I admired the original "Inside Out" from 2015 but I was not really a big fan. Some of the bloggers I follow loved it the best of all the Pixar films, but I found it only modestly satisfying. I have never quite put my finger on why it failed to resonate with me more, until I saw the sequel, to which I had the exact same response. It is fine, with some very clever moments, but there is something not quite right. I think my ambivalence is a result of a very small story arc, that is breached only by a long series of nearly random elements. It's the exact same pattern in both movies.
The best part of the films, is the creative production design and visualization of the concepts. We are getting a simplification of a complex mental process, and if we keep it at that level it works. The problem is that every time a concept is established, a new variation comes along and changes the immediate direction of the story and the process. Of course you need to have complications, but they should grow out of the world that is being created, and not simply imposed on the characters or scenario. As a result, each solution is less of a journey accomplished than an ex-machina imposition. There are simply too many of them to stay compelling, it undermines the drama.
Another reservation that I have detected, is an inherent flaw in character development. The emotions don't really have any legitimate range. Joy needs to stay joyful, because that is her whole reason for being. If she can have other emotions, why do all of the separate characters exist? Her best line is that :"Maybe that is what happens when you grow up—you feel less joy." She utters it mournfully. She also has a breakdown and becomes frustrated that she needs to be joyful all the time. The scenario is clever but it sets out some impossible to meet rules for a story to work.
There is a lot to like about the film. Anxiety as a character is a good add, but needs a little bit of moderation from the other new emotions. The Brainstorm sequence made me laugh out loud, as did the parade balloons of future occupations. The stream of consciousness continues to be a clever idea integrated into the world that has been created here. Visually, the movie succeeds at every turn, with creative imaging and beautiful execution. The sequences of Riley skating and playing hockey are exquisitely presented, and as I've said before, I'm not really a hockey fan.
All of us have gone through the things that Riley is facing in this film. It is tough to balance the conceit of the emotional universe with the daily experiences of the main character. I thought it was a bit more involving in this version of the movie, because we spend so much more time with Riley as a whole character. Joy on the other hand, is basically repeating the same mistake she made in the first film, with a different set of complications that just get resolved arbitrarily. I'm happy the film is doing well, I want the movie business to continue and hits make that happen. I just wish this hit was a little more deserving.
Midweek we enjoyed a double feature of horror films from the 1930s. The classic "Bride of Frankenstein", and the lesser known but very stylish "Dracula's Daughter". It's been less than 18 months since I saw the Bride of Frankenstein in a theater. Back in 2022 I saw The Bride with "The Mummy" in a Fathom event and I wrote about it then and you can read about it here.
The "Bride of Frankenstein" is one of the most stylish films from the 1930s. Filled with what might be described as German expressionism, the lighting and shadows are dramatic and exactly the kind of thing that foreshadows film noir coming in the next decade. Of course there are also the over-the-top performances of Dr Frankenstein and Doctor Septimus Pretorius. The one actor who clearly outshines everyone in the film continues to be Boris Karloff. Although he was against it, this version of the monster developed some language skills, and it helps the story take on some even greater moral dilemmas.
Where is Henry Frankenstein stitched together body parts of the Dead and used electricity to try and bring them back to life, Dr. Pretorius seems to have been using recombinant DNA to achieve his goal, and this is well before the concept of DNA was understood. He appears to have been using cloning and some kind of genetic Magic to produce his set of miniature living beings. That sequence is mostly used for humor, but it does set up the idea that they're going to grow a body around a bone structure as opposed to trying to assemble one from body parts of others. Of course the one exception as they get close to creating the bride, comes when they have to have a fresh heart. Now we're not dealing with grave robbers but murderers.
The Bride of Frankenstein does continue to raise the question of man's control over life and death, and whether we are crossing a Rubicon by trying to create life. The film is all the better for the prologue that features Byron and Shelly and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelly telling the stories on a dark and stormy night. Byron in particular is portrayed as a romantic in a very theatrical way, which sets up the rest of the story very effectively.
"The Bride of Frankenstein" relies on a variety of special photographic effects, miniatures, and production design that creates a Gothic image in a faraway place to give us the creeps. "Dracula's Daughter" is much more sparse in its use of any special effects. They are one or two moments where the process of hypnosis is visualized using some photographic techniques, but when they get to Dracula's castle it's a very basic sequence that is not drawing attention to itself the way the exploding Laboratory at the end of the "Bride of Frankenstein" was doing.
I know I saw this movie two or three times as a kid, but I remembered only a few particular moments. I remembered the ring the Countess Zeleska uses to hypnotize and subdue her victims. I remembered the creepy familiar, Sandor, with his pasty face greased down hair and deep set eyes. He looked like a vampire well before being given eternal life. I also remembered the sequence where the Countess is testing herself with a girl she acquires as a model. When the young woman takes off her blouse and drops down the straps on her chemise, there is a moment of desire that overcomes the Countess, and that largely accounts for the films Sapphic reputation.
The film is atmospheric and has some nice visuals, but it feels like a very straightforward drama with a few horror elements added. The opening and closing of the coffin at the count is sleeps in, and the wrap that she cloaks herself in, revealing only her eyes are as close to transforming into a bat or revealing fangs that we are going to get. We never even see the puncture wounds that doctors refer to on the victims. So everything is played very subtly. Of course that's part of the story The Countess thinks now that Count Dracula is gone, that the spell she is under is broken and it is only her mental state that forces her into continuing to live the nocturnal vampire existence. Thus her interest in the mealy mouth psychiatrist/doctor that she begins to consult and ultimately decides that she wishes to make her Eternal mate.
I had completely forgotten that Van Helsing appears in the film, and that the reason the doctor is involved in the story in the first place is to help his former mentor escape conviction for murdering Count Dracula. The chief of Scotland Yard is portrayed as barely competent, and completely skeptical, but surprisingly accommodating to both Van Helsing and his young former pupil.
There are no big action scenes, we don't get a stake through the heart, at least not on screen. The Countess is betrayed by her familiar rather than the hero. And the vampire doesn't melt in the sunlight at the last minute. The movie ends with very little in the way of dramatic climax, and although we're supposed to have some sympathy for countess Zaleska, we're mostly left with a feeling of sadness for everybody involved. For a movie with very limited horror effects it manages to have the desired outcome on our emotions. A a very worthwhile sequel to the original Dracula.
So in the last 2 weeks we have been able to see three of the Best Picture winners from the mid-70s. A week and a half ago it was "Godfather Part 2", two nights ago it was "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", and last night was our chance to see "The Sting" the film that won the award between the other two. I've seen "The Sting" on the big screen several times, and it is always a pleasure. But seeing it with a full audience adds an extra dimension. Let me explain why.
When the auditorium is packed you can hear the reaction of other audience members around you. I could tell from the gasps and laughter of people sitting behind me and down a few rows, that they were seeing "The Sting" for the very first time. Those who are familiar with the movie are aware that there are several surprise twists in various spots in the film, but most especially in the last Act. It is a complete delight to listen to people who are surprised and amused at the twist that shows up next. Another one of the reasons that seeing a film with an audience on the big screen is so important to me.
The event had some special extras to go with it, in addition to our usual popcorn, a drink coupon was provided for us. We also had a selection of Halloween sized candy that we could pick up before we went into the theater. That stop also gave us a chance to wave at and say hi to Danielle who we had met the week before. Erin, the community outreach member that we met last year, greeted us as we were getting our popcorn. She also shared that our picture was used in the latest email to all of the film fans who signed up for Paramount notifications. That was cool.
Before the film started, a series of screen slides provided some trivia information about the making of the film. Included was a detail that Jack Nicholson had been offered the role of Hooker, ultimately played by Robert Redford. Yeah, I think this was a good outcome, having Jack in the part would have been a completely different kind of movie. The biggest draw for me has always been the outsized villain played by Robert Shaw. is Doyle Lonnegan is a joyless mobster who simply cares only for money and being the top dog. Any action that undermines his pride becomes a motivation for him to seek revenge. That's why the poker game on the train is so important. It provides all the incentive that Lonnegan needs in order to accept a chance at getting back at Newman's character. It allows the subterfuge to go undetected because of his desire for revenge. Shaw plays the part with barely a single smile in any of his scenes. Once in awhile a small smirk appears to indicate to Hooker or to Loneaggan's lackeys that he has the upper hand. It's a joy to see that smirk it wiped off of his face two or three times in the course of the movie.
Director George Roy Hill won the Academy Award for this particular film, and although he is a respected technician, you don't hear many people speak of him with the same degree of awe as Scorsese, Coppola, or Spielberg. He did some amazing films in the '70s and later on this summer we get a chance to revisit the movie that he made with Paul Newman and Robert Redford prior to this, "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid". I recently saw the film "A Little Romance", which he made with Lawrence Olivier and a very young Diane Lane, and it's absolutely terrific. Combine that with the fact that he made the greatest sports movie ever, "Slap Shot", and turned my favorite book into a fairly reasonable film version, "The World According to Garp", and I feel he deserves a little more cache with film fans.
It's not even the middle of June yet, and I feel like I've had a summers worth of great movies already. I'm looking forward to several things in the next few weeks, and you can expect continued updates on the Paramount classic film series 50th anniversary.
I wrote about this film just a few months ago on the Thursday 1975 Throwback project that I am doing. So I will give you that link (here) if you want to see more complete thoughts on the film. For this screening, let me say it was nice to be in a theater full of adults, although I was surprised at the people behind me who had never seen the film before. Their quite cries of anguish when the s*** hits the fan was indicative of the power of this film, even after nearly fifty years.
Nicholson's performance is so much more physical than I remembered and those moments of pain, rage and enthusiasm are all the things that make his character work. In contrast to the cool Miss Ratched played by Louise Fletcher, McMurphy is an angry bag of cats, waiting to be unleashed. The supporting actors are all excellent as well. Director Milos Forman took actors with very distinctive looks and allowed them room to be "off" if not entirely crazy. DeVito, Lloyd, and Schiavelli have great individual moments, Sydney Lassick practically steals the movie from everyone else. Of course Will Sampson is magnificent when he simply utters an unexpected "Thank You". Brad Dourif as Billy will break your heart.
The screening was at the State Theater instead of next door at the Paramount. They had a live show booked in there this last evening.
It is almost beyond comprehension to me that the first time I saw either of the Paddington films was not in a theater. It is however sadly true so this is the first time I get an opportunity to properly write about one of them on this project. For those of you unaware, "Paddington" is the name of a bear who has migrated from Peru to London, and is taken in by a kindly and quirky family, the Browns. The stories are full of fish out of water moments as Paddington moves from being a stranger in a strange land to a loved member of the family and community.
Everywhere you look in the movie, there are charming images and clever little visual prompts. Paddington hops on a bicycle, driven by a local, makes a quick connection to a trash collector's truck that he hitches a ride on, and then meets a bus where he can end up at his destination. There is always a slapstick moment or two for the kids, but adults will smile at the good natured way that Paddington gives everyone he meets the benefit of his trust. Of course we know that doing so is a dangerous thing and the poor bear ends up in trouble as a consequence.
There were frequent moments in the film, where I was reminded of a Wes Anderson movie. The sets, the camera angles and the movements of the actors in the scenes mimic some of the tropes of an Anderson film. The color palate of the prison where Paddington ends up, with the accidentally pink inmates garb is especially reminiscent of some of those Anderson films. Here however, we have an exceedingly polite bear as our central figure, rather than one of the grotesque figures from "The Hotel Budapest".
Enhancing this second Paddington movie is the presence of Hugh Grant, playing the heavy part, but doing so with an incredibly light touch. In many places in the film, you can spot him mocking his own career and joking about his thespian skills. The first film had Nicole Kidman as the villain, and her plot line and tone were quite a bit darker than might be fitting for a kid's picture. Grant however is a perfect, goofball style foil for our intrepid bear with the positive attitude.
This film was at the State Theater, next door to the Paramount. Several of the Family film series pictures will be screening here rather than in the grand movie palace next door. I was happy to see the theater full of families who had small children, most of whom were very cooperative with the idea of staying seated and quite during the film. The delightful howls of laughter when Paddington cuts hair in a barbershop or cleans windows at a high rise, were an extra bonus for a Sunday afternoon. I know some people don't like kids, but those people are deranged. A kid having a good time at a movie is one of the joyous things we should share in our culture.
I subscribe to a Pop Series at the Austin Symphony Orchestra and the final show in that series this season was a concert featuring music from my favorite film composer, Jerry Goldsmith. I looked forward to this evening all year long and it did not disappoint.
The opening of the concert was a fanfare, like you might get from one of the Major Studios at the start of their films. I'm not sure, but I think it might have been the fanfare written by Goldsmith for the Oscars. It was not credited in the show notes, but I do have a link for you if you want to hear it.
The Opening piece was from the Science Fiction film "Total Recall". It uses some non-traditional instruments, which was typical for Goldsmith. It sounds a little like a Basil Poledouris piece.
It is a powerful and driving theme that fits with an Arnold Schwarzenegger film. Loud and Bombastic with some banging percussion that gets you in the mood for spy games on Mars.
Long before I knew his name, Jerry Goldsmith had scored films that in my youth I saw on television. "The Blue Max" with George Peppard is a WWI flying movie about a German Pilot. seeking to become an Ace while also having a love affair with his commanding officer's wife. The flying sequences are quite good.
As the program went through each selection, Robert Faries, a writer, actor and dirctor from the Austin Arts community, introduced each piece with a little history and background on the film and how Goldsmith's work was used. His information was enlightening and enhanced the music selections greatly.
There was a medley of motion picture themes that were strung together in an effortless manner that made the styles that Goldsmith worked in seem incredibly vast. This included pieces from "The Sand Pebbles", "Chinatown", "Air Force One", "A Patch of Blue", "Poltergeist", "Papillion", "Basic Instinct" and my favorite Goldsmith work, "The Wind and the Lion".
The first half of the evenings program finished with a suite of music from "Gremlins". I mentioned it in a couple of posts in the past, "Gremlins" was the inspiration for me to write the only fan letter I ever composed. I sent it to him at Warner Brothers. I have no idea if it ever reached it's target but I am pleased to remember that I did reach out to this music giant when his work moved me.
After the intermission, we quickly dove back into some great science fiction music from "Capricorn One".
Goldsmith always tried to find the contrasting themes to the characters and scenes that the movies he wrote for presented. "First Blood" certainly needed action music, but there is a contemplative theme that permeates the movie. The show notes say "Rambo: First Blood II" but the tune is from the first film, this is an instrumental version of the theme song sung by Dan Hill.
Goldsmith and "Alien" director Ridley Scott did not agree on the tome for the theme of the film. Goldsmith reworked it to the satisfaction of Scott, but as Robert Faires explained, there were also old themes from previous Goldsmith compositions that got used as temp tracks and then stayed in the picture. Regardless of the controversy, the end title music is used in several spots in the film, it is a Goldsmith classic.
Many people will know Jerry Goldsmith because of his connection to "Star Trek". He composed the music for "Star Trek The Motion Picture" and the theme became the theme for the television series "Star Trek The Next Generation". He subsequently scored a few more of the Star Trek Films and TV Shows.
The encore consisted of two themes from movies about American Heroes of WWII. I have never seen MacArthur, but "Patton" is the film that made me fall in love with Goldsmith's music. A Fitting end to the show.
The Paramount continues to try topping itself with great programming on Friday evenings. This week we get a double feature featuring the great actress Pam Grier. The two films that are presented are at the far ends of her career. "Jackie Brown" was a prestige project from Quentin Tarantino that earned Pam Grier a Golden Globe nomination and should have earned her an Academy Award nomination for best actress. This movie was paired with a film from 1974, at the peak of her career in exploitation films, it is actually a pretty decent forerunner for "Jackie Brown", This one is called "Foxy Brown".
Let's start with "Jackie Brown". This is a Tarantino film based not on an original idea of his, or a hybrid of exploitation films that he saw as a child, but rather on the novel Rum Punch by Elmore Leonard. Tarantino adapted the book into a screenplay and made the central character a black woman so that Pam Grier could play the part. I haven't read the original text, I only know the screenplay from having seen the movie several times, but I can't imagine that the book is superior to the very clever screenplay that we get with this movie.
To Briefly summarize, Jackie Brown is an airline hostess for a low budget Mexican holiday flight operation, and she also makes extra cash by smuggling money for a gun Runner into and out of Cabo San Lucas. When things go wrong for Ordell, the gunrunner played by Samuel Jackson, Jackie looks like she is in the crosshairs of both the ATF and the violent Ordell. But you would never say that Jackie Brown was in over her head. This woman is whip smart, and fearless. And she devises a plan to get herself out of trouble with both of those sides.
The film is loaded with those Tarantino touches, such as mundane conversations turned into philosophical questions, expletive filled declarations of both love and hate, and a variety of characters that you don't really like but find very interesting. So it is clearly under Tarantino's thumb, and he makes the most of adapting somebody else's work to his kind of film. In addition to Jackie, there is one other character that is smart and sympathetic and that we will find interesting and ready to root for. Max Cherry is a bail bondsman who is being used by Ordell to make his targets available after they have been arrested. Robert Forrester, plays Max as a sympathetic and wise older man, who does play by the rules but finds himself attracted to the charm of Jackie Brown. Forester has to sell the idea that he is falling in love with the least amount of dialogue possible, in often very brief scenes. That he does so successfully accounts for his nomination as best supporting actor that year, the only Academy Award nomination that the film received.
As usual, Samuel L Jackson is full of expletives and attitude, and his character Ordell is one of the most loathsome psychopaths that we have seen in a mainstream story. This is a movie that plays it straight, and although Ordell looks like a comic book villain at times, he really does seem to feel like a real person, just not one that's very nice. Also along for the ride are Robert De Niro, as Ordell's dimwitted partner in training, and Bridget Fonda as the beach bum girl that Ordell likes to have around as eye candy, primarily because she is white. The dialogue between Fonda and Jackson is frequently brittle and very funny. Fonda's character is an attractive woman who is slightly over her youthful beauty and is now hardening into a harridan rather than a beach girl.
The cast is filled with very confident supporting actors including Michael Bowen, Chris Tucker, Tiny Lister, and most important of all Michael Keaton as the ATF guy that is interested in Jackie both professionally and romantically. Keaton and Bowen are the cops who are trying to manipulate Jackie into betraying Ordell, and Jackie has to outwit them as well as the dangerous gun dealer.
The film turns into a caper/con game movie in the last act, as Jackie and Max try to work out an exchange of money that implicates Ordell, frees Jackie from being under the thumb of the ATF, and also manages to separate the bad guy from his treasure. They do a dry run of the exchange so that the audience gets a sense of what's going to be happening, but of course Tarantino twists it around when they get to the big exchange, and he gives us the process from three or four different perspectives, starting at different times, but ultimately overlapping. It's a complicated sequence, but a good director has managed to make it completely understandable while still keeping us in suspense about what exactly is happening.
All of this only works because Pam Grier is a solid actress, who is finally getting a chance to play a smart character who doesn't rely on belligerence to get her way but rather on cleverness. She is terrific in the scenes where she has to face down Ordell, or when she is flirting with Max. She does get to do the belligerent bit a couple of times in the film, but interestingly she is playing a part with that belligerence, sort of a meta reference to earlier characters that she's played.
I was a guest on the Walt sent me podcast several years ago, where Todd Kristen and I talked about this film. The fact that Disney had bought Miramax, brought this movie into the house of Mouse, and the idea that Tarantino is responsible for a Disney movie just tickled us. I could not locate the episode, but believe me, we talked thoroughly about the film.
The second film in the program was from 1973, Foxy Brown. It's not as intricately clever as Jackie Brown is, but it does give Pam Grier a chance to show the badass that we will be seeing 25 years later in the other movie. I'm going to do a separate post covering Foxy Brown on my site "Grindhouse Alley". When that goes up I will link it here so you can see my thoughts on the second film in more detail.
I'm happy to say that even though it became a late night because of the double feature, most of the audience stayed for both movies. And everybody was very appreciative with Applause at the end of both films. I'll say once more, the Paramount Summer Classic Film Series has hit the mark.
.jpg)
.jpg)
