Thursday, March 16, 2006

Give Thanks for Bogart

Four months behind. That's just unconscionable. I've got excuses - this was the start of the Brattle Movie-Watch-a-Thon, where I piled up far more movies watched than reviewed in depth, then the SF marathon, then I was moving... Coming up is the Boston Underground Film Festival, and the Independent Film Festival of Boston. Seeing and writing about a lot of movies is hard work.

Anyway, back in November, the Brattle had a Bogart series. The usually play Casablanca around Thanksgiving weekend - the logic probably being that a lot of people are out of town , so rather than miss part of a rep series, they may as well go with a standard that brings the locals in. But, since it's far from a secret that they were hurting for money last year, so they programmed a lot of stuff that would bring people out. Who's going to say no to Bogie at the Brattle? If you want to support the theater, it's a lot easier to do that for these films than, say, Jacques Doillon.

(And, hey, they're not out of the woods yet, despite a one-year reprieve; if you can find your way to give them some extra money via ticket sales, donations, becoming a member, it would be appreciated.)

It's a pleasure, though. When To Have and Have Not is the weakest film in a series, you're doing better than all right. Nobody's perfect, and Bogart made some clunkers over the course of his career - think The Barefoot Contessa - but he was also involved in a really disproporitonate number of outright great movies.

That's the benefit of the studio system - you have Bogart working at Warner Brothers at the same time as John Huston, Howard Hawks, Lauren Bacall, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet, etc., so once there's a combination that works, they can put them together again in fairly short order. Today, with most talent free agents, everyone probably makes closer to what they merit in terms of what they bring in, but trying to capture lightning in a bottle a second time can take years.

Casablanca

* * * * (out of four)
Seen 26 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Give Thanks for Bogart)

There is not a whole lot to say about Casablanca that is new. I feel vaguely silly writing anything at all, because anyone likely to read this probably already knows that this film is an all-time classic. Here in Boston/Cambridge, the Brattle Theater runs it at least twice a year, often preceded for a month by a trailer that regulars have memorized ("but they're all trapped!"). People attending a "Great Romances" double feature February 13th were advised to arrive by four the next day if they wanted to get tickets to the annual Valentine's Day showings. And despite Theo's constructing the Red Sox team that finally won the World Series, that his grandfather Philip and great-uncle Julius wrote this classic screenplay may be the Epstein family's greatest claim to fame. This is a beloved, famous movie, and rightly so. Do people really need to be convinced to see this?

Well, sure, maybe. People aren't born having seen it, and even if they have absorbed the plot and some of the greatest lines through osmosis, there's still plenty of delights to be found from actually watching the movie. There's a great cast on hand, so they can get introduced to some of the finest stars and supporting characters of classic Hollywood all at once. They can assure themselves that Humphrey Bogart does not, in fact, use the line "play it again, Sam". And they can witness just how a fantastic cast and crew can make a flawed story into a classic, and what a delight it is when that happens.

Because, let's face it, Casablanca's plot creaks a little. The central plot device - "letters of transit" that will let anyone, even Resistance leader Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid), travel freely during a time of war - doesn't really hold up to a second of examination. But that's okay. Those letters are just an excuse to throw Laszlo, his beautiful wife Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman), and her one-time lover Rick Blaine (Bogart) together. Rick runs a bar in Nazi-occupied French Morocco, and comes into possession of the letters after the untimely death of small-time gangster Ugarte (Peter Lorre). The Laszlos have recently arrived in Casablanca, but SS Major Strasser (Conrad Veidt) is watching Rick's like a hawk. Besides, Rick's got a policy of sticking his neck out for no-one, and to help Laszlo escape would mean saying farewell to the love of his life once again.

Look at the events logically, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But we love watching Rick struggle against his better nature, and five minutes don't go by without someone popping out a great line. The cast is full to bursting with great supporting characters; in addition to those already mentioned, there's Claude Rains's gleefully corrupt Captain Renault, and Sydney Greenstreet as a mobster who probably wields as much power in Casablanca as either the French or the Germans. Dooley Wilson is mostly there to sing and play the piano, but he carries himself in a way that makes him feel much essential than many black characters of the time period. The movie is pure, classic melodrama, but also funny and built on winning chemistry between its leads.

It's a love triangle that works, because neither leg seems less than genuine, and the film portrays love as a powerful force that can wreak havoc on these people's lives and, because of their actions, the world around them. Bogart's Rick is the apparent epitome of cool, growling and appearing unfazed by the evil around him. It's a front, of course - not sticking one's neck out is an attitude born of fear, not strength, and it's a front that crumbles upon Ilsa's return. Henreid's Laszlo, on the other hand, does make a habit of sticking his neck out, but that sort of activity takes a toll on a man, and he needs the support Ilsa give him. Meanwhile, we see Ilsa genuinely torn between her two lovers, devoted to her husband but ever mindful of the raw passion she and Rick shared. English isn't her first language and she doesn't seem as assured delivering her lines as the others are, so the movie at times has to rely on her looks to explain why she is so central in these two men's lives. Being one of the most beautiful women ever captured on film is one hell of a crutch, though.

And in the end, that this must be relied on doesn't matter a whit. The cast is thoroughly charming, the love story is grand and uncompromising without ever being saccharine. Michael Curitz knows his stuff, working in both snappy patter and gunplay without ever losing the focus on the central romance and drama.

Of course, you should already know this. If you like movies, you should probably have this half memorized, and not just because you're expected to. It's a great movie, one that stays great even if it couldn't be made the same way today.

(Formerly at EFC)

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

* * * * (out of four)
Seen 26 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Give Thanks for Bogart)

Nasty thing, greed. It's in every one of us, lying dormant while we have nothing, waiting for us to get a taste of prosperity before flaming up and convincing us that it's not enough. That's The Treasure of the Sierra Madre in a nutshell, and few if any have played that theme as well as director John Huston and his cast.

As the film starts, we see Fred C. Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart) homeless in Tampico, Mexico, begging money off American tourists. After hitting the same American up for money three or four times, he's directed to Pat McCormick (Barton MacLane), who's offering work. There he meets Bob Curtin (Tim Holt), and after they convince McCormick to actually pay them rather than running off, they meet an old-timer named Howard (Walter Huston), who convinces them to re-invest their earnings in a gold-mining venture. It's hard, at first, but that difficulty is nothing compared to what happens when the mine pans out, and each is worrying about the others coming after his hoard.

Few of Humphrey Bogart's most memorable roles are steadfast heroes, and his characters don't get much scuzzier than Fred Dobbs. We get hints of what's to come when we first meet him, as we see him push his luck panhandling, but we can chalk that up to desperation to simply survive. Later on we we see his a hard worker when he gets the chance, but we don't see Bogart's best work until Dobbs has his gold and will be rich no matter what. Then we see him crazed with gold fever, twitching, looking at his friend like he expects to be killed at any moment. It's the type of manic performance that can make a lesser actor look like, well, a lesser actor, but Bogart's tense body language and facial expressions that can jump from calm to crazed to conniving sell it.

And Bogart isn't even necessarily the performance people remember from this movie; that honor likely goes to director John Huston's father Walter. He makes Howard a lovable old coot whose acquisition of wisdom with age just means he can see his future screw-ups coming. He knows that he'll blow his gold on women and booze and probably end up right where he started, and he sees his partners' paranoia as an inevitability. He talks like a rube and dances funny jigs, but there's never any doubt that he knows the score. Indeed, the audience will spend a lot of time wondering if he's playing his younger partners against each other. Mostly, he makes relating hard-won knowledge sound like a reminder of something any fool should know, and gains the audience's respect without ever distancing himself from them.

The rest of the cast is pretty good, too, although it's tough to outshine Bogart and Huston Sr. on-screen. Tim Holt doesn't get to go enthusiastically insane like Bogart as the other partner; he's got the unenviable task of being the most apparently level-headed one in the group, a couple steps behind Dobbs in terms of the gold fever. Bruce Bennet appears midway through the film as James Cody, a young guy who stumbles upon the camp, and thus increases the tension between the secretive miners. And, of course, there's Alfonso Bedoya, whose character leads a crew of banditos who menace Dobbs and company in the last act. He essays his part broadly but with genuine menace. His most famous line ("Badges? We ain't got no badges...") has become a target of many bad puns over the years, but Bedoya sells it with venom.

John Huston writes and directs, working from a novel by reclusive expatriate B. Traven (rumored to have been on-set as a technical advisor under a pseudonym). The movie divides into clear chapters - Dobbs begging, the building job, mining, bandits, etc. - connected by the characters' growing distrust. Huston is able to choose shots that emphasize the world closing in around the party even while shooting outdoors, on location in Mexico; it's either night, or there's a mountain rising sharply to cut off part of the sky, or the like. He's got no trouble making things progressively more grim, or pushing Dobbs further and further from being redeemable.

Which is as it should be. Stories of human greed seldom have happy endings, and the bitter, violent conclusion of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is just what it should be.

(Formerly at EFC

To Have and Have Not

* * * ¼ (out of four)
Seen 28 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Give Thanks for Bogart)

So, it's World War II. Humphrey Bogart is playing an expatriate American running a small business in an occupied French colony, more or less minding his own business until an important resistance figure and his wife show up and turn his world upside down. This sounds awful familiar, but the action takes place not in Morocco, but Martinique.

Truthfully, To Have and Have Not really only resembles Casablanca in broad outline. Bogart's Harry Morgan operates a small fishing boat, and business isn't nearly so good as it is at Rick's Café. His first mate Eddie (Walter Brennan) drinks most of the profits, and his most recent customer (Walter Sande) refuses to pay up. The beautiful Marie Browning (Lauren Bacall) arrives on the island just as the war starts to come in earnest - a trip to secretly transport de Gaule lieutenant Paul de Bursac (Walter Szurovy) and his wife Hellene (Dolores Moran) ends with de Bursac wounded and the authorities hot on their trail.

Though based on a novel by Ernest Hemingway and featuring a screenplay by Jules Furthman and William Faulkner, the film is famous for not being constrained by its pedigree. The events of the film are only alluded to in the novel, the cast improvised many of their lines, and the focus of the story changed with the discovery that Bogart had much more chemistry with future wife Bacall than with Ms. Moran. By the time it was all said and done, the film Howard Hawks made bears scant resemblance to Hemingway's novel.

But, it works quite well as a movie, thanks in large part to how Hawks lets his costars' chemistry dictate the movie he makes. So you get the sort of love at first sight between Harry and Marie that reveals itself via sarcasm and teasing; you also get a sense of long-held camaraderie between Harry and Eddie. At times, Harry is in the position of a child dealing with a parent who has lost his faculties, holding on to what initially made him admire his old mentor, even if all anyone else can see is a sad drunk.

Indeed, even though we're trained to look at the romance as the central relationship in a movie, it's Harry's caretaking of Eddie that serves as the film's main metaphor. After all, it's easy to fall in love with a girl as attractive as young Lauren Bacall, especially when she takes the lead in flirting and just refuses to ignore requests that she go away for her own safety. Eddie's aware that he's a burden, though, and if Harry were to tell him to go away and not come back until he'd dried up, he'd probably understand and slink away. It's sticking by the Eddies of the world, even when they do nothing but cause trouble, that define a man's character, and suggest that he'll do the right thing by the fugitive de Bursacs, even when it would be simpler to turn them in.

Still, Walter Brennan's Eddie grows on us fairly quickly; he's a genial drunk with a core of sadness. This sort of performance looks somewhat outdated now, but it gets the core of the character across without us having to deal with a great deal of exposition about how Eddie got to this point. Bogart, meanwhile, plays Morgan as a curmudgeon - short-tempered with everyone but Eddie but practical about his reliability once he's left the room. Bogart has a very recognizable way of delivering his lines which suits Morgan well: Dry as a bone most of the time, until something gets the character angry, at which point his speed picks up and the words gain an edge that hits the audience like a physical blow. Bacall, meanwhile, is unflappable; the actress was only about nineteen years old when this film shot, but she projects much more confidence. Her character (nicknamed "Slim", which would stick with Bacall afterward) can trade wit with Morgan without being intimidated, and Bacall makes herself a movie star through sheer force of personality.

That an off-screen romance developed isn't surprising - while this sort of on-screen passion can be simulated between two actors, what would make these two movie stars is the larger than life charisma that they brought to the screen in their various roles, and that probably doesn't come from nowhere. Saying it shows on the screen is probably just interpreting data to fit a known conclusion, but knowing that this film is where one of Hollywood's biggest romances started certainly adds interest.

Of course, even without that factor, To Have and Have Not is still a highly entertaining movie, well worth checking out. The talent involved, both in front of the cameras and at the typewriter, just grabs one's attention.

(Formerly at EFC)

The Big Sleep

* * * ¾ (out of four)
Seen 28 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Give Thanks for Bogart)

The Big Sleep isn't confusing; it's rich. Its plot is too convoluted for many to fully grasp in one viewing, but where that could be seen as a negative for many films, it's a delight for this one. Depending on the type of person you are, it either gives you an excuse to re-watch it (and experience all the bon mots and pretty ladies again), or it will allow the film's stature to build when you watch it again for all the great lines.

Private detective Philip Marlowe (Humphrey Bogart) is hired by dying General Sternwood (Charles Waldron) to investigate the blackmail of his daughter Carmen (Martha Vickers). Before he can leave the Sternwood mansion, though, older sister Vivian Sternwood Rutledge (Lauren Bacall) is looking to take control of the situation. Good luck with that; every rock Marlowe turns over reveals some new crime, be it blackmail, drugs, gambling, or murder. And when the person initially blackmailing the Sternwoods is found dead, that doesn't mean their problems are over - it just means there's more (and more dangerous) people involved than had originally been thought.

The plot is kind of incidental, though. It throws Bogart and Bacall together, and occasionally gets someone trying to kill them. Either Marlowe has dealt with cases like this before or he's got a copy of the script, because he's got a knack for knowing just what each turnaround means despite the clues not being nearly so transparent to the audience; it's a good thing for us that he's got Vivian tagging along much of the time for him to explain it to. The fun comes from watching Bogie be James Bond before Bond was much more than a twinkle in Ian Fleming's eye; he saunters through a dangerous case with calm self-assurance, breaking out firearms when necessary, stumbling across beautiful women who are instantly attracted to him (including Dorothy Malone and Joy Barlow as a bookstore proprietress and a cab driver, respectively) and thugs who want to kill him at roughly the same rate.

These encounters are all great fun because Marlowe's wit is even quicker than his draw, and he's got a comeback for everyone, whether it be crook, client, or beautiful young widow (or is it divorcée, not that it matters?). Bacall's Vivian has the best responses, which isn't really surprising; director Howard Hawks and his writers (William Faulkner, Leigh Brackett, and Jules Furthman) rewrote and reshot scenes after seeing how the audience responded to them in To Have and Have Not, resulting in the film's release being delayed two years (try to imagine how poisonous the internet buzz would be if that happened sixty years later). Hawks, Faulkner, and Furthman had also worked on that film, so they had first-hand experience with making this work. The dialogue is easily the best part of the script, which famously had Hawks and Bogart calling original novelist Raymond Chandler to ask whether a character was murdered or committed suicide.

When you've got a pair of leads as well-suited to each other as Bogart and Bacall, you can let some of the plot slide so long as their constantly being fed chances to work off each other. Here, they almost seem to be in a competition to see who can deliver their great lines more casually, trying to convince us that yes, they are this clever in every conversation. They're well-matched, both affecting worldly amorality while displaying obvious affection for and loyalty to the general. Martha Vickers has a very nice turn as Carmen, all bratty and spoiled and cold sexuality. It's a shame we don't see her and Bacall playing off each other more than they do; that could have been a very fun dynamic.

Hawks and his writers keep the movie barreling along at a rapid pace; plot twists come nearly as quickly as great lines, so much so that there's scarcely a moment to breathe even with the occasional stops to explain what's going on to the audience. If anything, the movie is too punchy. It's hard to build up suspense when the plot twists often come straight out of left field; shaking things up, after all, is only noticeable when the ground had been steady at some point. The way Marlowe and Vivian fall for each other is kind of perfunctory, but that's okay; this isn't the sort of movie where we really need to believe that they stick together until the day they die. Just finding someone they like and can relate to in the middle of a world full of scheming and murder is enough.

The mystery story is there, and makes a certain amount of sense after a few viewings. But figuring out the whos, whens and whys is only a quarter of the fun of this movie. The real delight is the fun dialogue, delivered like only Bogie & Bacall could.

(Formerly at EFC)

Key Largo

* * * ½ (out of four)
Seen 30 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Give Thanks for Bogart)

Key Largo was one of four movies Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall did together, and as such it's tempting to make them the central focus of the review. But I've already written a couple bits about them recently, so let's talk about Edward G. Robinson.

If you compare stars of yesteryear to those of today, Edward G. Robinson might be said to be his era's Christopher Walken. He was ubiquitous, showing up in a lot of supporting roles. He had an instantly recognizable voice, look, and persona that he carried between films, so that when he showed up, it didn't take more than a few moments to know what this guy was about. He played a lot of bad guys, and bounced freely between A and B movies. He was a famous enough name to be prominently displayed on the poster, but his presence alone probably didn't put a lot of butts in seats. People were glad to see him more than they went looking for him.

People are still glad to see him. In Key Largo, he plays Johnny Rocco, a big time New York gangster who, after a few years exiled in Cuba, is returning to the States in a big way with a bunch of counterfeit money. He's made special arrangements to use a hotel on the titular island during the off-season, but his plan doesn't take into account two factors: A massive hurricane about to hammer the Florida Keys, a police manhunt for two Native American escaped convicts, and Frank McCloud (Bogart), a WWII vet coming to meet the family of his killed-in-action war buddy: Wheelchair-bound father James Temple (Lionel Barrymore) owns the hotel, and widow Nora (Bacall) lives and works with him. He's got his favorite moll and a quartet of enforcers with him, and that should be enough to hold tight until the deal is done, but maybe it won't...

Robinson has scenery to chew here, and he launches into his role with gusto. Johnny Rocco's been the top dog for too long to even consider failure, even though his situation is obviously reduced - his goons are idlers, and lover Gaye Dawn (Claire Trevor) is getting a bit past her prime. Robinson has a different attack when nature's fury throws the situation out of his control, still blustering but with enough nervousness to clearly expose him as a coward. He and director John Huston use Robinson's his girth to indicate power and powerlessness in turns, and his delivery is a combined sneer and growl.

Of course, this isn't really Robinson's movie, even if his is the most outsize performance. Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall are, after all, both around. Compared to some of their other collaborations, there's less of a spark here. She is, after all, playing the widow of his comrade-at-arms, and the sort of immediate, can-you-top-this flirting of To Have and Have Not and The Big Sleep would be inappropriate. Bogart carries survivor's guilt in his initial interactions, despite how quickly the Temples warm to his character. The war has drained this man. Bacall and Barrymore play less conflicted roles; Bacall's Nora is tense but has faith in Frank; it's nice to see that their chemistry holds even when it's not primarily sexual or romantic. Barrymore's role can be summed up with "if I wasn't stuck in this chair..." He's impotently righteous, not only expressing his disdain for the gangsters at every moment, but wanting to shelter the local Indians during the storm (he's described as having been a friend to them when many others aren't) and acting as a father figure to the forlorn Bogart. Barrymore sells us on Temple's rectitude, making us believe in his strength despite his physical weakness.

Director John Huston adapts a play by Maxwell Anderson, and even though the majority does take place on the hotel's ground floor to give some feeling of being claustrophobic and trapped, but it's a large enough set to keep things from looking too monotonous. He also gets outside and onto the water for the action climax, and some nice-looking exteriors before the hurricane hits. It's probably easier to show some destruction if the set doesn't have to be rebuilt every night, too.

Key Largo is perhaps not as much fun as some of the other movies to pair Bogart & Bacall, but that's okay with Robinson walking off with every scene he's got. And, hey, who doesn't love Edward G. Robinson?

(Formerly at EFC)

The Maltese Falcon

* * * * (out of four)
Seen 1 December 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Give Thanks for Bogart)

The Maltese Falcon straddles the line between pulp fiction and film noir like few other films. The black statue of the title is a fantastical target for the film's motley crew of thieves and scoundrels, and ancient treasure suggesting far-off places and high adventure. It's not in some mysterious European vault, though; it's in Los Angeles, and none of the people involved in the caper are particularly high-minded.

Certainly not Miles Archer, a private detective who is putty in the hands of a woman (Mary Astor) who claims to be seeking her missing sister. The next morning, though, Archer's dead, and even as his business partner Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) is unceremoniously having the office door re-stenciled, he aims to find out why. The trail leads to a pair of hoods (Peter Lorre, Elisha Cook Jr.) and a collector of rare antiquities (Sydney Greenstreet), all looking for a black statuette originally belonging to the Knights Templar.

Bogart is at his best when doing the right thing doesn't necessarily come easy to him, and Spade is far from a saint. He doesn't waste any time mourning over his dead partner, nor does he flinch at guns in his face. Bogart plays Spade drier than usual, with a bit of a mean streak where Marlowe was playful. He describes avenging his partner as a vague obligation, and the way he seems equally at ease among cops and crooks makes the audience wonder whether he just doesn't care about the law and justice, whether he does care but has to wear a mask of amorality in order to survive in his environment, or whether the life of a private investigator has eroded his sense of right and wrong so that he's somewhere in between, heading in the wrong direction. At times, Bogart projects cynicism, at times common sense, and it's the audience's sad job to figure out where the line between the two lies.

He's mixed up with a fine set of scoundrels. Mary Astor, for instance, who is so convincing as the damsel in distress at the start of the story that she retains our good will even as the things her character initially hides from the detectives are revealed. She gets under our skin by not vamping it up as a femme fatale, even though she could have easily gone that way. Peter Lorre is weaselly perfection as Joe Cairo, the sort of henchman who constantly and ineffectually plots for his own gain. He and writer/director John Huston have a little fun playing up a sort of petty rivalry with Elisha Cook's Wilmer; there's something a little more than vaguely gay about both characters, which at the time the film was made would translate to "sneaky and disreputable". It's a different take, and gives a different feel compared to standard toothpick-chewing toughs.

Also making an impression as alpha villain Kasper Gutman is Sydney Greenstreet. It's Greenstreet's first screen role (though he was already in his sixties) and he makes us wish he'd started a little earlier. His Gutman is a classic antagonist in part because he contrasts so well with Bogart's Spade, being mountainously large, well-spoken, and happily committed to his goal. When they're on-screen together, though, you can tell they understand each other all too well, recognizing other intelligent, ruthless people on a quest whose cost is likely not ultimately worth the reward.

Also making his debut, as a director, is John Huston. Working from a Dashiell Hammett novel, he makes a prototypical film noir. We're denied anybody we can like without reservation, and most of the action takes place either indoors or after dark, keeping the natural world from brightening things. He's got a knack for throwing a fair amount of information at us without stepping up to overload - the story has as many players as The Big Sleep, but each step does feel like it's getting Spade closer to the answers, rather than just stringing events together.

When people have imagined a private detective over the past sixty years, Humphrey Bogart is the image most often conjured up. That's in part because he also played Philip Marlowe, but mostly on the strength of this film.

(Formerly at EFC)

Next up: Probably Game 6, as I try to balance reviewing stuff while it's fresh in my mind with working down the backlog.

Friday, February 17, 2006

Cahiers du Cinéma presents Jacques Doillon

This was the first series at the Brattle for their month-long "movie watch-a-thon" in November, creating in me a fervent wish that they had started with the samurai movies instead. This was pretty dry stuff, artistically interesting but also indicative of why American audiences assume French films are crashing bores.

It was also one of the least exciting examples of having the director present I can remember. To be fair, I missed what was probably the most interesting segment, where a film was rescheduled so that the guests could talk about the rioting going on in the Paris suburbs. Doillon only appeared to answer questions about the films he directed, and only some of those - he was apparently severely jet-lagged throughout his whole stay in Cambridge, and left before the end of the series. Personally, I think it might have been more interesting to have him talk about the films he chose. Filmmakers can answer questions directly about their own works, but the answers are seldom as exciting as expected, and often they don't want to go into much detail for fear of "spoiling the magic" or making definitive in the audience's mind what had deliberately left ambiguous (which is fair - was anyone really happy when Ridley Scott came out and said "Deckard is a replicant"?). But when talking about a favorite film, ah, that's different. Then they could engage in an actual discussion with the audience, because they are one of us, only with more knowledge about how films are made.

And, of course, the audience (when not speaking in French and leaving us guys with a very rusty high-school command of the language in the dark) was kind of annoyingly obsequious. Guys - when you feel compelled to start a question with "though some may claim the film is boring"... The film is boring.

And speaking of La Vengence d'une Femme...

La Vengence d'une Femme

* * (out of four)
Seen 11 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Cahiers du Cinema Presents Jacques Doillon)

Actors love shit like this. At least, a certain type does. They receive a long screenplay that's almost all dialogue, between just a few a characters, with obviously complicated backstory and a contentious relationship beneath the civility, and they're like, oh, wow, this is my chance to look good. And the type of actor who is attracted to this sort of project - they generally can pull it off. Here's my question, though: Is a film packed to the rafters with fine and subtle acting but little else have any more value than any other type of unbalanced film? Is this really better than a gimmick screenplay or two hours of empty eye candy?

I tend to think not. I think that in part as a reaction to people touting performance-heavy pieces which bored me over flashier movies that provided real entertainment, no matter how simple. I understand the feeling; of all the pieces that go into a movie, the acting is the most human. If how Isabelle Huppert says a word makes you cry, she does it without mechanical or electronic tools. It's an accomplishment that can't be denigrated or explained away. We want it to be most important, because we can see people doing it. But even when it is the most important thing, it can't be the only thing. And as fine a showcase as La Vengence d'une Femme is for its two leading actresses, it's not much more than that.

Read the rest at HBS.

A Man Escaped (Un condamné à mort s'est échappé ou Le vent souffle où il veut)

* * * (out of four)
Seen 12 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Cahiers du Cinema Presents Jacques Doillon)

The title doesn't leave much doubt about the outcome of this film, though I suppose there's the possibility that it's metaphorical, that Lieutenant Fontaine frees himself of fear or guilt or some other emotional prison. Writer/director Robert Bresson may have been feeling philosophical when making this film, but not so much that he feels the need to obscure events. The title (at least, the English translation) is straightforward, and the movie is truth in advertising: The ticket says "A Man Escaped", and the events of the movie are never far from that.

The film begins with an escape attempt, as Fontaine (François Leterrier) attempts to jump from the car while the Germans transport him to prison. Once he arrives, he is just as single-minded in his purpose. He examines the grounds, taps messages to people in the next cell, and takes inventory of the raw materials in his cell. From there, it is time to put his plan in action - and that's when the Nazis saddle him with a new cellmate. He can't escape without adding the kid to the plan, but everything about him screams "informer".

Read the rest at HBS.

Day of Wrath (Vredens Dag)

* * ¾ (out of four)
Seen 12 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Cahiers du Cinema Presents Jacques Doillon)

There were no credits on the print of Day of Wrath that screened at the Brattle, and if that's the way it originally played in 1943, well, that makes a certain amount of sense. If you were a European filmmaker who had made a film about the evils of intolerance and persecution, it's probably a good idea to keep a low profile.

Day of Wrath opens with an old woman being hunted for witchcraft. She has, of course, been doing nothing more dangerous than dispensing some herbal remedies, but it's not a tolerant time and many people in this small village are willing to use the church as a way to lash at out those who have angered them. Presiding over what passes for a trial is the Reverend Absalon Pedersson (Thorkild Roose). Pedersson has a young second wife, Anne (Lisbeth Movin), who is attractive and good-natured; she aided the old woman, hiding her in Pedersson's basement. Pedersson also has a harpy of a mother, Merete (Sigrid Neiiendam), who doesn't much like Anne, and a good looking son, Martin (Preben Lerdoff Rye), just back from sea and meeting a stepmother several years his junior for the first time. I suppose there are movies where this sort of family dynamic does not lead to trouble, but Day of Wrath isn't one of them.

Read the rest at HBS.

Rendez-Vous

* * (out of four)
Seen 13 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Cahiers du Cinema Presents Jacques Doillon)

I can't say that there weren't warning signs. The description of this movie in the Brattle's program was not the thing I usually go for, and I didn't much like the previous three films I'd seen in the Caihers du Cinema series that weekend. But the Watch-a-Thon was on, so by seeing this, I would raise another ten bucks to keep the Brattle open. It's not so tough to sit through a bad movie for charity, right? And then Olivier Assayas's name appeared in the opening credits. I looked left, I looked right, and I realized enough other people were feeling charitable that I was blocked in.

Assayas is only the co-writer for André Téchiné, who also directs. They tell the story of Nina Larrieux (Juliette Binoche), a young actress who regularly bails out after her one scene in a play to have sex with her boyfriend/roommate. After leaving him, she meets Paulot (Wadeck Stanczak) at a rental agency while looking for a new place, but though he falls for her, she has eyes for his roommate, Quentin (Lambert Wilson). Quentin's a virile, unstable sort who used to be an actor and now works in live sex shows; after he leaves the scene, his former director (Jean-Louis Trintignant) appears to offer Nina a role.

Read the rest at HBS.

La Puritaine

* * ½ (out of four)
Seen 14 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Cahiers du Cinema Presents Jacques Doillon)

That theater people are crazy and self-important is a sweeping generalization, but one that apparently contains enough truth that people can watch a film like La Puritaine and say "you know, as insane as that is, I bet it might actually happen. Friggin' weirdos." It's the sort of movie that makes sense only if you presume a certain amount of individual and institutional insanity.

Renowned theater director Pierre (Michel Piccoli) has just received a letter saying that his daughter Manon (Sandrine Bonnaire) is coming home and will meet him at the theater the next day. His next move, therefor, is obviously to call in all the actresses in his troupe, assign some representation of his daughter to each of them ("you will be Manon's eyes... you will be her voice... you will be her hand...") so that he can figure out how to speak with her upon her return. In the meantime, Manon arrives at the theater, lets herself in the back way, and observes this whole exercise, occasionally talking to one of the actresses or her father's assistant Ariane (Sabine Azéma) before finally speaking to her father.

Read the rest at HBS.

Mon Oncle

* * * ¾ (out of four)
Seen 14 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Cahiers du Cinema Presents Jacques Doillon)

I saw my first film with Jacques Tati as his signature character, Monsieur Hulot, as part of a series spotlighting him along with Charlies Chaplin and Buster Keaton. Tati initially seemed like the odd man out in that group, making his movies a generation after the others, with sound, and in Paris rather than Hollywood. It is, however, immediately clear after watching Mon Oncle that Tati certainly resembles that group more than his contemporaries.

However, M. Hulot is uniquely Tati's. He's an older gentleman, at least middle-aged, though still possessed of a childlike delight in the world around him. Here, he's the title character, the much-adored uncle to Gerald Arpel (Alain Becourt) who buys him ice cream and teaches him how to use a slingshot, in contrast to the boy's bourgeois parents (Jean-Pierre Zola and Adrienne Servantie). They live in an ultra-modern house with all the bells and whistles, and try to convert Hulot to their way of life, fixing him up with women and getting him a job at the plastics factory where M. Arpel is a manager.

Read the rest at HBS.

Raja

* * * (out of four)
Seen 16 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Cahiers du Cinema Presents Jacques Doillon)

During the Jacques Doillon series at the Brattle, I found time to see four three of the director's favorite films and three he'd directed himself. By the time the end of the series came around, I had to admit, I was less than enthused about the whole thing. His films were well-acted and grappled with some interesting emotions, but were so focused on observation and performance as opposed to story that I found them quite dull. I was pleasantly surprised, then, by how much I enjoyed Raja. It may not actually have more plot than his other films, but the environment he's observing is less familiar, so there's not quite the same sense of having seen it before.

The title character is a teenage girl from Marrekesh, played by Najat Benssallem. She has ideas about escaping poverty, which involve tagging along with her friend Nadira (Ilham Abelwahed) to find work on the estate of a French expatriate (Pascal Greggory). Her plan succeeds; Fred notices the pretty girl and gives her work inside the house. Once there, she teases and pulls back, trying to find ways to work less and spend more time by the pool, while also juggling her boyfriend Youssef (Hassan Khissal).

Read the rest at HBS.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Seven samurai movies that aren't The Seven Samurai

In a certain way, watching the Brattle's schedule of samurai movies last November provided a similar experience to the Harold Lloyd series earlier in the year. I came into that a big Keaton fan and came out with a new respect for the relatively unknown Lloyd; similarly, I came into the samurai series a fan of Toshiro Mifune, but came out quite fond of Tatsuya Nakadai.

I don't like Mifune any less, but I couldn't help but notice that he is, to a certain extent, always Toshiro Mifune. Nakadai, on the other hand, disappears into his roles more. I think this is at least partially because I was far less familiar with Nakadai, but it was still jarring to be opening the IMDB for reference on each of these movies and realize that the same guy starred in four of them and you just didn't realize it at the time. Part of it was that Nakadai was playing older in many cases, and maybe the make-up work was different. So were the beards.

Other observations: The genre as a whole seems to work better in black-and-white. There were a pair of good-looking color movies, but the simplicity of monochrome suits the samurai aesthetic: It keeps the gray robes from looking bland against the natural world, and reinforces the rigid codes of honor, even when the movie is trying to subvert them.

Also, I wonder if samurai films fill the same niche in Japanese culture that westerns fill for Americans. It's a way of life that is obsolete but still in the venacular. Wandering ronin aren't so far off from American gunfighters, and both have strong themes of trying to maintain order despite a strong central government being out of reach. Both fetishize the weapons and their use more than a little. It's easy to make escapist adventures in these millieus, but it's also not terribly hard for a gifted filmmaker to do intelligent social commentary.

The same can be said about martial arts films from the Chinas, with fighting styles standing in for weapons. Wong Fei-hung would be a samurai or U.S. Marshall if he were born elsewhere. I can't, off the top of my head, think what the equivalents would be for other cultures. England has Robin Hood and Arthurian legend, but I'm not sure what the French western-equivalent would be.

On to the films...

Samurai Saga (Aru kengo no shogai)

* * * * (out of four)
Seen 4 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Samurai Cinema)

Well, why not do a samurai version of "Cyrano de Bergerac"? It's a classic story, filled with grand, doomed romance and the occasional swordfight; every culture has that somewhere in their past, along with ostracizing those who look different. It's far less of a stretch to put Cyrano in feudal Japan than it is to put him in a Colorado resort.

It doesn't hurt at all to have Toshiro Mifune as the warrior-poet with the big nose. Here, Cyrano's name is Heihachiro Komaki. He's a big, burly guy whose broad nose and scruffy appearance distract from his skill with the sword; one wouldn't necessarily expect him to write a good haiku, either. The object of his affection is beautiful young Lady Ochii (Yoko Tsukasa); she is smitten with Jutaro Karibe (Akira Takarada), who feels the same but cannot find the words to woo her. There are plots and schemes and arranged marriages to further complicate things, overcoming which will require Komaki's wit and blade.

Read the rest at HBS.

Sword of Doom (Dai-bosatsu toge)

* * * ½ (out of four)
Seen 5 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Samurai Cinema)

Samurai movies are often tales of righteousness and honor, good men struggling to do what is just within a corrupt system. There are elements of that within Sword of Doom, to be sure, but a great deal of the movie is centered around the bad guy. Lucky for us, Tatsuya Nakadai is a highly engaging screen villain.

His character, Ryunosuke Tsukue, is a monster. His first on-screen victim is an old man visiting a mountaintop shrine with his granddaughter Omatsu (Yoko Naito). Soon afterward he is involved in a duel with low-level samurai Bunnojo Utsuki, and Utsuki's wife Ohama (Michiyo Aratama) begs him to allow Bunnojo to escape with honor and status, offering herself as reward. Tsukue decides to take both the kill and the girl, becoming an assassin for hire under an assumed name. The dead man's brother, Hyoma Utsuki (Yuzo Kayama) vows vengeance, but before he can face Tsukue, he must be trained by a master swordsman (Toshiro Mifune).

Read the rest at HBS.

Kill! (Kiru)

* * * ¼ (out of four)
Seen 5 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Samurai Cinema)

Look at that title. It seems simple enough, so straightforward that it almost has to be a parody. Right? That's the right track, but few mere parodies are so elaborate in their set-up as Kill!, or as witty in how that set-up plays out. And that's even without acknowledging that Kill! does a fine job as samurai action, even if you're not inclined to laugh at the genre.

Kill! opens with Genta (Tatsuya Nakadai) and Hanji (Etsushi Takahashi) meeting while taking turns trying to chase down a chicken, since it has been a while since either has had much of a meal. They are both ronin, of sorts: Genta has abandoned the samurai lifestyle, sick of the compromise and corruption, while Hanji has sold his farm to buy a sword, even though there is far more to being a samurai than carrying the sword. The local yakuza have no work for them, although a local lord might. It doesn't take long for things to become a mess, with Genta pretending that Hanji has killed him so that Hanji can secure a position, a group of honorable samurai holed up in an old mountain fort, and the leader of the mercenary samurai sent to rout them is only in it for the money to buy the freedom of his beloved.

Read the rest at HBS.

Three Outlaw Samurai (Sanbiki no samurai)

* * * ¾ (out of four)
Seen 7 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Samurai Cinema)

Reluctant heroes are a storytelling staple. It gives the writer a reason to build the tension, develop the villain slowly, set up a variety of ways that the tale could go, even if you know in your heart of hearts that the direction is pre-ordained. It gives the audience a certain amount of identification with the protagonist, because most of us know that our first reaction to a dangerous situation would probably be "don't get involved". And, when they finally do get involved, the audience knows that the bad guys are in for one heck of an ass-kicking. As the name suggests, this film gives us three reluctant heroes.

Sakon Shiba (Tesuro Tamba) is a wandering ronin just looking for a roof to sleep under for a night, but the mill he chooses is occupied by Jimbei and Tasugoro, a pair of elderly farmers who have kidnapped Aya, the daughter of the cruel local magistrate. He gives them enough advice to avoid a bloodbath. The magistrate offers two prisoners their freedom if they deal with the situation (it would not look good to send troops after two old men); one of the prisoners, samurai Kyojuro Sakura (Isamu Nagato) kills a man en route and later switches sides, touched by the farmers' plight. Finally, he sends Einosuke Kikyo (Mikijiro Hira), the samurai in his service who prefers to be a threat than an actual weapon, but when Kikyo, too, decides he is serving a dishonorable master, it's time to call in the mercenaries to keep the letter that the farmers have written from reaching the visiting lord.

Read the rest at HBS.

Bandits vs. Samurai Squadron (Kumokiri Nizaemon)

* * ¾ (out of four)
Seen 8 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Samurai Cinema)

I'm going to be honest here... I can't remember the details of what happened in this movie. I remember the basic storyline, and I remember that it looked kind of spiffy, but a backlog of reviews to write stretching out to three months often means that the details to mediocre films like this one sort of fall out the back of one's head. Normally, I'd try looking for other reviews online and using their plot summaries to refresh my memory, but there don't appear to be any, at least not in English, for Google to find.

There's potential - the opening scroll of text describes two enemy organizations: A gang of thieves led by Kumokiri Nakaemon (the always-great Tatsuya Nakadai), and a ruthless band of samurai police headed by Shikubu Abe (Shogoro Ichikawa). Abe will stop at nothing to lay Kumokiri low, not even putting innocent girls in harm's way, while both try to infiltrate the other's organization. Kumokiri, by the end, plans to disband his gang anyway, after they rob the treasury of the Lord to whom he once swore fealty.

At two hours and forty-five minutes, Bandits is epic-sized, and it's got the elements that often make such a long runtime worthwhile: A large cast of characters, a story that unfolds over years, and enough betrayals and double-crosses that one desires a little space between them, so that a status can become quo before being upended. And yet, it still seems overly-elongated. We don't get to know the characters well enough for this extra time spent with them to be worth it, so they actually seem thinner than normal. There's also not really a strong sense of time passing; we get captions stating the year at intervals, but it often seems like the filmmakers are trying to make the story grander by making it longer. They may skip two years, but we tend to find people right where they left off.

Hideo Gosha can still direct the heck out of an action scene, though, and the ones he gets to work with let him show off his craft. He's given two or three heists, some of which turn into ugly battles, and choreographs his games of cops 'n robbers as good as anyone. He and cinematographer Masao Kosugi make fine use of color during daytime scenes, and during the rest of the time the night fits like a fancy stolen coat.

Almost every entry I did find when looking for information on this picture describes it as one of the best samurai films of the seventies, although that may just mean that the seventies were a pretty dire period for samurai films.

Samurai Rebellion (Jôi-uchi: Hairyô tsuma shimatsu)

* * * * (out of four)
Seen 9 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Samurai Cinema)

As great as samurai movies, I sometimes have a hard time getting invested in the stories. After all, these stories often hinge on formal codes and hierarchies that are alien to me. But even if you're as thoroughly ignorant of eighteenth-century Japan's culture as I am, it's not hard to be hooked by Samurai Rebellion - after all, what's more universal a story than a man fighting to preserve his family?

Of course, the family must first be assembled. We meet Isaburo Sasahara (Toshiro Mifune), a middle-aged samurai who has long served the family of Lord Masakata Matsudaira (Tatsuo Matsumura). The Lord tires of his haughty and disrespectful mistress Ichi (Yoko Tsukasa), and decrees that one of the Sasahara sons take her off his hands by marrying her. Isaburo initially finds this demeaning, but when son Yogoro (Takeshi Kato) falls in love at first sight, the father relents.

Read the rest at HBS.

Hara-Kiri (Seppuku)

* * * ½ (out of four)
Seen 9 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Samurai Cinema)

I never really got the whole suicide concept; I tend to fall into the "all life is precious" and "where there's life, there's hope" camp. Hara-Kiri touches on the situation where it starts becoming comprehensible to me, the "n cannot survive but n-1 can" Cold Equations scenario. You don't have to understand or approve of suicide to be moved by the drama of Hara-Kiri, though: You just need to recognize cruelty and hypocrisy.

As the opening narrative crawl informs us, there was a surplus of samurai in 1630: As the abolition of one clan and general peace among the others left the employment prospects for those without masters dire, many lived in poverty. One such ronin is Hanshiro Tsugumo (Tasuya Nakadai), who comes to the Iyi clan's stronghold to request the use of the grounds and a swordsman to commit seppuku. The retainer who meets him rolls his eyes and mumbles "another one?"; after the clan leader was moved enough by one man's story to offer him a position, many insincere ronin have made the same request, hoping to at least be sent away with money. Retainer Saito (Rentaro Mikuni) warns Tsugumo that there will be no payoff this time, but Tsugumo says he knows, and relates the story of how he came to this position - a story which soon indicates that Tsugumo's plans go beyond killing himself.

Read the rest at HBS.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Oddities: G.O.R.A., Budd Boetticher, Darwin's Nightmare, Ushpizin, Nine Lives

There are boutique films, there are niche films, and then there are boutique niche films. It is four that latter category that places like the Brattle and Harvard Film Archive exist. I saw four of these movies toward the end of the Brattle's Movie Watch-a-Thon fundraiser, although not so much to prove a point that I was committed to unconventional films. There was really not a whole lot left; I saw a bunch of movies during that month, and Ushpizin (for instance) was the only thing that was matinee price at four in the afternoon that Saturday.

I admit to kind of being just a little bit disappointed in G.O.R.A.. I'd been hoping to see it at Fantasia, but it was during the second half of the festival and I got a screener for something else instead. The trailer on the program's DVD, as you might expect, contained almost all the F/X and grand vista scenes from the movie, so it looked snazzier than it was. But, hey, Turkey is a country that I had never seen a movie from, so I can make a mark on an imaginary checklist.

I wish I'd gotten to see more of the Budd Boetticher series. And I would dearly love to see the raw footage of A Man Can Do That's sit-down with Clint Eastwood and Quentin Tarantino. In my imagination, it's these guys talking about one of their favorite directors of westerns for two hours. In my fantasies, it's a weekly TV show on Bravo.

So, to the reviews!

G.O.R.A.

* * ¾ (out of four)
Seen 2 November 2005 at the Brattle Theater (New Turkish Cinema)

I love sci-fi. Not to the point of praising bad examples of the genre, but I will try just about anything the genre offers up, and the more exotic, the better. I saw this on the schedule at Fantasia and immediately thought, okay, Turkish sci-fi comedy, I've never seen a movie like that; heck, I didn't know they made movies in Turkey. I was really disappointed when I couldn't fit a screening into my travel plans or acquire a screener, so I was happy to catch up with it at a Brattle screening a few months later. And even if this isn't the greatest entry in the genre, it's still a unique specimen, and what's the point of being a fan of science fiction if you're not open to new storytelling experiences?

The story follows Arif (Cem Yilmaz), a small-time tourist-trapper in Istanbul who is abducted and brought to the planet GORA by Commander Logar (also Yilmaz), who has designs on the beautiful Princess Ceku (Özge Özberk). She wants no part of the power-hungry lunatic, as she confesses to her robot friend 216 (Ozan Guven), but she doesn't seem to be getting much choice in the matter. She and Arif meet up, and escape from the city together, where circumstances will inevitably force them to save the planet.

Read the rest at HBS.

Budd Boetticher: A Man Can Do That

* * ¾ (out of four)
Seen 2 December 2005 at the Harvard Film Archive (Ride Lonesome)

Budd Boetticher: A Man Can Do That makes me feel bad about for the most part giving the Boetticher series at the Harvard Film Archive a miss. It was bad timing - I was just coming off the Brattle's Movie-Watch-a-Thon and wanted out of theaters, I wound up working late, and one of the days I was free was the day they had the only Boetticher film I'd seen (and not been hugely impressed with), The Tall T, because the movie Bruce Ricker and Dave Kehr made certainly raised my interest in Boetticher as both a man and a filmmaker.

Oscar Boetticher Junior's story isn't a rags-to-riches tale, but one of a man trying to claim his own place in the world and not always having it work out well. The small son of a successful hardware salesman, he pushed himself to excel in sports as a child, then learned how to be a matador in Mexico, competing professionally for a while. He found himself in Hollywood on his return to America, where he toiled in various jobs on studio lots until he got a chance to do some second unit work, which lead to using his expertise as a technical advisor on Blood and Sand; he would later write, direct, and produce bullfighter epic Bullfighter and the Lady. He eventually paired with star Randolph Scott for a series of successful mid-budget Westerns for John Wayne's company in the 1950s before directing The Rise and Fall of Legs Diamond. During the 1960s, though, Boetticher's maverick streak would become his undoing, as he threw his entire effort into another bullfighting film, Arruza, which would become the very model of the career-destroying disaster.

Read the rest at HBS.

Arruza

* ¼ (out of four)
Seen 2 December 2005 at the Harvard Film Archive (Ride Lonesome)

Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate is generally held up as the gold standard of movie debacles, and it's hard to argue with a film which nearly bankrupted a studio that had been in existence since the silent days. But for all the carnage it caused, it just bled money. Budd Boetticher's Arruza was a more total disaster for the people involved.

Boetticher's idea, apparently, was to make something like The Jackie Robinson Story, a fictionalized biography whose subject would star as himself. The man who captured Boetticher's interest was Carlos Arruza, widely considered Mexico's greatest matador, who had retired at the top of his game, purchasing one of the nation's top cattle farms where he would breed champion toros. When one of his animals gets loose, he herds the beast back on horseeback, which inspires him to learn a different form of bullfighting, rejoneador rather than picador. Michael Jordan retiring from basketball to try his hand at professional baseball is not a bad analogy, although Arruza's new sport was considered less prestigious than his old one (and Space Jam is a better movie). Boetticher's wife, Debra Paget, would be the leading lady.

Read the rest at HBS.

Ushpizin

* * ¼ (out of four)
Seen 3 December 2005 at Landmark Kendsall Square #9 (First-run)

I feel like a bit of a heel for not liking Ushpizin more than I do. I talk a good game about how being edgy is over-rated, especially in comparison to being heartfelt; I say the one of the things I love about foreign films is being exposed to different cultures. When something big-hearted and unfamiliar like Ushpizin comes along, I feel like I should appreciate it more. Instead, I find myself looking at my watch, trying to suppress a yawn because I don't want to offend the older folks who don't need the subtitles, and afterward noting that it had really good intentions.

The movie opens with scrolling text to inform Gentiles (and less-religious Jews) of the rituals surrounding the Succot holiday, which involve (among other things) living in a wooden shelter, acquiring a citron fruit, and showing hospitality to any guests (the ushpizin of the title) who may appear at one's doorway. For Moshe Bellanga (Shuli Rand), times are tight, and he's afraid he won't be able to afford these things, even though he and his wife Malli (Michal Bat-Sheva Rand) are praying for a child. However, things work out, or at least they seem to - the guests they are blessed with (Shaul Mizrahi and Ilan Ganani), are in fact convicts who didn't return to prison at the end of their furlough.

Read the rest at HBS.

Darwin's Nightmare

* * * (out of four)
Seen 3 December 2005 at the Brattle Theater (Special Engagements)

The blurb on the calendar played up the ecological angle: A foreign species introduced into a new environment destroys the native fauna, sending the ecology into a tailspin. Though some time is spent on how a small population of Nile perch quickly came to dominate Lake Victoria, biodiversity is not actually the focus of the film. Instead, Darwin's Nightmare focuses on how the perch dominates the area's economy just as totally as it does the lake, and how despite being able to export an abundant, renewable resource, the region remains impoverished.

Why? Globalization, apparently. Russian planes arrive, fill their holds up with Tanzanian fish fillets, and fly them to Europe. The fish are so plentiful that the fishing boats and processing centers are only somewhat profitable by paying the workers almost nothing (it's not like potential employees are in short supply). So the locals subsist on fried fish heads while their bounty flies overseas, with malnutrition and disease constant problems.

Read the rest at HBS.

Nine Lives

* * * (out of four)
Seen 11 January 2006 at the Brattle Theater (Recent Raves)

How can you tell the difference between a "real" independent film that manages to snag some well-known actors and a studio project that gets released under the "classics" banner? I'm guessing that one way would be to look at those actors' interviews with the media. As much as an independent filmmaker may be able to convince, say, Glenn Close to work for scale as a favor to a friend, that's not going to get her to take a break from other commitments to do interviews. That's why a movie like Nine Lives, with its very impressive cast, is able to come and go almost completely unnoticed (if it even came to your town at all).

Of course, part of the reason you don't get the stars doing press is because this film doesn't have a real lead to push. It's a sort of anthology film, nine segments that each follows a woman for ten or fifteen minutes before moving on to a different character's point of view. Some of the stories overlap in obvious ways; others share characters but place them in incongruous situations. The last story appears to be entirely self-contained. If there's a single premise that unites the segments, it's that love is a responsibility, and sometimes even a burden, as well as a source of joy.

Read the rest at HBS.

Next up: The Brattle's Samurai Cinema series from way back in November. I'm starting to despair as I look at the "to-review" list again, so I'll probably start doing capsules for recent movies soon. The stuff where I had to ask the HBS/EFC guys to put the movie in the database, though (like the samurai films), I figure I owe them a full review. The pipe dream is to get caught up by the SF/31 marathon a month from now (or at least within a reasonable distance).

Friday, January 13, 2006

SILENCE! - Seven silents and Frankenstein

...with Frankenstein included because it was part of the whole silent-Halloween weekend thing I did between Somerville and the Coolidge. And of course, it was the one I'd wished had been left alone.

As much as I like the Harvard Film Archive, I don't know how often I'd go there if not for silents. The Brattle is the main focus of my classic-movie watching time, and there's often just not enough time to hit both. But the Brattle only rarely shows silents - I think in the seven years I've been here, there have been three series: Harold Lloyd last year, a Chaplin/Keaton/Tati series a couple years earlier, and a Maddin/Brothers Quay series a couple years before that. Other shows are booked on fairly rare occasions, like when there's a new score to debut. When I lived in Portland, I think The Movies on Exchange Street had Nosferatu for a week - and they cropped it to 1.85:1, meaning intertitles and heads were cut off.

Which is fine; silent movies are sort of an acquired taste, and a niche, and I imagine only non-profits can really show them regularly (The Silent Movie Theatre in L.A. is unique, and the first place I'll visit should I ever make my way out there). So it's only academic institutions like the HFA and occasionally the Museum of Fine Arts that show them on the big screen.

And yet, I'd still like more. Part of the charm of silent movies, of course, is that they're not just silent, but old, from the early days of cinema where what you see is very close to exactly what was shot, and where the filmmakers are still discovering how to make movies. But part is how reducing the importance of words and dialog allows these movies to concentrate on the techniques that are unique to film as a medium: Motion, environment, body language writ large. Imagine how great the Star Wars prequels would be if releasing them silent, with only John Williams's underscore, were practical. It's almost unfair that later directors seldom get a chance to work this way.

Heh. This stuff is so niche that half of the films in question aren't even in the HBS database, so enjoy the full reviews for those:

High Treason

* * * (out of four)
Seen 11 October 2005 at the Harvard Film Archive (Film Architectures)

I must admit that I have a soft spot for old sci-fi. I love looking at how previous generations envisioned the future and threw themselves into depicting these visions. I feel a twinge of annoyance whenever someone disparages that kind of movie for how it "gets the future wrong" or looks fake compared to new visions that is only equaled by my reaction to when another professes to love them for being "campy" or "cheesy". The first reaction comes of being spoiled and/or ignorant, but the latter is just patronizing. High Treason may be silly, but that's because it was kind of silly in 1928, too.

The movie posits that in the far off year of 1950, "United Europe" and the "Atlantic States" share an uneasy truce. As the film opens, an incident at a border crossing sets the nations at high alert. This is of great concern to the World Peace League, headed by the renowned Dr. Seymour (Humberston Wright), ably assisted by his daughter Evelyn (Benita Hume). Despite her dedication to the cause, Evelyn is currently dating a soldier, Air Force Major Michael Deane (Jameson Thomas), although that alliance may fracture should it come to war. What our heroes in London don't realize, however, is that the situation is being manipulated behind the scenes by a group of arms manufacturers in New York.

A great deal of the fun of this movie is looking at the 1950 that the filmmakers imagined in the roaring twenties, full of skyscrapers, blimps, television phones and ladies wearing form-fitting jumpsuits for a night on the town. It is not meant to be a prediction of the future, of course, but an allegorical one; I imagine that much early-twentieth-century science fiction used the mid-century point the same way later generations would use "the year two thousand", as shorthand for a time by which there would be great change but which the audience or their children would live to see. The design isn't wholly unreasonable, really, when you look at it from the perspective of a generation that had seen cities sprout like weeds in the American West and technologies like airplanes, automobiles, radios, and even motion pictures become ubiquitous since the turn of the century. 1950 London isn't a utopia, but it's a pleasant and exciting place to live, and the realization of it is at time impressive - the model work is crude by todays standards, with visible strings and crude detail, but other bits of effects are impressive. I admit to spending some time racking my brain at how they got the video phones to work in 1928: This is before the blue screen, and the devices weren't always wall-mounted to enable the use of rear projection. If it's matte work, it's darned impressive early use of it.

Speaking of being ahead of the curve, High Treason was actually shot as talkie, although silent, intertitled prints were also produced for the majority of theaters that had not yet installed sound. It is this silent version that was screened, which leads to some odd moments - a nightclub scene where young people dance to unheard music; demonstrators breaking into "the peace song" which is just not effective as intertitles. (Also, the venue's usual piano accompaniment for silent movies was absent, which is kind of nerve-wracking; the brain expects both eyes and ears to be engaged) I'd be interested to see the original, sound version, but I believe prints are scarce and in poor condition.

The cast is solid enough, given that they're basically playing types: Jameson Thomas is upright and honorable as the soldier who sympathizes with the Peace League but took an oath; Benita Hume is a pretty flapper who has still absorbed her father's hardline stance on right and wrong. Humberston Wright is exactly what the film needs as a man whose very passion can prove to be his undoing - strong and authoritarian, but tunnel-visioned to the point where he might start talking about ends justifying the means.

Of course, as much as High Treason comes down on the side of the pacifists in its words, when it comes down to actions, it does seem to like, well, action. The opening border-crossing incident takes a while to sort itself out, but once it does, generates some good suspense, and the terrorist attack on the Peace League's headquarters yields some nice destruction of miniatures. At other times, the audience can't help but feel that director Maurice Elvey is more interested in showing pretty girls than high ideals, or find that the meetings of the munitions manufacturers are much more thrilling than those of the protesters. Maybe Noel Pemberton-Billing's original play was more honest in its desire to show peaceful means working, but L'Estrange Fawcett's screenplay gives the audience more spectacle and more excitement, even if the message gets a little lost in translation.

Or maybe not completely lost; pacifist doesn't necessarily mean passive. The film's ideas are noble enough even for this day and age, and it does a better job than most of making the presentation of those ideas exciting and entertaining. Sure, it's not as slick as the films that would follow it, but it makes good use of what it's got, with the result being more enjoyable than many later films with more resources.

The Man with a Movie Camera (Chelovek s kino-apparatom)

* * * ½ (out of four)
Seen 19 October 2005 at the Harvard Film Archive (Imgining the City) (Live piano accompaniment)

The Man with a Movie Camera is exciting to watch, even seventy-five years later. It is, at once, a document of Soviet Russia in the late 1920s and a dizzying work of cinematic artistry years ahead of its time. It is, for people who love film as a medium, absolutely essential viewing.

It's curious to see what a relatively even-handed look it gives the young Soviet Union. Shortly after screening this film, the Harvard Film Archive ran Aelita, Queen of Mars, which has no compunctions about wearing its ideology on its sleeve. Man with a Movie Camera does often seem to attempt to portray the USSR in its best light: The Moscow streets are bustling, filled with cars and excited people. The trips out to the countryside also show a busy people, building the country's industrial base. And yet, we see a fair amount of poverty, too, workers wearing old, beat-up clothes and people waiting in the lines that would come to define the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

More than the location, though, what makes it so essential is the thing that makes its title something of a misnomer - director Dziga Vertov is, through much of this movie, a man with two movie cameras, one shooting everyday scenes in and around Moscow and another filming him shooting everyday scenes in and around Moscow. It's kind of an audacious trick - imagine a stage magician showing you how an illusion is created before doing each trick. That's what Vertov does here, and while it's fascinating to process junkies like me, it's also fascinating to those with less curiosity as to how things are made: Our cameraman is climbing to great heights and bolting cameras to cars driven at high speed; there's a thrill of danger and respect for someone dedicated enough to their craft put themselves in harm's way to get a bit of film.

Indeed, this film shows us moviemaking from start to finish, as some shots show us Vertov setting up a movie theater in an empty hall, actually putting chairs in line, hanging a screen, and setting up a projector, with curious people lining up to see what may be their first movie (and looking bewildered by what they see in this non-linear documentary, actually). I actually found myself thinking of Goodbye Dragon Inn during these segments - where that film at times seemed like a eulogy, mourning the death of people going to film, Man with a Movie Camera is being present at its birth as the subjects gawk at the camera, Vertov figures out how to use it, and people come to see the result for the first time.

The editing is also noteworthy; the film cuts between locations and perspectives almost randomly, and yet the film comes together as a seamless whole. It's avant-garde, for sure, but not in an aloof way. The Man with a Movie Camera is required viewing to be familiar with the history of film, but also an entrancing experience in its own right.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

* * * * (out of four)
Seen 28 October 2005 at the Somerville Theater #1 (CrashArts Presents the Alloy Orchestra)

The Phantom of the Opera impressed me. That's not particularly hard to do, I admit - I like movies a great deal and tend to be generous in my appraisal if I like any specific feature. What struck me upon watching Phantom, though, was that even though the film is eighty years old, I had of course seen stills of the title character, and the promotion for this restored print and live accompaniment boasted of what was to come, I still found reasons to sit up straight in my seat and make some noise in shock or delight when called for.

The story, of course, is familiar from multiple productions - Chirstine (Mary Philbin), a young opera singer, is tutored by Erik (Lon Chaney), a master who hides out of sight, the Paris Opera House's legendary phantom. The adoring Erik sabotage's Christine's rival to win her a lead role, and eventually abducts his protegé into his realm of catacombs when it appears the surface world doesn't appreciate her beauty and talent, leading her more conventional beau Roaul (Norman Kerry) to give chase.

Read the rest at HBS.

Frankenstein (1931)

* * * ¾ (out of four)
Seen 31 October 2005 at the Coolidge Corner Theater #1 (Halloween) (projected video, live accompaniment)

Universal, of late, has been looking for ways to market its classic monsters to a new, young audience. They've recently announced a series of sequel novels from Dark Horse Press; they've inflicted bad Stephen Sommers movies on us. I can't help but think that the best way would also be the most cost-effective: Get some prints into theaters during slow months, and let the audience see just how good these films are.

It's not a flawless plan; I've got no doubt that there would be a lot of people laughing at the dated performances and talking back to the screen. But that's okay; it gets them in the theater, and gets them paying attention. And even if the audience is initially disrespectful, James Whale's lean, efficient filmmaking will stick with the audience, as will Boris Karloff's immortal performance, which many may only know from stills or parody.

Read the rest at HBS.

Nosferatu, a Symphony of Terror (Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens)

* * * * (out of four)
Seen 31 October 2005 at the Coolidge Corner Theater #1 (Halloween) (projected video, live accompaniment)

You know what I hate about most vampire movies? That they make the vampires sex symbols. Please. Sex is a life-giving process, whereas vampires are walking corpses that drink the lifeblood of others, but are laid low by religious icons and the rays of the sun, the ultimate source of all life. They're death. The way I figure it, the more ugly and cadaverous they make vampires, the better. So, it's probably no surprise when I say that Nosferatu is the greatest vampire movie ever made.

Nosferatu is, infamously, an unauthorized adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula, with the action transposed to Germany. Hutter (Gustav von Wangenheim), an apprentice estate agent, is dispatched to Transylvania to conduct some business with the reclusive Count Orlok (Max Schreck). Orlok, a bald, pale character with long fingernails, pointed teeth, and a demonic visage, has some bizarre sleeping habits, and the local villagers won't come near his castle. He takes an interest in Hutter's wife Ellen (Greta Schroeder), and soon is on his way to his new home. Death follows in his wake.

Read the rest at HBS.

Wings

* * * ½ (out of four)
Seen 6 November 2005 at the Harvard Film Archive (World War I on Film)

Wings, as the reader may or may not know, was the first film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture (or "Best Production", as it was called at the time), and is extremely likely to stand as the only silent to win that honor. Were it remade today with roughly the same script and equivalent special effects, it likely would not be considered a contender for such honors, although it would probably still be a huge popular hit.

After all, the public went for Pearl Harbor (at least, more than the critics did), and that film borrows somewhat from this predecessor: Two young men, working-class Jack Powell (Charles "Buddy" Rogers) and David Armstrong (Richard Arlen), the son of the richest family in town, sign up to train as pilots during World War I. Both fancy themselves rivals for the affection of classy Sylvia Lewis (Jobyna Ralston), though in truth she only has feelings for David. Jack, meanwhile, is mostly oblivious to the interest of tomboyish girl-next-door Mary Preston (Clara Bow), though she will also make her way to Europe, joining the army as a driver.

Read the rest at HBS.

Aelita, Queen of Mars

* * ½ (out of four)
Seen 29 November 2005 at the Harvard Film Archive (Film Architectures)

It is a testament to director Yakov Protazanov's craft that someone viewing Aelita can watch and enjoy it for most of its running time without realizing that it's a pretty darn heavy-handed piece of propaganda. That's not necessarily a fatal blow; any time one watches an old movie or reads an old book, it is somewhat necessary to consider the context of the times, and communism's collapse was far from inevitable in the early 1920s (and to suggest otherwise in a Soviet-produced film would be an extremely bad career move). Sadly, though, the propaganda is followed up by the hoary cliché, which is annoying no matter what the ideology of the film (or filmmaker) (or sponsor) may be.

It starts off innocently enough. Los (Nikolai Tsereteli), a construction manager for a project near Moscow, tinkers with rocketry in his spare time. His devoted wife Natasha (Valentina Kuindzhi) does clerical work where she is needed. They are fairly happy, though they live in a crowded apartment with one-time aristocrats unhappy with their current lot in life. This is watched from Mars by Aelita (Yuliya Solntseva), the young and relatively powerless queen of an empire whose prosperity is paid for by the blood and oppression of workers living underground. She adores watching the passionate, romantic Earthman, and plots to continue using the telescope even when she is denied access. Things are taking a turn for the worse for Los, too, as Natasha is seduced by the secret meetings of her once-wealthy neighbors. After an action committed out of rage, Los flees in his homemade rocket (with, of course, a pair of stowaways), which is, of course, primed for revolution.

From the viewpoint of twenty-first century America, the rah-rah communist propoganda is kind of amusing, although for the better part of the movie, it's not insulting. Sure, the one-time nobility are the villains, but life in the Soviet Union isn't perfect - the apartments are rather crowded, Los is working long hours and has difficulty finding a place to work on his non-State-Sponsored project, and there's something less than ideal about a society that doesn't have a place for Natasha to look killer in a black dress. The communist ideal is a good one, and Los's belief in it marks him as noble in contrast to the aristocrats bemoaning the loss of privilege that they were born to. It's not until later, when Los is on Mars forging hammer-and-sickle emblems and making stirring speeches about how a civilization should be run, that one feels that maybe he's pushing the point a little hard, and, hey, you ran from this perfect society because it led you to commit a violent crime.

At any rate, it is not the propoganda quality of the picture which leads to its classic status, but its vision of Mars, which is justly famous. Every single detail is immensely impractical, of course, and the Martian living and working spaces look far more like sets for a stage play than anything that someone would actually use. They're beautiful, though, lush in their absurdity, somehow managing to be both open and busy at once. The end result is not nearly as complete a fictional world as Lang's Metropolis, though certain themes are shared in its construction - housing the poor in a dark, underground city has been a staple of speculative fiction for as long as the genre has existed. The costuming is similarly whimsical, in that I can use the word "whimsical" because I don't have to wear it.

The film works, for most of its running time. Both the fantastical and down-to-earth segments are well-shot, and if they seem naive now, they're believable products of their time. And the characters are well-drawn and relatable; even the staunchest libertarian capitalist can identify with the Loses' enthusiasm to help build a country where everyone would get a fair shake, or Aelita's excited eavesdropping on the exciting Earthmen. That's why it's such an unhappy blow when in the last act, they stop being universal characters with flaws and imperfections and become representations of class-warfare doctrine. And the very end is the sort of thing that always drives me bonkers, both erasing the consequences of a character's actions and deflating the fantasy elements.

There are some silent films that hold up no matter what the year, and others that are mainly good for getting an idea of the history of film. This screening of Aelita was part of a "Film Architectures" series at the Harvard Film Archive, which isn't always the dry, academic environment it sounds like, and it tries valiantly to be more than merely educational. In the final analysis, it doesn't quite manage that, but it does at least try.

What's Going on in Beely Circus? (Was ist los im Zirkus Beely?)

* * ¾ (out of four)
Seen 4 December 2005 at the Harvard Film Archive (Special Event) (Live piano accompaniment)

One of the things I'd always assumed about the silent era was that international distribution was easier and more common; after all, to bring an English-language film to Germany or vice versa, a studio would just have to replace the intertitles or cutaways to written notes with translated versions. No fake-seeming dubbing, and the audience was already expecting to read the dialogue. This does not seem to have been the case, though: Metropolis, for instance, had a terrible time securing U.S. distribution, and the films of Harry Piel are all but unknown to the Anglophone world.

If What's Going on in Beely Circus? is representative, then this is perhaps not a tragedy on the order of the world not knowing the works of Chaplin or Murnau. It's still a remarkable vanishing act; at the peak of his popularity, Biel's films occupied over a third of his nation's screens. Now, he not only exists in obscurity, but much of his prodigious output is simply lost (Beely Circus is the only feature that survives in its entirety). It's a shame, not just because all lost works are unfortunate, but because Piel - called "the dynamite director" after the amount of action scenes included (and explosives used) in his pictures - so dominated the German box office that he could scarcely have avoided being a major influence on a generation of German filmmakers.

In Beely Circus, Piel directs and stars as Harry Peel, a man-about-town secure enough in his wealth that he does not seem to have to either work for it or mention its source. As the film opens, he's reluctantly getting dressed up for a night at his exclusive club. It's a sort of stodgy environment for this man of action, but old friend Robert Jackson (Ralf Ostermann) will be there, recently returned from South America. They barely have time to speak, although Harry will hear from him later that night, calling from a pay phone as he's attacked at the auditorium he had recently acquired. Harry promises Jackson's pretty sister Rose (Ilona Karolewna) that he'll investigate, although police detective Bull (Fritz Greiner) would prefer he left the matter to the authorities.

Harry is a pugnacious protagonist, somewhat in the Douglas Fairbanks mode - handsome, athletic, and clearly ready to buckle any swash that needs it. He's a roaring twenties action hero, overflowing with energy, uncomfortable in the tuxedo he wears at first, and ready to confront any problem he might find head on. Beely Circus is a murder mystery story in form, but Harry isn't the sort of amateur sleuth who cracks a case by looking for tiny clues or asking witnesses and suspect questions where the tiniest detail may be important. He'll occasionally go undercover, but prefers relying on his fists and raw nerve. Toward the middle of the film, he's thrown in a room with a tiger, which most would consider dangerous, but Harry Peel is so tough that he can basically stare it down and then have the big cat follow him around to intimidate people in later acts.

I figure that was the appeal of Piel's films - that Harry was this larger-than-life pulp hero who could handle any problem with direct action. He swings on ropes, tames wild animals, finds secret passages and falls in with the dead man's sister because, in this sort of movie, that is the natural order of things. He chases criminals but still sticks it to the man in his dealings with the police. Pretty simple stuff, but fun in that way. It's a basic meat & potatoes action movie, and though it doesn't feature any huge set pieces, it seldom slows down close to a stop.

Pity so few of Piel's movies survive. Beely Circus isn't going to be one of my favorite silents, but the guy was popular for a reason.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

The latest in 3-D: Magnificent Desolation, Sharks, Chicken Little, The Polar Express

A few random comments from me and my brothers Matt and Dan while watching The Polar Express with our step-nephews Christmas day (and some I made up):

"See, he's thinking there, and reaching conclusions based upon what he's learned and observed. That'll have to stop."

"Remember, Jacob, don't imitate what you see in this movie. I know you love trains, but if a strange train pulls up to your front door in the middle of the night, it is not okay to get on."

"Same goes for if they offer you hot chocolate."

"Is it just me, or does the kid look like George Bush?"

"See, even though all of the kids on this train were invited on personally by the conductor, they're apparently still in big trouble if they don't have their ticket. This teaches kids a valuable lesson about adults being insane and being willing to throw you off a train if you don't follow their rules."

"Apparently, only about a dozen kids a year get to learn Santa is real. The rest of you have to deal with the torture of uncertainty."

"Wow, that was close - the engine just barely got past the ice! But I guess the rest of the kids drowned."

"Especially the poor one."

"Oh, yes, especially the poor one."

"I'm warning you right now, if you pull on my beard like that, you're the one who will be making the funny noises."

"Man, apparently nothing but trouble comes of being nice to the poor kid."

"You know, we should probably dial it back. Jacob may not be ready for our level of sarcasm."

"Really, this movie should be banned for the lessons it teaches kids. Remember, Jacob, even if your mom hasn't specifically told you this, don't try to walk across icy rails a hundred feet in the air in your bare feet at the North Pole."

"No, you won't fall off, but your skin will freeze to the metal, and pulling you off will hurt like... uh, the dickens."

"I so wish we had a pneumatic tube system to get around campus."

"That's a lot of elves."

"Well, Santa is planning to attack Mordor."

"So, let me keep track - Tom Hanks plays the kid, his father, the conductor, and the hobo, right?"

"He's also Santa Claus."

"Well, yeah, I knew that. I mean, have you ever seen the two of them in the same room?"

"Explains why he gets $20M a picture - this operation doesn't look cheap."

"Hey, where'd that other kid come from? He wasn't on the runaway train and pneumatic tube!"

"You know, if this guy doesn't believe in Santa by now, he's the dumbest kid on Earth."

"So, wait - those reindeer, who a couple of elves were able to keep on the ground, are going to life that giant bag."

"Which, by the way, looks like the world's largest meatball."

"Uh, at this point, kid you don't 'believe' - you know."

"All he asked for was the bell, and it fell out his pocket?"

"Right - it's like the aliens in Contact."

"Aw, isn't that heartwarming. That poor kid just made the best friends of his life and he'll never see them again. They don't even know each others' names so they can write to each other."

"What's the note with the bell say? 'Looks like you dropped this, Mr. C."

"AH-HA, so we were half-right: Tom BOSLEY is Santa!"

... um, anyway, on to the reviews:

Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3-D

* * * ½ (out of four)
Seen 24 September 2005 at the Aquarium (first-run)

Here's the thing about Magnificent Desolation: It's full of beautiful 3-D images, reminiscences about the Apollo program, information on the history of space travel. It is awesome to see, immersive, and exciting. You can bring kids and watch them be awed and amazed. You'll feel the same way.

And then, after you've left the theater, halfway to the subway, it'll dawn on you: It's all special effects.

It's special effects to be proud of, to be sure: Renedered at a high enough resolution to look good on an IMAX screen. Twice, so that it's in 3-D. The physics of regolith being kicked up and scattering in an airless, one-sixth gee environment look right. I oohed and aaahed shamelessly. It's the next best thing to being there.

Except... Why are we settling for that? I had my thirty-second birthday about a week after seeing this. Men have not walked on the moon in my lifetime. We shouldn't have to use CGI to show kids what it would be like to walk on the moon; we should be able to send a camera crew up on a commercial spacecraft. I don't imagine I'd be able to afford to take my vacation there, but it's frustrating to think how much could have been done in the last three decades but hasn't been.

Kids won't mind; thirty-three years is an inconceivable amount of time to them. And everyone should be able to look at this and see the visual splendor and the astonishing achievement that landing on the moon was. Executive producer and narrator Tom Hanks loves the space program and has full-on hero worship for the people involved, and that shines through. He and the other filmmakers walk a nice line creating a film that is accessible and entertaining to children while also being fairly enjoyable for adults. Many other IMAX films with an aim to educate and advocate as well as entertain hae falled far short of that.

But, man, it's all special effects. I love special effects, and I'm the first to sneer at somebody who dismisses something for being CGI, but when I go to a movie in this sort of environment - a museum of sorts, a place that celebrates science, that shows you real amazing things - having to see a recreation of a place where we were able to send people with cameras over thirty years ago serves as a reminder of how sometimes, things really aren't what they used to be.

Sharks 3-D

* * * ½ (out of four)
Seen 24 September 2005 at the Aquarium (first-run)

At some point this year, there was a thread on the HBS/EFC forums that started from a a picture of a gigantic tiger shark being hauled in by some Cape Cod fisherman participating in a contest titled "why do [people] have to kill sharks?" My answer - because they taste delicious - was not popular. I was, in part, being provocative, despite the truthfulness of my answer. Sharks are, in addition to being good eating, magnificent creatures; the ocean's alpha predator and vital parts of the eocsystem for millions of years, and worth preserving.

It's the latter perspective you're going to be getting from this motion picture; it is, after all, presented by the Ocean Futures Society rather than, say, Legal Sea Foods. It is, thankfully, less heavy-handed than it could have been, despite being narrated by a turtle who serves as our guide. It's pitched toward kids, obviously, but is more interested in imparting information than guilt.

And, of course, pretty pictures. IMAX, and 3-D IMAX especially, puts the audience directly in a picture in a way few other media can, and an ocean setting frees the audience from the bounds of gravity so that amazing things can come from any corner of the screen and move in any direction. Director Jean-Jacques Mantello and cinematographer Gavin McKinney make good use of this three-dimensionality, sometimes overloading the eyes with fantastic imagery. They're also not picky about their subjects; if they got good shots of rays, turtles, or sea lions, that makes it into the movie.

IMAX movies of this sort are, once you're aware of the basic information they're trying to get across, all about looking good. One can't deny Sharks does that; it's a strikingly beautiful piece of film.

Chicken Little

* * (out of four) (* * ½ in 3-D)
Seen 5 November 2005 at the Loews Boston Common #16 (first-run) (3-D digital projection)

Disney is following now. It's a sad state of affairs, when you think about it; a bit over a decade ago, other studios were forming animation departments in the hopes of cashing in on the success of Disney features from The Little Mermaid to The Lion King. They didn't succeed until they stopped trying to out-Disney Disney, and now, in the wake of that success, we get Chicken Little - a kind of sad attempt by Disney to beat DreamWorks at their own game.

It's all there - a CGI world designed to mimic present-day America (except with barnyard animals), a celebrity voice cast, a soundtrack that's a mishmash of pop songs from different eras, and a string of pop culture references masquerading as jokes. If you stripped the vanity card off the front, what's the actual difference between this and Robots or SharkTale? Not much. A certain part of me says that's okay, that Disney doesn't have to be special, but if a movie is going to aim to tread familiar ground rather than be different, it should at least tread that familiar ground nimbly, and this is something Chicken Little fails to manage.

Read the rest at HBS.

The Polar Express

* * ¼ (out of four) (* * * in 3-D)
Seen 4 December 2005 at the New Englad Aquarium (re-issue) (3-D IMAX Experience)

When I saw The Polar Express in IMAX 3-D the morning of December 4th (I was trying to cram as many movies into a 36-hour period at the end of a "Movie Watch-a-Thon" fundraiser as possible and it was Boston's only 10am show), I was duly amazed by the 3-D presentation but left rather cold by pretty much everything else. Pretty, I thought, but pointless in another medium. I emended that assessment upon seeing my step-nephew not bounce off the walls for an hour and a half watching his new DVD on Christmas Day, despite the, um, "gentle mockery" of the movie delivered by my brothers and me. Keeping the attention of a six-year-old with a stocking's worth of Christmas candy in his system doesn't make The Polar Express a good movie, but does mark it as potentially useful.

To give the movie its due, when The Polar Express is operating as a roller-coaster ride - much more literally than many of the movies to which this sobriquet is applied - with the titular train zooming through a succession of lovingly-rendered perils on the way to the North Pole, it can be an awesome sight, especially if you're seeing it on a screen six stories high and through a pair of polarized lenses. Unlike with Chicken Little, I strongly suspect director Robert Zemeckis had 3-D presentation in mind when making this movie, although he keeps the throwing things at the audience to a minimum in order to make it palatable for people seeing it in conventional theaters or on DVD. The audience's stomach lurches sympathetically when the train zooms down a hill or skids on a frozen lake, and more than one kid near me in the theater tried to reach out and catch snowflakes. When this is a movie about things, it is an astonishingly staged film whose visuals will be difficult to top.

When it's a movie about people, though, it is one of the creepiest things ever produced as children's entertainment...

Read the rest at HBS.