joyfully sang along with most of the songs. The biggest response was of course when Tim Curry descends in the elevator for his big reveal, the audience response go even wilder.
It was so much fun being out with fans who really want to get into the experience.
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.
Report to the Commissioner
One of the lost gems of 1975 is this gritty police thriller that draws us once again into the mean streets of NYC in the seventies. Much like "Serpico" which came out two years earlier, it follows a rookie police detective as he ends up over his head with official corruption and nasty criminals which are hard to sort out. It is hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys sometimes, because the cops can get just as violent as the crooks. There is also a heavy pall of racism hanging over the detective squad that our young protagonist is assigned to.
It's tough enough being the new guy in any situation, school, a party, or the workplace. When you don't fit in physically or culturally, the inside group looks at you with suspicion and mistrust, and that is the scenario that faces Bo Lockley, played by Michael Moriarty. Moriarty was an interesting actor who is still working but has moved to material that is far from the quality work he did early in his career. He has a baby face and a mild voice, which makes him perfect for the naive and idealistic Detective Lockley. The sincerity of the character is what ends up bringing on the major dramatic points of the film.
Just a quick, synopsis as we get going. Detective Supervisor Hanson and Captain D'Angelo, authorize a questionable undercover operation featuring a pretty young policewoman. Bo Lockley is unwittingly used as cover for her identity, but his dogged pursuit of his assignment, runs afoul of the operation. Hanson is played by character actor Michael McGuire, who will come up in a post on "Hard Times" later this year. D'Angelo is played by the great Hector Elizondo. The year before, he had played the arrogant pain in the ass who may be so mad they threw him out of the Mafia Mr. Grey, in "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3". D'Angelo is politically adept but soulless and it is his arrogance that leads to the complicated resolution of the storyline.
The film is filled with actors that you will know and others you will recognize. Yappet Kotto is in another NY Detective Squad, and he plays Bo's training officer/partner. Dana Eclar , who you may recognize from "The Sting" and Vic Tayback, play Kotto and Moriarty's superiors. William Devane shows up late in the movie to play a slick,sympathetic, but sinister district attorney, Sonny Grosso, the real life detective that Roy Scheider's character is based on in "The French Connection", plays another detective, naturally. Richard Gere makes his film debut as that most elusive creature, the white pimp.
Susan Blakely, who had a bit part in "Shampoo" and was about to become a TV Icon in "Rich Man, Poor Man", is the doomed undercover detective, who was the women no one could believe was a cop, and sent hundreds of pushers to prison. Her crusading ingenue has a pretty broad range of what is acceptable undercover work. The fact that she is dedicated to staying undercover is one of the complications that the film features as part of the story.
I saw this movie originally, at the El Rey Theater in Alhambra (a location that no longer exists). I went with my best friend Art, who worked for the Edwards Movie chain and got us in for free. I think I paid to see the movie again a couple of weeks later. Or, it may have been a second feature with some other film I saw, and fifty years later I just don't remember.
The two scenes that I do remember vividly were very different from one another. Bob Balaban, plays Joey, a Vietnam War veteran, injured mentally and physically. Bo becomes a bit of a friend of his by returning the roller sled he uses to push himself around the streets on, having lost the lower portions of his legs. Years later, I saw Eddie Murphy riffing on a character like this in "Trading Places". Anyway, Joey tries to follow Blakley's character for Bo, while Bo is having trouble finding a functioning payphone. The sequence I remember is him rolling through the traffic of NYC and holding onto the bumper of a Taxi, so he could keep up with the subjects he is following. It was a pretty harrowing chase, and very different from the usual car chases you get in movies.
The other memorable sequence is the climax of the film, when Bo and "Stick", the pusher/arms dealer that the woman detective was ingratiating herself with, get trapped in an Elevator at Saks 5th Ave, and basically have a Mexican Standoff with each other in a claustrophobic environment. Cop and crook are faced with bad choices and the characters do a little philosophizing while there.
The film is filled with the casual racism of the era, and Yappet Kotto expresses some of the dissonance that he has to accept in order to fit in with his fellow cops. Moriarty is basically playing a hippie type and that also is a source of the alienation he seems to have, even from his own father, for whom he really joined the force for. The squad rooms, decaying lofts, marquees of the Times Square Theaters, all give this film an aura of the times. It is gritty, dangerous and exciting all at once. Bo gets swallowed up in it, just as his partner predicted, and some of the higher ups try to take advantage of that.
Formatting the story as a series of flashbacks, usually punctuating some narration from "The Report", the film feels fresh in contrast to some of the other movies of the time. Director Milton Katselas was a respected acting coach and teacher at the Beverly Hills Playhouse. "Butterfly's are Free" is probably the best know of the few films he directed.
Although the report that is submitted, finally clears things up, this is another one of those 1970s films with a downer ending. "Chinatown", "Dog Day Afternoon", "Electra Glide in Blue" and a dozen others, all follow the trend of the time, and this picture does as well. In this case, the ending is earned, but that doesn't make it any less despairing.
The Video clip above was shared with us on Saturday Night by Director Robert Rodriguez. He has been hosting a set of five films during the Paramount Classic Film Series, and he was there to share some enthusiasm about this movie. As he explained it, he picked films to talk about because he'd had a chance to meet the film makers responsible for these movies that he loved. Miller was a guest on a talk show that Rodriguez hosts called "The Director's Chair". It was a visit by miller to SXSW a few years ago that gave Rodriguez a chance to sit down with Miller and talk about this film. I have included a video of that interview below.
The few minutes that our host spent talking with us about this film was plenty to get everyone stoked to see "The Road Warrior" as it was known in the States. I first saw this film in 1982, during one of the great cinema summers of all time. I had not seen the original "Mad Max" at that point, so the marketing of the film to an audience as if it were a stand alone feature seems to have worked, since the U.S. was the one territory that "mad Max" was not a big hit in. Rodriguez attributes the failure to the version that played in the states which had a dreadful dubbing, supposedly because we Americans would have a hard time making out the Australian dialect. There was very little chance for that to be a problem with this movie, which is told so visually, you could just about forgo the dialogue.
A dystopian story of survival, where fuel is the most precious resource and gangs of marauders kill and destroy their way across the countryside seeking it, "the Road Warrior " feels like a samurai movie, with a lone outcast coming to the rescue of a town of innocents besieged by the desert pirates. This movie is full of inventive moments and ideas. The Gyro Captain is an antagonist at first, and then an ally. The very idea of the mini-helicopter in this setting was really creative. Max has a symbiotic relationship with a dog that is paralleled by the Gyro Capitan and his snake. Of course the dog is a lot more appealing, and when he exits the story (off screen thankfully) the audience responds sympathetically.
The film is forty years old but I still want to avoid spoilers if any of you have not seen it yet. I do need to say that the twist in the plot to escape at the end was very effective, and another one of those inventive elements that make this movie rise to a level far above the other exploitation material that it could be compared to from the era. In addition to the clever plot moments, the film has some of the greatest car stunts you are likely to encounter. They were done in camera, on set, not in a computer while someone was working from home. The video clip above hints at the dangerous nature of the stunts, but the real breathtaking moments are in the film. Cars levitate due to explosions. Bodies are thrown spinning through the air because of collisions, and jump scares pop out at 70 miles an hour.
The climax of the film is a long chase sequence that is deservedly legendary. Mel Gibson is the stoic hero who drives a tanker seemingly filled with the black gold. as it is pursued by a horde of ruffians that are so distinctive, as to have been copied by a dozen other dystopian movies ever since. The whole chase is accentuated by a propulsive score from Australian composer Brian May. In an aside to the audience, Robert Rodriguez advised us not to listen to it when we are behind the wheel of a car, it might propel us to hit the accelerator inappropriately.
I can rewatch this movie endlessly, it works so well and never feels like it gives you a moment to breathe, even though there are some interludes where there is no action taking place. The poster you see here, was one of two that I helped my friend Dan Hasegawa mount so he could display them in his office at Cal State Fullerton while he was in grad school. I never owned a copy of it and frankly that is to my shame because it is really spectacular. [The other Poster was for "Red Dawn" which I also wish I had.]
Max is an anti-hero in the traditional sense of the word. He does things that are heroic, but he does them for his own reasons, never out of a sense of altruism. One of the points that this movie makes is that such a world view is likely to be the end of civilization, so we ought to give a damn about something, even if it is cool on screen to be a little nihilistic.
Rodriguez displaying a gift he received from Road Warrior Director George Miller.
There is nothing so wonderful as embracing an old friend that you have not seen for years, and discovering all over again, why you loved them in the first place. There were two screenings at the Paramount Theater yesterday, and no it was not a double feature. In the evening we were seeing "The Road Warrior" but first up, we went downtown early so we could enjoy "Mary Poppins" on the big screen. It was an absolute delight and a good tonic to help overcome the dreck that is "Barbie". While both "Mary Poppins" and "Barbie" are fantasy films, one is a delivery system for a ambiguously described political point of view, and the other is an entertainment who has as it's purpose bringing people together instead of driving them apart.
I never read any of the Poppins books, so other than the references made in the film "Saving Mr. Banks", I can't speak to the fidelity of Walt Disney's film to the source material. I can say that Julie Andrews' interpretation is not all sweetness and light, in spite of the clip of her duetting with a bird perched on her finger. She may not be the hard as nails character that appears in the original stories, but she still has a stern visage at times, that said, it does alter in the right circumstances. This may account for why she won the Academy Award for this picture, that and of course her musical talents.
The structure of the film does tend to be very episodic, moving from one musical number to the next. The numbers however do advance the storyline indirectly and lead us to the final evolution of Mr. Banks as a more engaged and attentive father. I was impressed by all of the performers but I was surprised by how well Michael Tomlinson stands up next to the two leads. He has a strong voice and his exuberance in the closing number is the satisfying exclamation point that this film is looking for.
You might think that some of the old style special effects and humorous moments would fall flat with today's audiences and children. We are supposedly more evolved now than we were almost sixty years ago. I however, heard laughter repeatedly, in the right spots, and the audience was eating up some of the funny lines in the script. This was not a jade group getting hipster joy out of nostalgia. This was an audience of families who were sharing something that they could each relate to in the same way. The three year old in front of us was having his first visit to a movie theater, and except for moving onto his Mom's lap in the last hour of the film, was quite taken with what he was seeing. As was I.
The film looks wonderful and the long animated sequence was delightful. Even though Dick Van Dyke is hamming it up at times, it was all in the way of entertaining us, not in showing off. When as Mr. Dawes Senior, he pratfalls slightly with his cane and steps, everyone knew it was meant to be funny and responded in a manner befitting the moment, we all laughed together. Maybe part of the joy I felt was because there was nothing divisive about what we were seeing. This film made me want to revisit the sequel that came out just a few years ago, which I enjoyed immensely. It is a happy thing when a film prompts you to stick with a character, way too often, that is a mistake, but in this case, Mary Poppins is timeless.
It does not matter how much money this movie makes, it is a swing and a miss for me. There was a dullness to the film that is almost incomprehensible given the attention to production design and the Barbie mythology. How could it miss, the casting seemed perfect, the look was accurate for the subject, where did this fail? The answer is the script and the tone that director writer Greta Gerwig and her partner Noah Baumbach have taken with the characters. They have failed the fans of Barbie the toy, fans of musicals, and probably even the fans looking for social political commentary. This movie is a slog that should move along like a pop ditty, and instead it drones on like a folk song that has an unironic theme. It just sits there wanting to be loved, but doing nothing to earn that love.
Let's start with some premises that create problems in the first place. Margo Robbie's Barbie is supposed to be stereotypical Barbie. She is surrounded by other Barbies that have the detail and backgrounds created to make the doll more diverse and play worthy to young girls. That the stereotypical Barbie has no job (not even fashion model) is ok, if that is the only way she was ever played with. We learn who it was that was playing with her later in the story, and that person is not lacking imagination, even if she is not as ambitious as she thinks the culture wants her to be. She is the real stereotype and the one that betrays the intent of the film makers to make social commentary. So the seed is planted that it is the actions of the kids in the real world that dictates the actions in Barbie Land, but that does not work if the real world critique is to be believed, because the rest of the Barbie's all reflect the toy company image of the doll, and we have no idea why they would stick to those roles f the society is as oppressive as is suggested.
Maybe the goal was to be transgressive by suggesting that the imaginary world of Barbie, is designed to placate the girls in the real world so a patriarchy can continue to wield power undisturbed. That might be an interesting way to take the story, but it is not reflected in the Barbieworld. The connection between the two universes does not work in this film. It is also strange that each universe is aware of the other, without having anything more than one previous crossover that gets referenced only briefly. It is apparently no secret to the real world or the Barbie world as to how you get from one to the other. It is a cute little visual transition, but not an obstacle, so why is there limited contact? If I were trying to fix this in the script, maybe the best way would be to use the "Lego Movie" strategy and turn the whole thing into playtime, and we see that the events happening in the Barbie world are a result of changing behavior by those playing with the toys. This script goes only partway on that, and then sets off on a different path.
The whole plotline with Ken is nothing more than a tool to introduce a social commentary into the Barbie Universe, in a way that makes no sense. The existential crisis faced by both Barbie and Ken has to do with their relationship, but that gets shunted aside for some jokes about the patriarchy that might have seemed relevant in 1980, but apparently Gerwig and Baumbach never saw "9 to 5". The excerpts from academic tracts concerning women's roles and men's defining themselves only by their status in contrast to women, sounded silly coming from the mouths of the characters in this film. It was gibberish at times and while there may be a place for such a discussion, this cartoon of a movie isn't it. Those issues seem silly in this context.
Having got the look of the film right, the creators stopped trying to make it entertaining and instead tried to make it relevant and insightful. They failed on both of those points, and at the expense of what should have been some joyful moments. There are two dance sequences in the film which are elaborately choregraphed and performed with complete skill, but instead of being awed by the light hearted moment, I felt exhausted by the tone of the film. Every time I wanted to embrace to movie and jubilantly bath in the elaborate moment, I could feel a hand pushing back, seeming to suggest that my impulses were wrong given what the movie wants to say to us. When Ryan Gosling danced through a fantasy in "La La Land", it was improbable in setting but easy to accept because the film makers on that project wanted us to give into our suspension of disbelief. Here, when Gosling has his big number, I felt like I was being put through the paces, and the tune and lyrics are so forgettable that the moment passes without any impact.
Look, I laughed a couple of times, but when the off screen narrator is the best thing in the movie, there is something wrong. This meta takedown of consumerism, sex roles and what should be joyous, is just a drag. I thought "Oppenheimer" was long, but at least I felt that way in part because it was three hours. This film is not quite two hours but it felt so much longer. If you want to see what this film could have been, go back to 2001 and watch "Josie and the Pussycats". If you want to know how to make a social point and still have fun, watch "The Lego Movie". If you want a valuable lesson about growing up and the role of play time and heartbreak, watch "Toy Story 2 or 3". [Notice I have left a certain actor out of the discussion entirely, the less said the better]
This movie feels like a SNL sketch that would have been mildly funny for three minutes. SNL would have smothered it by letting it run for ten minutes, but Gerwig and Baumbach not only put a pillow over it's face, they do a jig on the grave site, and still don't have any fun. I was not anticipating this movie as much as some other film fans were, but I did hope that it would be fun. Apparently "Good Entertainment" is sold separately.
When a Christopher Nolan film opens, you can count on a fan base to show up, regardless of the subject matter. Nolan has established himself as the preeminent film director of the last fifteen years. Ever since "The Dark Knight", film fans have looked forward to a film with his name attached, regardless of the acting talent involved. His technical excellence, commitment to film and theatrical presentation and his intricately plotted films have given him a reputation deserving of respect. That said, there is such a thing as overhyping a film, and that is exactly the defect that I had with this movie.
“OPPENHEIMER. The best, most important film of this century. If you see one film in cinemas this year it should be Oppenheimer. I’m not a Nolan groupie but this one blows the doors off the hinges,” wrote Paul Schrader. This sort of statement will raise expectations beyond reason, and should be a flag that the writer has an agenda in his praise. My guess is that the subject of the first Atomic Bomb and the impact that achievement had on subsequent weapons development, is what generates this type of enthusiasm. Look, no advocates a nuclear war. Everyone recognizes the dangers to the planet should such an event occur. This has not been a secret for the last 78 years. So a movie that warns us of those dangers, is not groundbreaking, and how important it is depends a great deal on what issues matter to you personally. Writer/Director Paul Schrader has tipped his hand at what he sees as critical, I don't know that the film lives up to that standard.
None of the reservations I have expressed so far are intended to suggest the movie is unworthy, quite the contrary, it is an excellent historical biography about a misunderstood giant of science from the last century. You should certainly go and see it, just tame your ambitions for the film to a practical level and focus on the film making and story telling. The people who are writing about how gut punched they were by this movie, must not have seen a Cold War Thriller in the last fifty years. "Nuclear War=Bad" , got it.
Nolan's films are famous for the use of time manipulation to tell the story. In this film, there is the smallest amount of that approach in any of his films since "Insomnia". There are black and white segments that distinguish timelines in the story from the vivid color sequences, but it is more a technique for indicating flashbacks and flash forwards than it is for advancing the plot. The plot of the movie is basically the rise and fall of Robert Oppenheimer. This is surely a valid project because Oppenheimer was indeed a critical figure in science and the key figure of the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb. His complex life lead to his successes and ultimate embarrassment in being denied an extension of his security clearance, in spite of his service in creating the bomb.
The first third of the film is a long recap of his academic and personal quagmires. Many of the incidents are relevant to later criticism of him, but as a film subject, they feel like they are slowing our progress to the subject of the Manhattan Project itself. As a biography, these segments are acceptable, but the film is sold in part as a thriller concerning the development of the weapon, and that part of the story takes a long time to arrive on screen. The time at Los Alamos is the most effective act in the film. This is where Nolan's expertise with visuals seems key to the movies success. Seeing the film in the large screen IMAX format with the XD enhancements, made the audience feel like they were there with the other observers at Trinity. The sound design is outstanding and the visual largely eschew CGI in favor of more practical effects.
Other than the weapon itself, the two hearings that bracket the story, provide the fireworks for the plot. Lewis Strauss, from the Atomic Energy Commission, becomes an antagonist to Oppenheimer, and his plotting to deny the security clearance produces blowback several years later in his own hearings when nominated to be in Eisenhower's Cabinet. It is the crossing of these two men's paths that sustains the film since we largely are familiar with the bombs results. The drama surrounding Oppenheimer takes place in the early fifties and the Strauss confirmation hearings were in the late part of the decade.
Cillian Murphy is Oppenheimer personified, with his thin and tall build he is a physical match for the scientist. The makeup team does a terrific job helping him play a character that moves across thirty years of time. His youthful gaunt looks in the early years are echoed by a more skeletal visage in his later life. Murphy has a way of speaking that sounds authoritative, cocky, and inquisitive. The one time that it is suggested that Oppenheimer was showing off was when he demeans Strauss's reservations about sharing isotopes with a friendly country. Otherwise, Murphy plays him as respectful of other physicists and intellectuals, although in private he could be dismissive. The personal moments are the least clear in the film. He has a passionate affair with Jean Tatlock, played by Florence Pugh, but other than their physical connection, it was had to see how these two triggered one another. Oppenheimer's wife is played by Emily Blunt, and she is seen as a fragile woman with deep problems, but one who is fiercely committed to her husband and his legacy. Her best scenes are in the hearings where she listens to derogatory information about her husband and she looks like she wants to stab the people testifying, without having to move.
The cast is packed, and I won't take time to salute everyone who probably deserves it, but there are two other performances that stand out. Matt Damon, in a second film this year (Air being the first) is terrific as Leslie Groves, the military commander in charge of the project. He has to be persuasive, belligerent, patient and intelligent in a lot of sequences in the film, and he nails it every time. If I were taking bets on the Academy Awards for the year, I'd put a large wager down on Robert Downey Jr. for supporting actor. I literally did not recognize him in the film, I did not even know he was in it until the credits rolled. As Lewis Strauss, he is venal, powerful and ridged in his persona. The conniving scheme may be an exaggeration of the real events, but Downey Jr. sells us on Strauss as a villain, at least in regard to his dealings with Oppenheimer. Nolan as writer/director and Downy combine to make an accomplished man with insecurity issues, feel like a vindictive bureaucrat with petty personal animus toward Oppenheimer.
So the film is overlong, over praised, but still a great achievement. Like his other films, especially "Interstellar" and "Inception", Nolan is showing off his intellectual credentials a bit, but it would not be undeserved. He has clearly put in the work to understand the basic physics of the atomic process, as well as the political landscape of Washington D.C. . The movie could have been as compelling as "Dunkirk" was, if we had a little more story devoted to the competition with the Nazi group that the Manhattan Project was trying to catch up to and beat, instead of the personal drama that does not feel very clear in the long run. The technical details, production design and performances compensate a bit for the flagging story, but if you have a realistic expectation of the film, you will enjoy it a lot more.
