Original movies produced by and for HBO are, generally speaking, fine quality productions these days -- often to the point that they could be theatrical films. Generally, they have a degree of importance to them. Often they are about real people or real events. The Laramie Project has all of these qualities.
Writer-director Moises Kaufman created a play made up of the actual words spoken by actual Laramie, Wyoming residents following the brutal murder of young gay Matthew Shepard by two Laramie residents. Kaufman then adapted his play into this affecting telefilm. The result is a glimpse of a town thrust into the national spotlight in the aftermath of Shepard's tragic murder.
Kaufman populates his film with many acclaimed character actors, all with relatively small roles. The cast includes Christina Ricci, Margo Martindale, Dylan Baker, Frances Sternhagen, Janeane Garofalo, Amy Madigan, Ben Foster, Laura Linney, Camryn Manheim, Peter Fonda, Jeremy Davies, Steve Buscemi, Joshua Jackson, Lois Smith, Clancy Brown, Bill Irwin, and Tom Bower, among others. The most moving was Terry Kinney as Dennis Shepard, Matthew's father, who gives an eloquent speech at the sentencing hearing of one of the murderers.
The film is so well-constructed and well-edited with different threads of the fabric of Laramie that I didn't notice its dramatic holes until after the film was over. It seems to me that the filmmakers want to indict the people of Laramie, to hold them responsible in part for the culture that led to Shepard's horrific beating and murder. I don't want to lessen the cruelty of the crimes against Shepard, but the crime could have happened in New York City just as easily as it did in Wyoming (and in my opinion, justice may not have been so sufficiently served in a more liberal state.) The people of Laramie were outraged, shocked, dismayed, and horrified by what happened to Shepard, no less than people anywhere else in the country would have been had it occurred in their back yards. I don't mind movies that stack the cards to illustrate their points of view so much as I get bothered by the constant attitude that good, moral people who believe that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong are complete idiots. Most people that I know who have this attitude are tolerant and respectful of gays -- they would just prefer to not have gay culture in their faces all the time. I'm sure that if a television drama actually tried to be sympathetic to such Americans that a publicity nightmare would ensue. My point is that the savage beating of Shepard in Laramie is no more or less abhorrent than gay-bashing anywhere. But the majority of people who oppose special rights for homosexuals are not gay-bashers and in fact are just as repulsed by such behavior as people supportive of gay causes. The Laramie Project does not make this distinction.
Ultimately, The Laramie Project is a consistently fascinating, complex, important piece of filmmaking that errs by villanizing the people of a good city in a good state when the only villains here were the two perpetrators of the murder of Shepard. For that reason, I have to give The Laramie Project a B+.
I watched The Laramie Project on DVD on May 17, 2014.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Monday, May 5, 2014
All About Eve (1950)
Incredibly, I had never seen 1950's All About Eve before this weekend.
Yes, I know that the film is legendary. I'm aware of its position in Hollywood history. I'm aware that it is tied with 1997's Titanic as the movies with the most Oscar nominations (14). I understand that by being cast in this film, Bette Davis felt that director Joseph L. Mankiewicz had rescued her film career. And I can quote several lines from this movie that I had never seen, including the famous "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night."
I'm not sure why it has taken me so long to seek out All About Eve. Friends who are fellow film buffs have consistently urged me to watch the film. This weekend finally seemed like the right time to do that.
The story is relatively well-known. Eve Harrington, a seemingly naïve young woman from the
Midwest, attaches herself to Broadway diva Margo Channing and her circle of theatrical friends. Margo becomes aware that Eve may be trying to gain stardom at Margo's expense, but the people around her seem seduced by Eve's charms. Eventually Eve makes calculated moves that thrust her into the limelight, though there are hints that her fame may not be long-lasting.
The first two-thirds of the movie showcase Davis's tour-de-force performance as Margo Channing. Channing has created a persona for the public that masks her personal insecurities as she feels threatened by her middle-age in a youth-oriented career. She also longs for passionate love. Davis nails the role perfectly. Her Margo Channing is such a force of nature that the film misses her when she isn't onscreen.
Less successful -- though still effective -- is Anne Baxter as Eve Harrington. Eve's adopted persona is demure and kindly; a perfect contrast to the in-your-face Margo. Unfortunately, Baxter isn't nearly as strong an actor as Davis, and in my mind, the film suffers a little because Baxter isn't as natural a fit in the film as Davis.
An argument could be made that Baxter's role is supporting, although the movie allows her to take front and center in the last half hour. Yet both Davis and Baxter were nominated as Best Actress for All About Eve, both losing to Judy Holliday for Born Yesterday. Other nominees were Eleanor Parker in Caged and Gloria Swanson in Sunset Blvd. I haven't seen either Holliday's or Swanson's performances but both are probably deserved, and Parker gave a fine performance in a gutsy role. I suspect that Davis or Swanson should have won the Oscar, but I feel that Baxter's nod was undeserved. (There's also a theory that the vote was split between Davis and Baxter, allowing for Holliday's win. I don't subscribe to the split-vote theory as the math doesn't work out.)
(But MovieRAM, my readers ask. If Baxter wasn't nominated in 1950, or if she was nominated in the supporting category instead, who should have gotten the 5th nomination? Easy answer, my friends. I'd have given the fifth slot to the incandescent Betty Hutton for Annie Get Your Gun.)
All About Eve crowded the supporting actress category too. Celeste Holm played Karen, the playwright's wife, who wields a surprising of influence in her inner circle before she sees that she never should have been supportive of Eve. It's a great, multi-layered performance, and I probably would have been happy had she won. Surprisingly, the great character actress Thelma Ritter got the first of her six Oscar nominations as Birdie, Margo's loyal assistant. It's a small role, and while Ritter excels in it, it is not an award-worthy role. Both Holm and Ritter lost the award to stage actress Josephine Hull in Harvey, another movie that I need to see. (Other nominees were Hope Emerson, who was excellent as a brutal prison matron in Caged, and Nancy Olson in Sunset Blvd.)
While Davis, Baxter, Holm, and Ritter all lost the Oscar for All About Eve, supporting actor George Sanders won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for playing Addison DeWitt, the acerbic theater critic with the poison pen who can make or break careers. While I haven't seen any of his fellow nominees, it is hard to see how any of them could be better than Sanders, who inhabits his role perfectly. It's a magnificent performance in a great role.
All About Eve won Best Picture, Best Director for Mankiewicz, and a Best Screenplay Oscar for Mankiewicz's excellent screenplay. Edith Head won the Best Costumes award, and the film won an award for Best Sound Recording.
A few more thoughts on the film. Marilyn Monroe has an early supporting role in in this movie, and she acquits herself nicely. I thought Gary Merrill as the play's director and Hugh Marlowe as the playwright were too similar in type to share so many scenes together. Mankiewicz's screenplay and direction are extremely first-rate.
Is this Davis's best screen work? It could well be -- though I'm terribly fond of her roles in The Letter and The Little Foxes. I don't think I've ever seen Holm or Sanders quite as good as they are in All About Eve.
All About Eve perfectly depicts the theater world with colorful characters and insightful dialogue. I wish Baxter's portrayal of Eve didn't pale when viewed next to Davis's Margo. Baxter's casting weakened the film for me (I think Donna Reed could have pulled it off.) Therefore, instead of a perfect classic, I have to deem it a very good one instead. Grade: B+.
I watched All About Eve on Netflix Streaming on Sunday, May 4, 2014.
Yes, I know that the film is legendary. I'm aware of its position in Hollywood history. I'm aware that it is tied with 1997's Titanic as the movies with the most Oscar nominations (14). I understand that by being cast in this film, Bette Davis felt that director Joseph L. Mankiewicz had rescued her film career. And I can quote several lines from this movie that I had never seen, including the famous "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night."
I'm not sure why it has taken me so long to seek out All About Eve. Friends who are fellow film buffs have consistently urged me to watch the film. This weekend finally seemed like the right time to do that.
The story is relatively well-known. Eve Harrington, a seemingly naïve young woman from the
Midwest, attaches herself to Broadway diva Margo Channing and her circle of theatrical friends. Margo becomes aware that Eve may be trying to gain stardom at Margo's expense, but the people around her seem seduced by Eve's charms. Eventually Eve makes calculated moves that thrust her into the limelight, though there are hints that her fame may not be long-lasting.
The first two-thirds of the movie showcase Davis's tour-de-force performance as Margo Channing. Channing has created a persona for the public that masks her personal insecurities as she feels threatened by her middle-age in a youth-oriented career. She also longs for passionate love. Davis nails the role perfectly. Her Margo Channing is such a force of nature that the film misses her when she isn't onscreen.
Less successful -- though still effective -- is Anne Baxter as Eve Harrington. Eve's adopted persona is demure and kindly; a perfect contrast to the in-your-face Margo. Unfortunately, Baxter isn't nearly as strong an actor as Davis, and in my mind, the film suffers a little because Baxter isn't as natural a fit in the film as Davis.
An argument could be made that Baxter's role is supporting, although the movie allows her to take front and center in the last half hour. Yet both Davis and Baxter were nominated as Best Actress for All About Eve, both losing to Judy Holliday for Born Yesterday. Other nominees were Eleanor Parker in Caged and Gloria Swanson in Sunset Blvd. I haven't seen either Holliday's or Swanson's performances but both are probably deserved, and Parker gave a fine performance in a gutsy role. I suspect that Davis or Swanson should have won the Oscar, but I feel that Baxter's nod was undeserved. (There's also a theory that the vote was split between Davis and Baxter, allowing for Holliday's win. I don't subscribe to the split-vote theory as the math doesn't work out.)
(But MovieRAM, my readers ask. If Baxter wasn't nominated in 1950, or if she was nominated in the supporting category instead, who should have gotten the 5th nomination? Easy answer, my friends. I'd have given the fifth slot to the incandescent Betty Hutton for Annie Get Your Gun.)
All About Eve crowded the supporting actress category too. Celeste Holm played Karen, the playwright's wife, who wields a surprising of influence in her inner circle before she sees that she never should have been supportive of Eve. It's a great, multi-layered performance, and I probably would have been happy had she won. Surprisingly, the great character actress Thelma Ritter got the first of her six Oscar nominations as Birdie, Margo's loyal assistant. It's a small role, and while Ritter excels in it, it is not an award-worthy role. Both Holm and Ritter lost the award to stage actress Josephine Hull in Harvey, another movie that I need to see. (Other nominees were Hope Emerson, who was excellent as a brutal prison matron in Caged, and Nancy Olson in Sunset Blvd.)
While Davis, Baxter, Holm, and Ritter all lost the Oscar for All About Eve, supporting actor George Sanders won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for playing Addison DeWitt, the acerbic theater critic with the poison pen who can make or break careers. While I haven't seen any of his fellow nominees, it is hard to see how any of them could be better than Sanders, who inhabits his role perfectly. It's a magnificent performance in a great role.
All About Eve won Best Picture, Best Director for Mankiewicz, and a Best Screenplay Oscar for Mankiewicz's excellent screenplay. Edith Head won the Best Costumes award, and the film won an award for Best Sound Recording.
A few more thoughts on the film. Marilyn Monroe has an early supporting role in in this movie, and she acquits herself nicely. I thought Gary Merrill as the play's director and Hugh Marlowe as the playwright were too similar in type to share so many scenes together. Mankiewicz's screenplay and direction are extremely first-rate.
Is this Davis's best screen work? It could well be -- though I'm terribly fond of her roles in The Letter and The Little Foxes. I don't think I've ever seen Holm or Sanders quite as good as they are in All About Eve.
All About Eve perfectly depicts the theater world with colorful characters and insightful dialogue. I wish Baxter's portrayal of Eve didn't pale when viewed next to Davis's Margo. Baxter's casting weakened the film for me (I think Donna Reed could have pulled it off.) Therefore, instead of a perfect classic, I have to deem it a very good one instead. Grade: B+.
I watched All About Eve on Netflix Streaming on Sunday, May 4, 2014.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Noah (2014)
It's only fair that a critic of a movie acknowledge his biases if he is commenting on a film where those biases will color his perspective. In order to speak about Darren Aronofsky's Noah, I need to first assert that I am a Christian, I believe that the Bible is inerrant in its original form, and I hold the Bible to be sacred truth. Generally, I find movies based on the Bible or those to designed for Christian audiences to be artistically inferior productions regardless of how good their intent might be. There are exceptions. I am an ardent supporter of The Passion of the Christ. I enjoy the grandeur of Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments. I appreciate the earnestness of The Greatest Story Ever Told, even if my eyes roll when John Wayne appears as the Roman centurion. I find interest in some movies that are set with Biblical events in the background, such as The Robe, Ben-Hur, or Quo Vadis (these tales were apparently popular in the 1950s). There is a lot of mediocrity in Bible adaptations like King David or King of Kings or Samson and Delilah. John Huston's The Bible is excruciatingly dull, and Martin Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ is blasphemous.
Initially, I had no interest in seeing Noah. Upon its release, the slight preponderance of positive critical reviews swayed me and I then wanted to see it for myself. I'm not a big fan of director Aronofsky. Requiem for a Dream is too abstract in a world that doesn't interest me. Black Swan had some great strengths but the fantasy elements were distracting to me. I'm a big fan of The Wrestler, however. I knew that some things were in the movie that were not a part of the Genesis record of the event, and I attempted to keep an open mind about that. Obviously, I know that any filmed Bible story is going to be interpretive on some level but I doubted that Aronofsky was the man to present the story of Noah.
The best thing I can say about the movie is that it never bored me -- and that's a major plus since this is a Biblical epic running over two hours. Russell Crowe was a fine choice to play Noah. Jennifer Connelly, playing Noah's wife, elevates most movies when she's in them and she doesn't disappoint here. Aronofsky keeps the film moving, and I liked his view of the Ark itself. He also uses CGI to good advantage with the storm , the flood, and the arrival of the animals.
But I can't deny that the major deviations from the Biblical record troubled me greatly.
Much of the film was a lot more Lord of the Rings rather than Lord of All Creation. I'm specifically referring to the angels that are consigned to Earth. They seemed to have a lot of inspiration from Middle-Earth with a touch of reference to Transformers.
I don't know what kind of a toll it would take on a man to be one of the last 8 survivors of humanity, and there may have well been emotional turmoil with the real Noah. But he is presented in the Bible as being resolute in his faith, and his depiction in the film Noah as an irrational, nearly crazed man after the Ark closes is disturbing and the most distasteful thing about the film.
I could accept the fiction involving Tubal-cain (well-played by Ray Winstone) as the power hungry leader of the community closest to the Ark until he stowed away on the Ark. I wanted to laugh at the absurdity then.
The soap opera elements such as Ham's betrayal of his family to assist Tubal-cain and having Shem's wife (demurely played by Emma Watson) deliver twin daughters out-of-wedlock with Noah threatening to slay them were not only complete poppycock but they also diluted the powerful story of salvation and redemption which is what the actual life of the Biblical Noah illustrates.
If I could separate MovieRAM the moviegoer from MovieRAM the Christian, Noah as a work of fiction and as a cinematic experience is a better film than a lot of modern fantasy films (such as the bloated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey). But the film Noah is too far outside my comfort level for of a telling of the sacred Biblical story of Noah, and I still fell dirty for not only seeing the film, but for enjoying it in the limited amounts that I did. I wish I could shake the film, but it bothers me to my core.
It saddens me that this is the only exposure to the Bible that some people will see, or that some people will perceive this presentation as truth.
I remember several years ago when I refused out of principle to see Michael Moore's hit documentary
Fahrenheit 9/11. I knew that the views expressed in that film would offend my moral sensibilities and I wisely chose to ignore it for the drivel that it was. I wish that I had followed the same principles for Noah, but I can't unwatch the film. Watching it certainly wasn't worth troubling my soul this extensively though. Grade: C-.
I watched Noah at the Pullman Square Marquee Cinemas on Friday evening April 25, 2014 with my friend Brian.
Initially, I had no interest in seeing Noah. Upon its release, the slight preponderance of positive critical reviews swayed me and I then wanted to see it for myself. I'm not a big fan of director Aronofsky. Requiem for a Dream is too abstract in a world that doesn't interest me. Black Swan had some great strengths but the fantasy elements were distracting to me. I'm a big fan of The Wrestler, however. I knew that some things were in the movie that were not a part of the Genesis record of the event, and I attempted to keep an open mind about that. Obviously, I know that any filmed Bible story is going to be interpretive on some level but I doubted that Aronofsky was the man to present the story of Noah.
The best thing I can say about the movie is that it never bored me -- and that's a major plus since this is a Biblical epic running over two hours. Russell Crowe was a fine choice to play Noah. Jennifer Connelly, playing Noah's wife, elevates most movies when she's in them and she doesn't disappoint here. Aronofsky keeps the film moving, and I liked his view of the Ark itself. He also uses CGI to good advantage with the storm , the flood, and the arrival of the animals.
But I can't deny that the major deviations from the Biblical record troubled me greatly.
Much of the film was a lot more Lord of the Rings rather than Lord of All Creation. I'm specifically referring to the angels that are consigned to Earth. They seemed to have a lot of inspiration from Middle-Earth with a touch of reference to Transformers.
I don't know what kind of a toll it would take on a man to be one of the last 8 survivors of humanity, and there may have well been emotional turmoil with the real Noah. But he is presented in the Bible as being resolute in his faith, and his depiction in the film Noah as an irrational, nearly crazed man after the Ark closes is disturbing and the most distasteful thing about the film.
I could accept the fiction involving Tubal-cain (well-played by Ray Winstone) as the power hungry leader of the community closest to the Ark until he stowed away on the Ark. I wanted to laugh at the absurdity then.
The soap opera elements such as Ham's betrayal of his family to assist Tubal-cain and having Shem's wife (demurely played by Emma Watson) deliver twin daughters out-of-wedlock with Noah threatening to slay them were not only complete poppycock but they also diluted the powerful story of salvation and redemption which is what the actual life of the Biblical Noah illustrates.
If I could separate MovieRAM the moviegoer from MovieRAM the Christian, Noah as a work of fiction and as a cinematic experience is a better film than a lot of modern fantasy films (such as the bloated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey). But the film Noah is too far outside my comfort level for of a telling of the sacred Biblical story of Noah, and I still fell dirty for not only seeing the film, but for enjoying it in the limited amounts that I did. I wish I could shake the film, but it bothers me to my core.
It saddens me that this is the only exposure to the Bible that some people will see, or that some people will perceive this presentation as truth.
I remember several years ago when I refused out of principle to see Michael Moore's hit documentary
Fahrenheit 9/11. I knew that the views expressed in that film would offend my moral sensibilities and I wisely chose to ignore it for the drivel that it was. I wish that I had followed the same principles for Noah, but I can't unwatch the film. Watching it certainly wasn't worth troubling my soul this extensively though. Grade: C-.
I watched Noah at the Pullman Square Marquee Cinemas on Friday evening April 25, 2014 with my friend Brian.
Monday, April 28, 2014
Carnal Knowledge (1971)
Admittedly, I knew very little about Carnal Knowledge before I saw it. While I thought it had a good cast, it never seemed like a movie that held much interest for me. Since I've made it a mission to see every movie that has been nominated for a major Oscar (Best Picture, Director, or an acting award), Carnal Knowledge fell on the list of films to see because Ann-Margret garnered one of her two nominations for Best Supporting Actress (her other nomination was for 1975's Tommy, the cinematic adaptation of The Who's rock opera!).
I should know by now to never discount movies from the incredibly fertile 1970s. Carnal Knowledge looks as if it could have been a period piece made in 2014 -- it hasn't aged a bit other than we know the primary actors are now senior citizens. It looks terrific, and even though it is a talkie movie, the script is very well-written.
One of the big reasons why 1970s drama was so successful is that so many of the characters in those movies are textured and deeply flawed. I'm not even sure that I would call any of the characters in Carnal Knowledge likeable -- but they are constantly fascinating. Kudos for Jules Feiffer's incisive script. The story goes that Pfeiffer brought the idea to director Mike Nichols with the hopes of mounting a play. Nichols said he saw the story as a movie. To be honest, it feels like a well-done adaptation of a play to me. There are three defined acts, each building on what has transpired before. Nichols has been such an uncommonly successful Broadway director that it is easy to forget about his strong cinematic successes that include Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Graduate, Silkwood, and Working Girl. Carnal Knowledge can comfortably sit amongst the best of Nichols's film accomplishments. It is an intelligent and daring film that is every bit as timely today as it was in 1971.
Carnal Knowledge tracks the changing sexual mores of mid-20th century America as it examines a pair of college roommates from the late 1940s through the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. The result isn't pretty and there are no happy endings here in this dark drama. While the film never judges the choices that the characters make, it certainly never endorses them either. If the viewer passes judgment on the film -- as any respectable viewer should -- it seems to me that the viewer would have to see traditional morality as a viable (and maybe preferable) option.
The story in a nutshell: College roommates Jonathan (Jack Nicholson) and Sandy (Art Garfunkel, here billed as Arthur Garfunkel) are virginal college roommates obsessed with getting laid. They both have ideals of the type of woman that interests them. At a mixer, Jonathan challenges Sandy to hit on attractive co-ed Susan (Candice Bergen). Susan is intelligent and possesses a detached demeanor. She and Sandy become friends, and she gives in to his feelings of love for her, though she isn't certain that she feels the same. Jonathan, jealous that Sandy is making headway with Susan, begins to date her behind Sandy's back and eventually sleeps with her before she sleeps with Sandy. Susan professes love for Jonathan but is unwilling to end things with her friend Sandy. Frustrated, Jonathan breaks things off with Susan.
The second act finds Jonathan meeting the sexy, voluptuous Bobbie (Ann-Margret), a woman who seems to epitomize Jonathan's fantasies. Jonathan and Bobbie move in together, and Bobbie discovers that she wants marriage. Jonathan becomes impotent at the thought of that, and their relationship deteriorates as Bobbie succumbs to severe depression and Jonathan grows angry with his life. The situation culminates badly when Sandy shows up with the lady he is having an affair with, and the envious Jonathan suggests that two men swap females for the evening.
Years pass. Middle-aged Sandy's latest conquest is a teenager (Carol Kane), and Jonathan can only get aroused by visiting the prostitute Louise (Rita Moreno) who must roleplay to a very specific script. It seems that Jonathan and Sandy may have won a few battles in the Sexual Revolution, but they certainly lost the war.
The four leads are remarkable. Candice Bergen captures the angst of the brainy Susan as she is torn between the two men in her life who happen to be best friends. It's the type of role in which she was practically typecast at the start of her career, but she handles the adult material beautifully. And Art Garfunkel -- well, who knew he could act? Why didn't he have a bigger screen career? He's perfect as the insecure Sandy and his performance never musters a false note. Nichols is a master of casting and his gutsy choice of Garfunkel pays off handsomely. Ann-Margret is a revelation as Bobbie. Having spent the 1960s in mostly bad movies, she is given a chance to shine in this role of an aging sex kitten who wants a traditional marriage. She succeeds admirably; her performance is complex and riveting.
The center of the film is Jack Nicholson's Jonathan. I could make an argument that Nicholson was the movies' greatest actor for 35 years. I've never seen Carnal Knowledge referred to as one of Nicholson's iconic roles, but it is. Jonathan is a beast of a man. and Nicholson doesn't shy from revealing the layers of ugliness within, all barely underneath the devilish grin and twinkling eyes. When I think of my very favorite Nicholson performances in films like Chinatown, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Reds, Prizzi's Honor, Ironweed, and About Schmidt, I realize that his performance in Carnal Knowledge could easily stand up to his stellar work in these better-known films. Nicholson truly is an actor of the highest order.
Intellectually, I know that great movies can be made about subjects in which I have little interest. (2001's The Piano Teacher springs to mind.) The more I think about Carnal Knowledge, with its cast of irritating characters making bad choice after bad choice -- well how can I recommend this film? Then my mind is drawn to the stylish filmmaking, the flawless dialogue, and the perfection of the performances, and I realize that Carnal Knowledge is a movie that will stay with me for a very long time. Artistically, it flirts with greatness. Grade: A-.
I watched Carnal Knowledge on DVD on Saturday, April 26, 2014.
I should know by now to never discount movies from the incredibly fertile 1970s. Carnal Knowledge looks as if it could have been a period piece made in 2014 -- it hasn't aged a bit other than we know the primary actors are now senior citizens. It looks terrific, and even though it is a talkie movie, the script is very well-written.
One of the big reasons why 1970s drama was so successful is that so many of the characters in those movies are textured and deeply flawed. I'm not even sure that I would call any of the characters in Carnal Knowledge likeable -- but they are constantly fascinating. Kudos for Jules Feiffer's incisive script. The story goes that Pfeiffer brought the idea to director Mike Nichols with the hopes of mounting a play. Nichols said he saw the story as a movie. To be honest, it feels like a well-done adaptation of a play to me. There are three defined acts, each building on what has transpired before. Nichols has been such an uncommonly successful Broadway director that it is easy to forget about his strong cinematic successes that include Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Graduate, Silkwood, and Working Girl. Carnal Knowledge can comfortably sit amongst the best of Nichols's film accomplishments. It is an intelligent and daring film that is every bit as timely today as it was in 1971.
Carnal Knowledge tracks the changing sexual mores of mid-20th century America as it examines a pair of college roommates from the late 1940s through the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. The result isn't pretty and there are no happy endings here in this dark drama. While the film never judges the choices that the characters make, it certainly never endorses them either. If the viewer passes judgment on the film -- as any respectable viewer should -- it seems to me that the viewer would have to see traditional morality as a viable (and maybe preferable) option.
The story in a nutshell: College roommates Jonathan (Jack Nicholson) and Sandy (Art Garfunkel, here billed as Arthur Garfunkel) are virginal college roommates obsessed with getting laid. They both have ideals of the type of woman that interests them. At a mixer, Jonathan challenges Sandy to hit on attractive co-ed Susan (Candice Bergen). Susan is intelligent and possesses a detached demeanor. She and Sandy become friends, and she gives in to his feelings of love for her, though she isn't certain that she feels the same. Jonathan, jealous that Sandy is making headway with Susan, begins to date her behind Sandy's back and eventually sleeps with her before she sleeps with Sandy. Susan professes love for Jonathan but is unwilling to end things with her friend Sandy. Frustrated, Jonathan breaks things off with Susan.
The second act finds Jonathan meeting the sexy, voluptuous Bobbie (Ann-Margret), a woman who seems to epitomize Jonathan's fantasies. Jonathan and Bobbie move in together, and Bobbie discovers that she wants marriage. Jonathan becomes impotent at the thought of that, and their relationship deteriorates as Bobbie succumbs to severe depression and Jonathan grows angry with his life. The situation culminates badly when Sandy shows up with the lady he is having an affair with, and the envious Jonathan suggests that two men swap females for the evening.
Years pass. Middle-aged Sandy's latest conquest is a teenager (Carol Kane), and Jonathan can only get aroused by visiting the prostitute Louise (Rita Moreno) who must roleplay to a very specific script. It seems that Jonathan and Sandy may have won a few battles in the Sexual Revolution, but they certainly lost the war.
The four leads are remarkable. Candice Bergen captures the angst of the brainy Susan as she is torn between the two men in her life who happen to be best friends. It's the type of role in which she was practically typecast at the start of her career, but she handles the adult material beautifully. And Art Garfunkel -- well, who knew he could act? Why didn't he have a bigger screen career? He's perfect as the insecure Sandy and his performance never musters a false note. Nichols is a master of casting and his gutsy choice of Garfunkel pays off handsomely. Ann-Margret is a revelation as Bobbie. Having spent the 1960s in mostly bad movies, she is given a chance to shine in this role of an aging sex kitten who wants a traditional marriage. She succeeds admirably; her performance is complex and riveting.
The center of the film is Jack Nicholson's Jonathan. I could make an argument that Nicholson was the movies' greatest actor for 35 years. I've never seen Carnal Knowledge referred to as one of Nicholson's iconic roles, but it is. Jonathan is a beast of a man. and Nicholson doesn't shy from revealing the layers of ugliness within, all barely underneath the devilish grin and twinkling eyes. When I think of my very favorite Nicholson performances in films like Chinatown, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Reds, Prizzi's Honor, Ironweed, and About Schmidt, I realize that his performance in Carnal Knowledge could easily stand up to his stellar work in these better-known films. Nicholson truly is an actor of the highest order.
Intellectually, I know that great movies can be made about subjects in which I have little interest. (2001's The Piano Teacher springs to mind.) The more I think about Carnal Knowledge, with its cast of irritating characters making bad choice after bad choice -- well how can I recommend this film? Then my mind is drawn to the stylish filmmaking, the flawless dialogue, and the perfection of the performances, and I realize that Carnal Knowledge is a movie that will stay with me for a very long time. Artistically, it flirts with greatness. Grade: A-.
I watched Carnal Knowledge on DVD on Saturday, April 26, 2014.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Everything or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007 (2012)
Everything or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007 is a documentary that explores how the James Bond movies have become the longest-running film franchise in history. It was made for television, though it got a brief theatrical run in Great Britain. The purpose of the film was to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the James Bond movies, which began in 1962 with Dr. No and ended most recently with 2012's Skyfall.
The film starts with a look at how author Ian Fleming, himself a former intelligence agent, created suave super-spy James Bond. Then the movie examines how Albert "Cubby" Broccoli and Harry Saltzman became partners and acquired the rights to make the films. All of the actors who have played Bond onscreen -- Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig offer commentary throughout the movie, although Connery's comments seems to have come from pre-existing recordings.
It was interesting to see the passion behind the films, and to hear about the troubles behind the scenes as well. Connery left the franchise because he was dissatisfied with the money he was making. Lazenby tells why he was fired after only one appearance as Bond. There's the fascinating tale of how a man named Kevin McClory held the rights to Fleming's book "Thunderball" which led to decades of litigation. It was interesting to hear about the dissolving of the Broccoli-Saltzman partnership, how Pierce Brosnan got a second chance to be Bond after NBC surprisingly un-cancelled his TV series "Remington Steele", and how most of the powers that be did not want Daniel Craig to be hired as Bond.
The children of Broccoli and Saltzman also contribute to the narrative, as do a few of the Bond directors and other friends and relatives of the principals. Even Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton endorse Bond.
If the film has a flaw, I would say that it is too abbreviated. I would have liked to have seen more film clips, some info on the onscreen Bond villains, and a little more of the supporting cast of Bond characters. That's quibbling though. What Everything or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007 accomplished most is that it whetted my appetite to watch all 23 of the Bond films in chronological order. I thoroughly enjoyed this overview of Bond's success. Grade: A-.
I watched Everything or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007 via Netflix Streaming on April 1, 2013.
Fun fact: Broccoli and Saltzman's partnership was EON Productions, which was allegedly an acronym for the phrase "Everything or Nothing."
The film starts with a look at how author Ian Fleming, himself a former intelligence agent, created suave super-spy James Bond. Then the movie examines how Albert "Cubby" Broccoli and Harry Saltzman became partners and acquired the rights to make the films. All of the actors who have played Bond onscreen -- Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig offer commentary throughout the movie, although Connery's comments seems to have come from pre-existing recordings.
It was interesting to see the passion behind the films, and to hear about the troubles behind the scenes as well. Connery left the franchise because he was dissatisfied with the money he was making. Lazenby tells why he was fired after only one appearance as Bond. There's the fascinating tale of how a man named Kevin McClory held the rights to Fleming's book "Thunderball" which led to decades of litigation. It was interesting to hear about the dissolving of the Broccoli-Saltzman partnership, how Pierce Brosnan got a second chance to be Bond after NBC surprisingly un-cancelled his TV series "Remington Steele", and how most of the powers that be did not want Daniel Craig to be hired as Bond.
The children of Broccoli and Saltzman also contribute to the narrative, as do a few of the Bond directors and other friends and relatives of the principals. Even Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton endorse Bond.
If the film has a flaw, I would say that it is too abbreviated. I would have liked to have seen more film clips, some info on the onscreen Bond villains, and a little more of the supporting cast of Bond characters. That's quibbling though. What Everything or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007 accomplished most is that it whetted my appetite to watch all 23 of the Bond films in chronological order. I thoroughly enjoyed this overview of Bond's success. Grade: A-.
I watched Everything or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007 via Netflix Streaming on April 1, 2013.
Fun fact: Broccoli and Saltzman's partnership was EON Productions, which was allegedly an acronym for the phrase "Everything or Nothing."
Monday, April 1, 2013
Bronson (2008)
The only reason that I watched Bronson was because I've become a fan of Tom Hardy in recent years. He had a compelling screen presence in films like Inception, Warrior, and The Dark Knight Rises. I stumbled across Bronson on Netflix Streaming and saw where Hardy won a British Independent Spirit Award for his work in this film, and decided to give the movie a watch.
I really disliked the film. It is a character study of Michael Patterson, a petty thief who always worsens his situation by acting out violently -- injuring policemen, prison guards, and fellow inmates alike. He adopts the name "Charles Bronson" after the Death Wish action movie star. He spends a lot of time in solitary confinement, and his extensive jail time far exceeds the penalty for the crimes that caused him to be incarcerated. The prison system tried to palm him off to the mental health system by pronouncing him crazy, but that didn't last long. Bronson became Britain's most famous -- and violent -- criminal. The only reason offered up for Bronson's behavior was his desire to be famous.
Hardy delivers an admittedly powerful performance. I hated the character, which always makes viewing a film difficult. The script was weak as well. The movie uses a device where Bronson addresses a fictional audience, and the movie audience as well, to punctuate the events of his life. Hardy is also the only actor in the movie with whose work I am familiar. His street-wise British accent was so thick that at times I wished that I had been using subtitles. It took real effort to understand Hardy, and in that regard the movie reminded me of Sexy Beast, though Sexy Beast is a far more interesting film.
Bronson is the second film that I've seen by up-and-coming acclaimed director Nicolas Winding Refn. In the fall of 2011, I saw Refn's Drive. I admired a lot of Drive, even though I stop short of recommending that film. Drive has a lot more style to it; Bronson doesn't have anything of merit in it except a fearless performance by Hardy.
Bronson was surprisingly well-reviewed, but I found it to be an excessive exercise without substance. Character studies rarely make good movies. Good drama needs to have a point, and Bronson as a film doesn't have much to say at all. It doesn't entertain, and the re-watchability factor for me is non-existent. I don't mind violence in films where it serves the story like in a Quentin Tarantino movie, for example. There's really no story in Bronson. I suppose it's an important film in the oeuvre of Tom Hardy, and someday it may show how far Refn has matured as a director. Skip this one, though. There are too many far better films to see. Grade: D-.
I watched Bronson on March 9, 2013 via Netflix Streaming.
I really disliked the film. It is a character study of Michael Patterson, a petty thief who always worsens his situation by acting out violently -- injuring policemen, prison guards, and fellow inmates alike. He adopts the name "Charles Bronson" after the Death Wish action movie star. He spends a lot of time in solitary confinement, and his extensive jail time far exceeds the penalty for the crimes that caused him to be incarcerated. The prison system tried to palm him off to the mental health system by pronouncing him crazy, but that didn't last long. Bronson became Britain's most famous -- and violent -- criminal. The only reason offered up for Bronson's behavior was his desire to be famous.
Hardy delivers an admittedly powerful performance. I hated the character, which always makes viewing a film difficult. The script was weak as well. The movie uses a device where Bronson addresses a fictional audience, and the movie audience as well, to punctuate the events of his life. Hardy is also the only actor in the movie with whose work I am familiar. His street-wise British accent was so thick that at times I wished that I had been using subtitles. It took real effort to understand Hardy, and in that regard the movie reminded me of Sexy Beast, though Sexy Beast is a far more interesting film.
Bronson is the second film that I've seen by up-and-coming acclaimed director Nicolas Winding Refn. In the fall of 2011, I saw Refn's Drive. I admired a lot of Drive, even though I stop short of recommending that film. Drive has a lot more style to it; Bronson doesn't have anything of merit in it except a fearless performance by Hardy.
Bronson was surprisingly well-reviewed, but I found it to be an excessive exercise without substance. Character studies rarely make good movies. Good drama needs to have a point, and Bronson as a film doesn't have much to say at all. It doesn't entertain, and the re-watchability factor for me is non-existent. I don't mind violence in films where it serves the story like in a Quentin Tarantino movie, for example. There's really no story in Bronson. I suppose it's an important film in the oeuvre of Tom Hardy, and someday it may show how far Refn has matured as a director. Skip this one, though. There are too many far better films to see. Grade: D-.
I watched Bronson on March 9, 2013 via Netflix Streaming.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
The Duchess and the Dirtwater Fox (1976)
I first watched The Duchess and the Dirtwater Fox on commercial TV during my college days. I hadn't remembered anything about it other than it was an unfunny comedy-western starring Goldie Hawn and George Segal. One thing I've learned over the years is that you can't really judge a movie if you watch it edited for television. So I was looking for something light to watch and stumbled on this title on Netflix, and decided to give it another viewing.
Guess what? The Duchess and the Dirtwater Fox is still a (mostly) unfunny comedy-western, though it plays a little better than my mind remembered. Segal is a con man, and when he makes a big score, the bandits that he conned come looking for him to retrieve their money. He encounters Hawn, a dance hall girl/occasional hooker who is working a con of her own -- she wants to get out of her business so she attempts to appear as a proper lady and is hired by a wealthy Mormon to tutor his large brood of children. Segal and Hawn find themselves on the run as they travel to Utah from California. Naturally they fall in love.
It's to Hawn's credit that she is so charismatic onscreen that she can appear in such a weak movie and emerge with her charm intact. Segal is also likable here, and audience goodwill toward the two leads carries a lot of weight. Ultimately, the script betrays Segal and Hawn as it is low on laughs and weak on plot and adventure.
Melvin Frank directed this mess. He was much more successful in directing Segal and Glenda Jackson previously in 1973's A Touch of Class, which won Jackson a Best Actress Oscar. Here his work is heavy-handed and even amateurish at times. The highlight of the film for me was Hawn's ribald rendition of a bar song called "Please Don't Touch Me Plums". It is funny, sexy, and strikes the tone that the rest of the movie needed.
The concept of The Duchess and the Dirtwater Fox is a good one, and the casting of Hawn and Segal was smart. It's too bad that the concept wasn't executed well. Director Frank should have scrapped his screenplay and either started over or farmed it out. Most of the blame for the failure of this movie can be placed on him. Grade: C-.
I watched The Duchess and the Dirtwater Fox on Netflix Streaming on February 28, 2013.
Guess what? The Duchess and the Dirtwater Fox is still a (mostly) unfunny comedy-western, though it plays a little better than my mind remembered. Segal is a con man, and when he makes a big score, the bandits that he conned come looking for him to retrieve their money. He encounters Hawn, a dance hall girl/occasional hooker who is working a con of her own -- she wants to get out of her business so she attempts to appear as a proper lady and is hired by a wealthy Mormon to tutor his large brood of children. Segal and Hawn find themselves on the run as they travel to Utah from California. Naturally they fall in love.
It's to Hawn's credit that she is so charismatic onscreen that she can appear in such a weak movie and emerge with her charm intact. Segal is also likable here, and audience goodwill toward the two leads carries a lot of weight. Ultimately, the script betrays Segal and Hawn as it is low on laughs and weak on plot and adventure.
Melvin Frank directed this mess. He was much more successful in directing Segal and Glenda Jackson previously in 1973's A Touch of Class, which won Jackson a Best Actress Oscar. Here his work is heavy-handed and even amateurish at times. The highlight of the film for me was Hawn's ribald rendition of a bar song called "Please Don't Touch Me Plums". It is funny, sexy, and strikes the tone that the rest of the movie needed.
The concept of The Duchess and the Dirtwater Fox is a good one, and the casting of Hawn and Segal was smart. It's too bad that the concept wasn't executed well. Director Frank should have scrapped his screenplay and either started over or farmed it out. Most of the blame for the failure of this movie can be placed on him. Grade: C-.
I watched The Duchess and the Dirtwater Fox on Netflix Streaming on February 28, 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)