Showing posts with label Mystery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mystery. Show all posts

Monday, November 23, 2009

2006: The Lives of Others (Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck)

Released: March 23, 2006 (Germany)

a.k.a.: Das Leben der Anderen

Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck; Screenplay: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck; Cinematography: Hagen Bogdanski; Studio: Beuna Vista International; Producers: Max Wiedemann, Quirin Berg, and Dirk Hamm

Cast: Ulrich Mühe (Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler), Martina Gedeck (Christa-Maria Sieland), Sebastian Koch (Georg Dreyman), Ulrich Tukur (Oberstleutnant Anton Grubitz), Thomas Thieme (Minister Bruno Hempf), Hans-Uwe Bauer (Paul Hauser), Volkmar Kleinert (Albert Jerska), Matthias Brenner (Karl Wallner)

For the second time in three years, I turn to Germany for my top film. Not since the first two years of the countdown (all the way back in May!), when I chose The Blue Angel and M for 1930 and ’31, have films from Deutschland popped up so close together. Oddly enough, both of these films from the current decade deal with dark periods in German history. As was covered in the review of Downfall, the final days of Hitler’s Third Reich are played out at a frenetic, almost real-time pace in Oliver Hirschbiegel’s stellar work. The formula for writer-director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s debut film is quite different. Rather than bombarding the viewer with the immediacy of a dire situation, he crafts a story that slowly builds tension, creeping up on climaxes that are bubbling over with anxiety.

The setting is East Germany in 1984, a time when socialists still ruled the nation, but when protesters and intellectuals are routinely speaking out against the repressive regime. Maintaining control of the ruling elite is the secret police of the East German state, the dreaded Ministry for State Security, or “Stasi.” This is an organization that specialized in covert operations utilized to spy on and uncover enemies of the state. The extent of the operations of the organization is staggering even now – 68,000 full-time employees, as well as utilizing nearly 300,000 part-time workers and operatives over the course of its existence. In addition, the Stasi cultivated an army of informants to clandestinely report on the activities of neighbors, co-workers, relatives, and anyone else that could be under scrutiny as a “class enemy.”


One of the Stasi’s most successful employees is Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Mühe), an expert in the disciplines of interrogations and covert intelligence gathering. So efficient is Wiesler that he is in charge of instructing new recruits at the Stasi academy in the art of extracting confessions from suspects. The methods used to obtain such confessions – sleep deprivation, constant questioning, threats toward family members – would make the admissions dubious to most impartial observers, but Wiesler views them as foolproof tactics. A former classmate and current superior of Wiesler, Lt. Col. Anton Grubitz (Ulrich Tukur) comes to Wiesler in order to initiate surveillance on the most successful playwright in East Germany, Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch). On the surface, Dreyman looks like a loyal socialist, but party higher-ups begin to suspect that he, like many other artists, may secretly harbor anti-GRD feelings. Thus, Grubitz and Party Minister Bruno Hempf (Thomas Thieme) decide that he needs to be placed under surveillance. Grubitz approaches Wiesler, having him set up the operation.

Wiesler wires Dreyman’s apartment and constructs a control room on the top floor. As he spies on them, the reasoning for putting Dreyman under surveillance slowly begins to emerge. When Wiesler spots Dreyman’s girlfriend Christa-Maria (Martina Gedeck) with Minister Hempf, he begins to understand the goal of the operation is not preserving the security of the state. Over the course of his work, Wiesler gradually begins to relate to Dreyman and Christa-Maria. Almost as if he is living vicariously through the couple, Wiesler’s commitment to the cause begins to wane. Taking chances that he would not normally have considered, Wiesler actually begins to leave out key information from the reports that he submits to Grubitz. The result is that no incriminating evidence is found against Dreyman, which infuriates Hempf.


Part of the true reason that no incriminating evidence is found to smear Dreyman is that initially he is not actually a subversive. Although many of his peers in the theater world are dissidents, Dreyman is almost apolitical. If he is not an outright supporter of the GDR, then he at least is someone who has made peace with the way the system is. While Wiesler is undoubtedly the main character of the film, the most interesting aspect of the story to me is the development of Dreyman. When he is put under surveillance, it becomes obvious that he has no desire to be a part of the resistance. His only goal is to be able to continue to be able to write, which is guaranteed by staying out of the rough and tumble business of politics in the GDR. It is only once surveillance has begun on him that he even slightly ventures into publishing something political.

I am not going to go much further in terms of plot, because although I’m guessing that a lot of folks have seen this, but it’s one that needs to be experienced with at least some degree of freshness the first time around. So, to those who still haven’t had the pleasure, I won’t reveal too much. I do, though, want to comment on the conclusion and say that I love it. Rather than wrapping things up with the most obvious, pat ending that anyone could see coming, von Donnersmarck keeps it understated. It's feel good not in an overly sentimental kind of way, but rather very modestly. I hate to sound schmaltzy myself, but this is a movie that gives a reassuring assessment of the ability of one person to decide to do the right thing, regardless of the outside pressure.


The performances are all around solid. Mühe as Wiesler is the prototypical dedicated, methodical bureaucrat. Koch plays Dreyman as the writer who will do anything for his art. The best performance probably comes from Tukur as Anton Grubitz, a man who fashions himself as dedicated to the tenets of the state, but who’s only true ambition is personal career advancement. The true star of the entire film is von Donnersmarck. The script which he penned is tight, using very deliberate pacing and style to make the climaxes unbelievably thrilling. Long sections of the film will seem to repeat snippets of dialogue and situations, but they only lull the viewer into a sense of familiarity that is quickly shattered when tension-filled scenes pop up. As a director making his debut, von Donnersmarck also displays incredible control. While not exactly the most scientific scale to judge such things, the movie looks exactly as a westerner like myself has been led to believe cities behind the Iron Curtain would look. Everything is drab and dull, with each building looking exactly like the next. The coloring of the sets and scenery is equally bland, creating an air of monotony that accentuates the pacing of the story.

Perhaps part of me being drawn to this film is that I see a lot of elements from other all-time favorites. Every time that I watch it, I am reminded of a classic like Bernardo Bertolucci’s The Conformist, another tale of a man becoming disillusioned in an authoritarian state. It’s also impossible not to relate it to one of Francis Ford Coppola’s finest, The Conversation, which touches on the way that surveillance can affect both the watcher and the watched. I don’t think that The Lives of Others is quite at the same level as these two films, but few are. It is an amazing achievement as a debut film and one that is poignant enough to stay with you well after you finish it.

Rating: 9/10

Other Contenders for 2006: I came very, very close to going with Paul Greengrass’ United 93. I think it’s a remarkable achievement, and one which I originally questioned coming so soon after September 11. But it’s handled well and the intensity that is able to be created in another real-time like production is impressive. Clint Eastwood also released one excellent and one OK film in 2006. Screenwriter Paul “I have a message and I’m going to pound it into your head” Haggis gets into the way too much in Flags of Our Fathers. Letters from Iwo Jima is certainly the superior of the two and ranks high on any Eastwood list. I am happy that The Departed finally got Marty Scorsese his long-deserved Oscars, but it’s a movie that I seem to like less the more that I watch it. I still like it, but where I once felt it to be among Scorsese’s best, I no longer think that is the case. Still, it remains a top film for 2006. A movie from this year that continues to keep me puzzled is Darren Aronofsky’s The Fountain. It might be one of the best movies I’ve seen or it might be a dud – and I honestly can’t decide which one I feel is the case! It’s one that I probably need to continue to revisit. Others I have to acknowledge: Apocalypto (Mel Gibson), Pan’s Labyrinth (Guillermo del Toro), Blood Diamond (Edward Zwick), and Inside Man (Spike Lee).

Friday, November 13, 2009

2001: Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch)

Released: October 12, 2001

a.k.a.: Mulholland Drive

Director: David Lynch; Screenplay: David Lynch; Cinematography: Peter Deming; Studio: Universal Pictures; Producers: Pierre Edelman, Alain Sarde, and Mary Sweeney

Cast:
Naomi Watts (Betty Elms/Diane Selwyn), Laura Harring (Rita/Camilla Rhodes), Ann Miller (Catherine “Coco” Lenoix), Dan Hedaya (Vincenzo Castigliani), Angelo Badalamenti (Luigi Castigliani) Justin Theroux (Adam Kesher), Brent Briscoe (Det. Neal Domgaard), Robert Forster (Det. Harry McKnight), Katharine Towne (Cynthia Jenzen), Billy Ray Cyrus (Gene), Lori Heuring (Lorraine Kesher), The Cowboy (Lafayette Montgomery), Mr. Roque (Michael J. Anderson), Camilla Rhodes (Melissa George), Patrick Fischler (Dan), Michael Cooke (Herb)

- “Silencio… silencio…”

I assume that this one is going to divide some folks. I’ve watched Mulholland Dr. with many people and generally see two initial reactions. Either people are completely confused by it and feel cheated by David Lynch with the abrupt turn that the story takes. Or, there are those that may not fully understand what just happened but are so fascinated by trying to figure it out that they can’t wait to watch it again and solve the mystery. I distinctly remember falling into the latter category after watching it for the first time. I was captivated the entire way through, but utterly confounded by the time the film ended. My exact reaction was, and I remember typing this on a movie message board, “I’m not sure I can explain what I just watched; all I know is that I loved it.” That’s an incredible thing to say about a movie that I will routinely cite as being among a handful of the best films released in the last decade. The fact that I was admittedly confused, unsure of what to make of the story – indeed, skeptical as to whether it made any sense at all – and still remained amazed by the artistry of it all speaks volumes to what an impression this movie made on me.

It needs to be said early in this piece that it is difficult to discuss this movie without revealing key twists and plot details that are major factors in the story. My reputation of trying to keep these as spoiler-free as possible is well-established, but it’s going to be a virtual impossibility here. If you haven’t seen it yet, my recommendation would be to just skim or simply leave comments for 2001 in general. Why ruin what could be a rare experience? But by all means, consider this a flashing sign that reads: GO SEE THIS MOVIE ASAP! Now, with that, we proceed…


Assessing things now, Mulholland Dr. looks like the film that David Lynch was working toward. Taking elements he had utilized with great results in previous movies – the surrealism of Eraserhead, the sexual taboos of Blue Velvet, the wildly non-linear storytelling of Lost Highway – he combined them to create an indefinable type of film. At various times it feels like a thriller, a mystery, a 50s sitcom, an erotic love story, and so much more. The other obvious influence on the tone of the entire project was his celebrated TV series Twin Peaks. Lynch’s original idea for Mulholland Dr. was to follow the formula he created with Twin Peaks – make a two-hour pilot episode and then springboard that into a regular series. He went to ABC only with the vague outline of a woman who is injured in a car crash and wakes up with $125,000 in cash and a blue key in her possession. Other than that, she remembers nothing about herself. The series would progress as the girl she meets afterward tries to help her discover her identity. The ABC brass, understanding how successful the protracted mystery of Twin Peaks was a decade earlier, gave the go ahead. It is amazing to think that television bigwigs would allow someone like Lynch such free reign, knowing the themes he routinely touched on in his work. But they did and Lynch proceeded to shoot the pilot film… only to have ABC reject it once it was completed.

All of this was fine with Lynch, because he was unsatisfied with the changes he was forced to make by ABC executives. After a long night of inspiration, Lynch was able to rework the script, adding subplots that would be prominent in the final version, and stretch it to feature-length. In fact, it was at this point that Lynch included the final third of the film, involving the opening of the blue box and the transformation of the two lead characters into completely different people. Once this twist was added to the story, it guaranteed that the movie was bound to be controversial. But Lynch didn’t stop there. Without the restrictions imposed by television, he was uninhibited in exploring the darkness that permeates so much of his other work, and he does so freely. The bizarre sequences and characters found throughout the story are endless. So I’ll personally take this opportunity to thank ABC for passing on the pilot and freeing Lynch to do what he does best.


After an opening montage of teens jitterbugging, the story begins traditionally, with a wide-eyed Betty Elms (Naomi Watts) stepping off a plan at LAX. She tells the elderly couple she met on the flight that she has come to Los Angeles to stay at her aunt’s apartment and pursue her dreams of becoming a Hollywood starlet. When she gets to the apartment, she discovers a mysterious woman in the shower. The lady was able to sneak into the apartment after surviving a terrible car crash on Mulholland Drive the night before. Unable to remember anything about herself or the circumstances of the accident, she takes the name Rita after seeing a poster for Gilda in the apartment. The only clue to Rita’s true identity is a large amount of cash in her purse and a lone blue key. The bighearted Betty decides to assist Rita in discovering her identity and figuring out what the money and key actually mean.

This is the key storyline, but in watching it progress, Lynch guides the audience through an assortment of dreams, nightmares and hallucinations. The various threads seem completely random, but they are at least loosely tied together, and somehow manage to work in the overall story arc. The other key subplot followed is the travails of wunderkind director Adam Kesher (Justin Theroux). Resisting the influence of the mob-backed Castigliani brothers (Dan Hedaya and Angelo Badalamenti) trying to influence the casting in his latest film, Kesher becomes overwhelmed by it all. The characters met along the way could only be the creation of David Lynch. Just describing them sounds like something out of a vaudeville act: A man dressed as a cowboy calls a meeting and obliquely discusses what Adam is going to do. Mr. Roque (Michael J. Anderson) appears as a puppetmaster, pulling the strings of Hollywood from behind a plate-glass window. A blue-haired woman. A hitman who manages to shoot through a wall and kill an innocent bystander. Two men who meet at a local café to discuss the recurring nightmare that one of them has been having about a strange being that appears behind the dumpster of the restaurant. Billy Ray Cyrus having an affair with Adam’s wife. Truly, these are only characters and scenarios that could be created by Lynch.


If you’re still reading at this point, chances are you’ve already seem the movie and understand how convoluted it all can seem. And the confusion is taken to another level when Betty and Rita find a blue box that is a match for the key in Rita’s purse. When they turn the key, everything changes. In my opinion, it’s the jumping off point for whether someone is going to love or hate the film. If you can stomach the shifts of characters and perspective, it’s a mystery that holds up to endless repeat viewings. If it seems like too much of a swerve, it is likely to ruin the entire thing.

There are entire web sites devoted to interpreting Mulholland Dr., with dissertation-length essays attempting to construct complete interpretations. That is not my intention here, but I do think it’s interesting to at least get individual takes on how to make sense of it all. I have reached a point where I feel confident in saying that those who think the entire movie is one convoluted mess are wrong. There _is_ a coherent story to be interpreted. I can’t account for all of the scenes that take place – things like the Cowboy and the monster behind the dumpster at Winkie’s still vex me – but regarding the key love triangle between Betty/Diane, Rita/Camille and Adam, I have an interpretation that works for me. My analysis is not at all revelatory and is the one I see most people adopting. It seems obvious to me that at least one section of the film is a dream – either the first two-thirds, containing Betty and Rita, or the final third where they become Diane and Camille. The question becomes which part? I’ve seen arguments made both ways, but the entire storyline between them makes sense to me if the first two-thirds take place entirely in Diane’s mind. It is Diane looking back on her relationship with Camille in an idealized, Hollywood light. She casts herself as the innocent Betty, unable to live what she has become in reality. Unable to cope with the fact that she has brought about the death of a former lover, she retreats to these hallucinations to relive the relationship. Things like the blue key, which signaled that the deed has been done, are incorporated into the dreams as Diane weaves in and out of reality and hallucination. But once she realizes that there is no undoing what she ordered, reverting into her dreams no longer becomes possible. Toward the end, such attempts only take her back to real-life memories of Camille and Adam flaunting their relationship. The end result is explosive, to say the least.


OK, a thoroughly abbreviated and amateurish interpretation, but it was nice to at least get something like that into writing. I think the fact that I can construct such an analysis is a huge part of the appeal for me. The complete incomprehensibility I experienced with Lynch’s later Inland Empire, for example, was a definite turnoff. I’ve yet to come across a coherent story being constructed out of it, and thus have no real attachment to it. For anyone else who would like to try, I’d love to hear how others have interpreted it all. As I said, I can’t account for everything that happens. Certain characters and scenes still have me baffled. But I have explicitly avoided reading too many interpretations of critics and others as I still occasionally try to unravel it all myself.

The most powerful memory I have of seeing Mulholland Dr. for the first time remains the fact that I saw it under the best possible conditions. I literally knew no more about the storyline than the description on the back cover of the DVD, which gives almost nothing away. What initially drew me in was the Hitchcock-like mystery of it all. The movie progresses by playing as a straight thriller and Lynch is able to create scenes of unbelievable power. Sequences like when Betty and Rita secretly visit the apartment of the unknown Diane Selwyn or the intense El Silencio club kept me on the edge of my seat. I had no idea where the story was going. And then they opened the box and, in the words of the inimitable Cosmo Kramer, blew my mind. The result was one of the most memorable movie experiences of my entire life. I remember watching the credits roll, scrambling to figure out what I just watched. It’s a cherished memory and I’d give anything to be able to go through that again or to have similar experiences.

Rating: 10/10


Other Contenders for 2001: OK, this countdown is devoted exclusively to major motion pictures, but I can’t go through this year without at least acknowledging Band of Brothers. It’s a great mini-series, and in my opinion the best thing that HBO has ever made – and this is coming from someone who thinks that The Sopranos, The Wire and Curb Your Enthusiasm are among the greatest television series of all time. Band of Brothers is amazing.

As to the actual movies under consideration in this countdown, nothing came close to approaching Mulholland Dr. I can only think of two movies in the entire decade that would challenge it for me, so the runaway victory is no surprise. But others from this year that I really like: The Fellowship of the Rings (Peter Jackson), The Man Who Wasn’t There (Coen Brothers), Y tu mama tambien (Alfonso Cuaron), and Gosford Park (Robert Altman).

Monday, November 9, 2009

1999: Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick)

Released: July 16, 1999

Director: Stanley Kubrick; Screenplay: Stanley Kubrick and Frederic Raphael based on the novella “Traumnovelle” by Arthur Schnitzler; Cinematography: Larry Smith; Studio: Warner Bros.; Producer: Stanley Kubrick

Cast: Tom Cruise (Dr. William “Bill” Harford), Nicole Kidman (Alice Harford), Sydney Pollack (Victor Ziegler), Todd Field (Nick Nightingale), Sky du Mont (Sandor Szavost), Rade Serbedzija (Mr. Milich), Vinessa Shaw (Domino), Leelee Sobieski (Milich’s Daughter), Alan Cumming (Hotel Desk Clerk), Leon Vitali (Red Cloak)

In what many consider to be a very strong year to close the excellent decade that was the 1990s, I am among a minority that looks toward 1999 as a rather tame twelve months in terms of cinematic masterpieces. Most of the “usual suspects” of the year that I have seen I tend to find incredibly overrated. Now, there is one major caveat to this assessment: most of what I have seen for ’99 is American films, meaning that there are some key releases that I simply couldn’t take into consideration. But my reaction to nearly all of the highly lauded American films of this year range from flat-out disliking (The Matrix, Magnolia, Fight Club), to finding good yet not great (The Insider, Three Kings, The Sixth Sense), to not having a clue what to make of it (Being John Malkovich).

There are others, but these are just general examples, and a drawn out way of getting to the point of this opening: I knew very quickly that there were only two selections that I could make and feel good about choosing as the best of a year. With the first option, it was the introduction of a new director to be reckoned with, as Sam Mendes made the crossover from theater to film impeccably. American Beauty must certainly rank among the finest debuts in recent history. In the other case, it was the final film in the career of a cinematic legend, a movie that took three years to fully complete and was released only after Stanley Kubrick’s death. It was nearly a toss-up for me, but in the end I had to side with the enigmatic quality of Eyes Wide Shut that has been embedded in my mind since I re-watched it again specifically for the countdown. I may not be able to perfectly understand everything I see, but the fact that I can’t stop trying to interpret it speaks to the impact that this polarizing film made on me.

Kubrick had not made a film since 1987’s Full Metal Jacket, so this was a highly anticipated return for the man that some consider to be among the greatest directors of all time. He had actually bought the rights to the novella on which the story is based nearly thirty years earlier, so this was a movie that was a long time coming. Shooting began in 1996, but with Kubrick’s notoriously demanding expectations, there were continual delays in shooting. There were also clashes between director and stars, with Kubrick acknowledging unhappiness with certain sex scenes involving Tom Cruise. Co-star Sydney Pollack was quoted as being “exasperated” by the pace that Kubrick was taking in filming. Secrecy surrounding the entire project was unparalleled. All information was kept under tight wraps, in hopes that little about the actual story and production would be known beforehand. All of this worked to create a thoroughly diverse reaction to the film when it was released. Some praised it as a masterpiece on par with anything that Kubrick had ever made. Others were completely turned off by the eroticism of it all and felt that it was garbage. Many didn’t know how to respond.


The story opens with a seemingly perfect couple in Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) and his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman) on their way to a fashionable New York cocktail party. At the party, which is beautifully shot by Kubrick, the seeds for the rest of the chaotic tale are planted. Alice, having had too much to drink, begins dancing with a suave guest, creating a palpable atmosphere of sexual tension. Bill, meanwhile, is wooed by two beautiful women trying to seduce him and whisk him away for a clandestine tryst. Before this can happen, the doctor is summoned to help the party’s host, Victor Ziegler (Sydney Pollack), who has what appears to be an emergency. While having a sexual rendezvous with a young woman, Ziegler realizes that the girl has passed out from a dangerous mixture of drugs. Bill revives her and assures Ziegler that the compromising situation will stay between the two of them. While at the party Bill also runs into a former medical school colleague, Nick Nightingale (Todd Field), who dropped out and is now making his living as a piano player. Nick tells Bill to stop by at a downtown club if he has the chance, as Nick is playing there for the next few weeks.

Following the party, the couple has a conversation in bed that is the catalyst to kick off everything that follows. What began as an intimate evening between the two quickly degenerates into Alice revealing to her husband that on the previous summer’s vacation at Cape Cod she became obsessed with a naval officer she met. She talks about having set in motion plans to meet the officer, but is vague as to the particulars. This destroys Bill’s previous idea of possessing the perfect marriage and relationship and sends him on the twenty-four hour escapade at the center of the film. Along the way he encounters surreal events one on top of the other – angry young bigots who taunt him, a prostitute who begs him for meeting, a costume salesman who pimps out his own daughter, and finally receives a mysterious tidbit of information from his old friend Nick Nightingale. Nick tells him that he has been getting jobs playing for some sort of secret society that makes him play blindfolded. Bill pries the password out of him, manages to work his way into the party, and discovers an unimaginable world of sexual ritual and excess.


The first time that I saw it (which, I have to say, was actually a few years after its initial release), my reaction was probably closer to the assessment of being unable to decide what to make of it. Even now, after revisiting it a few times, I’m not certain that I could recount a completely consistent theory on what takes place. Is everything to be taken literally? Does Bill actually experience all of the quirky, disturbing events over the course of one wild night? Or is it possible that some of it is imagined or actually a dream? I have even read some hypotheses that argue that drugs are somehow in Bill’s voyage. Interpreting it as a dream is appealing to me, as it moderates some of the craziness of many of the episodes Bill finds himself in. But, even this has problems, as to my eye there are no markers to signal where reality and hallucination diverge. I don’t claim to need a big sign saying “Reality begins here!” but I do think there needs to be some sort of logical points at which one could reasonably argue the dreams begin or end (such as can be done in a movie like Lost Highway, for just one example).

So, as I said, I’m probably not entirely consistent in my own interpretation, but what can I do? The reason that such inconsistency really doesn’t bother me is that I don’t approach the film attempting to read deep meaning into it as so many others do. For those that do so and are successful, I envy you – if ever a movie called out for being analyzed in this fashion and would be rewarding to do so, this is it. There are many things that I could interpret, but nothing earth-shattering. But my main interest in the story is very simple. I am fascinated by the hypnotic nature of it all. Kubrick is able to move at a lumbering pace, jumping in episodic nature from one scene to another, and gradually build tension to an unnerving boiling point. By the time that Bill goes to revisit the site of the secret party, the film has become a full-blown thriller. Perhaps I’m watching at its most surface level, but it works incredibly well in this way.

Performances are all around solid, if not particularly spectacular. Cruise is Cruise – which means sturdy as usual. If anyone deserves specific praise, it is probably Kidman who is outstanding in her manic moments. As far as individual accomplishments, though, those that I single out are not surprising. The grand master Kubrick does whatever he wants throughout. Always someone who could draw a scene out, he does that perfectly here, marrying these extended sequences to music that creates an unbelievable sense of dread. In fact, the soundtrack might be the most haunting aspect of the entire film. The use of recurring classical pieces is mesmerizing, particularly the dissonant sounds of Gyorgy Ligeti’s “Musica ricercata” piano cycle. It is unsettling, perfectly mirroring the anxiety that builds within Bill. This is a perfect marriage of soundtrack to scene and kudos to music director Jocelyn Pook.


This is another peculiar situation that I have brought up in past years of the countdown. Eyes Wide Shut will be the only appearance of Stanley Kubrick in the entire series, yet there are definitely two other of his films that I prefer to this final effort. Oh well, this is a film that I am happy to include in the countdown, if for nothing else than to see how others react to it. It’s a polarizing film – not helped in the least by the way that it was marketed as something akin to a softcore porn – and I honestly never expected to grow into such a fan of it. It might not be the best work of Kubrick’s career, but it was a film worthy of serving as his final statement in cinema.

Rating: 9/10

Other Contenders for 1999: As I said, a lot of critically acclaimed films from this year that I don’t care for – Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia, the Wachowski’s The Matrix, David Fincher’s (who I am a fan of) Fight Club. But there are still a number of others that I would single out as favorites from this year. I think that Martin Scorsese’s Bringing Out the Dead is underrated in his overall body of work, and I particularly like the performance of Ving Rhames in this one. I also enjoy Anthony Minghella’s The Talented Mr. Ripley, even though it does at times feel a bit too formulaic. It still looks great and is an enjoyable mystery. Others I would acknowledge: The Insider (Michael Mann), Three Kings (David O. Russell), and, yes, also The Sixth Sense (M. Night Shyamalan). And of course, I already pointed out that my definite first runner-up in this year is Mendes’ American Beauty.

Saturday, October 31, 2009

1996: Lone Star (John Sayles)

Released: June 21, 1996 (United States)

Director: John Sayles; Screenplay: John Sayles; Cinematography: Stuart Dryburgh; Studio: Columbia TriStar; Producers: R. Paul Miller and Maggie Renzi

Cast: Chris Cooper (Sheriff Sam Deeds), Matthew McConaughey (Buddy Deeds), Kris Kristofferson (Sheriff Charlie Wade), Elizabeth Pena (Pilar Cruz), Stephen Mendillo (Sgt. Cliff), Joe Morton (Colonel Delmore Payne), Ron Canada (Otis Payne), Jesse Borrego (Danny), Tony Plana (Ray), Frances McDormand (Bunny), Oni Faida Lampley (Celie), Eleese Lester (Molly), Clifton James (Mayor Hollis Pogue), Tony Frank (Fenton), Miriam Colon (Mercedes Cruz)

In the border town of Frontera, Texas, a pair of off-duty soldiers scavenging on an Army firing range stumble upon an interesting discovery. While the three items discovered might at first seem unrelated – a skull, a sheriff’s badge and a Masonic ring – they become the genesis of an investigation by Sheriff Sam Deeds into the most well-kept secret of his hometown. It is a secret that not only affects him personally, but also the reputation of his legendary lawman father, and the very fabric of the city of Frontera.

What transpires from this simple jumping off point is a sprawling, mysterious tale that demonstrated to me that John Sayles at his best is among the finest writer-directors working. Just watching the story unfold, understanding how effortlessly Sayles is able to take the audience exactly where he wants them to go, it is a movie that at the very least is impressive in its execution. I know some folks that have been turned off by the messages they perceived are being thrust upon them, but from the standpoint of moviemaking and good old fashioned storytelling, Lone Star is riveting stuff.

Sayles has a reputation for writing screenplays infused with large doses of social commentary. This is a trait that, in my opinion, can be disastrous for most films, as they invariably come off as preaching and moralizing to the audience – like the writer has a hammer and is intent on pounding a message into the head of everyone watching. One need only look at a movie like 2004’s Crash to know exactly what I am talking about. Fortunately, Sayles is talented enough not to fall into this trap. Does he want to get certain messages explicitly across to the audience? Perhaps, but he never insults them in the process. Instead he crafts tales that allow the viewer to be drawn into a story, be shown whatever it is that Sayles wants to display as a director, and make sense of it individually.


He does this in Lone Star quite cleverly, using the investigation of a decades-old disappearance turned homicide investigation to take the audience on a trip through the social life and politics of a Texas border town. And we see a lot. On the surface this is an idyllic southern hamlet, with small town values and an easygoing atmosphere. But there is tension at every turn, with relations between all the segments of the population. The blacks remain relegated to the outskirts of the town, while the large Mexican population fights for the right to have their own history taught to the children in the public schools. The long-reigning whites, meanwhile, come across as clinging onto the good ol’ boys system that they have benefited from for years. Thrust into the center of all this is Sam Deeds (Chris Cooper), a man who appears to get along with each of these segments, yet never feels truly at ease in any of single one.

Sam and his struggle to live in the shadow of his legendary sheriff father Buddy Deeds is at the center of everything. Buddy Deeds (Matthew McConaughey) is a hero and his reputation remains a towering presence in the city of Frontera. Those in the town are shocked to see his son take the position of Sheriff of Rio County, as it leads to his continually being compared to his father. While this would not be uncommon in most situations, in this case it is bizarre because it was well known to all that Sam and his father did not get along. In Sam’s teen years, when Buddy refused to allow him to see his childhood sweetheart Pilar Cruz (Elizabeth Pena), the father-son relationship was destroyed. In investigation of the evidence found on the firing range, Sam begins to unravel a mystery that deals not only with an unsolved murder but also reveals why his father responded the way that he did to the relationship with Pilar.


The murder mystery centers around the disappearance of longtime sheriff Charlie Wade (Kris Kristofferson), the man who held the job before Buddy Deeds took over. It turns out that the skull and badge found on the range are those of Wade, a man who had disappeared decades before and was thought to have run off with civic money. Now realizing that the sheriff was actually murdered, Sam decides to fully investigate the circumstances. Longtime residents of the town and friends of his father warn Sam not to become involved, but he is determined to discover the truth. What he soon begins to uncover shocks him. Buddy Deeds served as a deputy to Wade in the 1950s, when Wade ruled like a king in shaking down local businessmen and dispensing justice as he personally saw fit. What this meant was that Wade took care of his friends and treated the non-whites of Frontera horribly. But when Buddy stood up to Charlie one night in a saloon, and the rivalry between the two was coming to a head, Charlie then simply disappeared. Since money disappeared with him, it was assumed that he was on the run. What Sam begins to discover is that his father may actually have been involved in the disappearance.


It might seem like I am giving a short shrift to the social aspects of the film, but to me these are just window dressing. These subplots are important, particularly the relationship between Sam and Pilar. Also compelling is the tale of black roadhouse saloon owner Otis Payne (Ron Canada) and how he tries to reconnect with the son he never knew (Joe Morton). I am sure that these were important additions by Sayles, and their inclusion gives the entire film the sprawling feel of a well-developed and nuanced novel. But the thing that makes Lone Star so enthralling for me is watching Sam dig deeper into the psyche and actions of a father that he never felt a connection with. The closer he gets to understanding him, he begins to see that he might have been at least partially right – his father could be a cruel, vindictive man. But at the same time, he can see a more complicated person and one that was actually looking out for his son as he thought best.

While much of my praise toward Sayles concerns his screenplay, it is also evident that he is confident in the director’s chair as well. The camera work and use of flashbacks is as good as you’ll ever see. In fact, “flashback” might actually be too harsh of a term to describe how he moves between time periods. It sounds like harsh jumps from one setting to another, but in this case they flow together. The jumps are smooth and subtle, yet obvious enough to make it apparent that the narrative has moved to a different time period. As Sam interviews people in his investigation of the Charlie Wade murder, Sayles shows the events unfolding as the old acquaintances recount the events to Sam. So in one instance Sam could be talking to Big Otis in the bar and as Otis relates a story to him, the camera will simply pan to a different area of the bar and in the process take us back forty years to watch the story unfold. Although the story is literally set in the 1990s, these flashback scenes to the 1950s are probably the most impressive in the film. Kris Kristofferson and Matthew McConaughey serve as perfect foils and the scene in which they have their final showdown is intense. Chris Cooper also shines in his role – but then again, when does Chris Cooper not shine? He is another person who has what I call the “Robert Duvall quality” of being able to excel in any role in any type of film.

This is another selection that is not completely without fault. For detractors of the film, the main complaint is that the screenplay could have been trimmed and that the movie could have been a good deal shorter. I disagree with significantly cutting the running time and don’t think that it ever drags. But as great as I think the Sayles screenplay is, there are certain small edits that could have been made to pick things up even more. In particular, I am thinking of the inclusion of Sam’s ex-wife (Frances McDormand), a football-crazed middle-aged woman with mental problems. It is a minor issue, as she is not on-screen for very long, but it still felt very awkward. Also, at times, I think that some of the racial issues are somewhat played up or stereotypical, such as some of the comments from Pilar’s mother toward newly arriving Mexican immigrants.

Still, minor quibbles when it comes down to it. When this movie is going full-bore and focusing on the whodunit aspect of the story, it’s an absolute master class of filmmaking. John Sayles has made a number of excellent films, Matewan being another that stands out to me, but I easily place Lone Star at the top of his list of credits. The success of the film is a simple formula if you think about – write a great script, find great actors, and get a little creative in how you tell the story. But we all know it’s not that simple, which makes Sayles’ accomplishment all the more impressive when we see him do it with such ease.

Rating: 9/10

Other Contenders for 1996:
I now realize that I actually haven’t seen as many films from 1996 as others years in this decade. Of what I have seen, not many really challenged Lone Star, but other favorites would be: Fargo (Coen Brothers), Secrets & Lies (Mike Leigh), Jerry Maguire (Cameron Crowe), and Hamlet (Kenneth Branagh).

Saturday, August 15, 2009

1966: Persona (Ingmar Bergman)

Released: October 18, 1966 (Sweden)

Director:
Ingmar Bergman; Screenplay: Ingmar Bergman; Cinematography: Sven Nykvist; Studio: Svensk Filmindustri; Producer: Ingmar Bergman

Cast: Bibi Andersson (Alma), Liv Ullmann (Elisabeth Vogler), Margaretha Krook (Doctor), Gunnar Bjornstrand (Mr. Vogler), Jorgen Lindstrom (The Boy)

My initial reaction to seeing Ingmar Bergman’s legendary Persona was unlike anything that I have ever experienced. By the time it ended, I was unsure whether I could even put together a coherent theory on exactly what took place in the film and the reasons why it happened. Was the plot meant to be taken literally, with the viewer simply being given a vision into the proceedings? Are these dreams or hallucinations being displayed? Are there hidden aspects to the film that I overlooked on this first viewing? It was mystifying. The only thing I was certain of was the fact that I loved it. In retrospect, I think that the puzzling nature of the story was precisely what made the film so appealing to me, and it is without question that this is the quality that continually brings me back to it.

This is the second straight year where my selection is a film that detractors often lampoon with the description of pretentious. In reading recent reevaluations, I have even seen those that had previously been admirers of the film argue that the film has aged poorly. I can be somewhat sympathetic to those who view it this way. Anytime an enigmatic film attains the level of praise that Persona has over the years, such a reaction is unavoidable. And I suppose that even while being a huge fan of the film, I can even acknowledge the fact that the pretentious criticism has some truth in it. There is no denying that Bergman attempts to tackle heavy topics and make bold artistic statements in the process. What keeps it from falling into the dreaded “pretentious” arena for me is the fact that Bergman is skilled enough as both a writer and director to pull it off.


The movie opens with a dazzling and surreal opening sequence that ends with the famed shot of a young boy staring at, and reaching his hand toward, the blurry image of a woman’s face. Seeing this for the first time, as a Bergman neophyte, was quite the wakeup call. While it meant nothing to me at the time, this eerie shot figures prominently in many popular interpretations of the story and is a proper introduction to the surreal tone that the film adopts. The story then begins in earnest, and if taken at the most surface of levels, is actually straightforward. A young actress has suddenly and inexplicably stopped speaking in the middle of a performance and has not spoken to anyone since. Nurse Alma (Bibi Andersson) is charged with caring for the actress, Elisabeth Vogler (Liv Ullmann). The Doctor of the hospital suggests that to better care for Elisabeth that Alma should take her to a seaside house and observe her in hopes of leading her to recovery. At first apprehensive about such an undertaken, eventually Alma travels to stay alone with Elisabeth at the resort.

Once at the beach house, roles and perceptions begin to shift. Reality and fantasy intermingle, leaving explanations to the viewer as to what is real and what is imagined. Elisabeth remains silent throughout the stay, while Alma talks incessantly, to the point of pushing herself toward her own mental breakdown. She begins to share stories that while not shockingly graphic, are striking enough to make the audience squirm alongside the silent Elisabeth. The recounting of her sexual encounter on a beach and the subsequent abortion that resulted, truly is unsettling. The relationship between nurse and patient is also called into question when Alma reads a letter that Elisabeth has written, telling how she enjoys being able to observe her nurse. Elisabeth reveals the stories that Alma has told her and says that she thinks the nurse may be falling in love with her. Is Elisabeth truly ill or is she playing Alma in hopes of gaining knowledge of her own?


Bergman and Nykvist shoot the film in such a way as to further muddy the truth concerning the relationship between the two women. The physical resemblance between the two is obvious, and the legendary director-cinematographer duo create shots that make one (at least in my case) begin to wonder if they are not two personalities of the same person. Continually you see images where the faces of the women seem to mesh together. There are instances where Alma sees Elisabeth walking the grounds of the property, asks her about it shortly thereafter, only to have Elisabeth deny that it ever took place. Then there is the time when Elisabeth finally speaks, only to deny that she did. Is Elisabeth lying? Did the event actually happen? Again, it’s to you to decide, as Bergman never tells you. The connection between Alma and Elisabeth grows even more bizarre when the blind Mr. Vogler returns to see his wife, only to have Alma approach him and pretend to be Elisabeth. After feeling the face and seemingly being satisfied that it is indeed his wife, the two sleep together without hesitation. One would think that a blind man would be able to realize, through touch, whether or not the woman he is getting intimate with is actually his wife. So, it appears to lend credence to the thought that Alma and Elisabeth are one and the same.

Any interpretation made about the film seems to have holes in it. The split personality theory is the most satisfactory to me, but it is not entirely impossible to view the story quite literally. Many knowledgeable film critics and historians have had difficulty coming to grips with a completely coherent interpretation, so I do not at all feel embarrassed for not having one myself. After many viewings, I’m not sure that I understand any more about the meanings and interpretations than I did the first time – and at this point, I’m not sure that I even care. The realization that I have come to in regards to Persona is that it is a visual masterpiece and a thought-provoking meditation on the concepts of identity and reality. Does this sound like an overly vague analysis? It is, but it is the best that I can settle on. Rather than getting caught up in trying to uncover precisely what Bergman wished to say in making the film, I now simply put it on and enjoy it for its artistry. The overall production is so arresting that everything else is secondary to me.

Rating: 9/10

Other Contenders for 1966: A trio of films line up behind Persona on my list of favorites for 1966. Gillo Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers is a unique film in the way that much footage is so realistic that it looks like a documentary. It is an engrossing story and one that still resonates today in the “terrorist vs. freedom fighter” conflict taking place in locales around the world. I am also a big fan of Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blow-Up. It is a film that has resulted in many spin-offs and remakes, but Antonioni’s film still manages to remain mysterious. And finally, Sergio Leone’s popular The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. It’s not my favorite Leone but I still really like it.

Some of the other films worth mentioning, but were never really in contention are: Au hazard Balthazar (Robert Bresson), El Dorado (Howard Hawks), Le deuxième soufflé (Jean-Pierre Melville) and A Man for All Seasons (Fred Zinnemann).

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

1961: The Innocents (Jack Clayton)

Released: November 1961 (U.K.)

Director: Jack Clayton; Screenplay: William Archibald, Truman Capote and John Mortimer (additional scenes and dialogue) based on the novel The Turn of the Screw by Henry James; Cinematography: Freddie Francis; Studio: Achilles, 20th Century Fox; Producer: Jack Clayton

Cast: Deborah Kerr (Miss Giddens), Peter Wyngarde (Quint), Megs Jenkins (Mrs. Grose), Michael Redgrave (The Uncle), Martin Stephens (Miles), Pamela Franklin (Flora), Clytie Jessop (Miss Jessel)

An attempt by a filmmaker to create a movie so ambiguous as to allow different interpretations that are equally plausible can be very dangerous. By this I am not referring to small plot details or individual situations that can be read differently by each viewer and can slightly alter one’s perception of a film. I am talking about instances when a director leaves fundamental questions concerning the story and its characters unanswered, leaving it exclusively to the viewer to determine exactly what might or might not have happened. At its worst, it can create an incomprehensible mess in which an impossibly convoluted story overshadows any other merits that a film may contain (Inland Empire, anyone?). When done properly, it can create a rare cinematic experience in which a film remains fresh to repeat viewings.

This is what makes Jack Clayton’s The Innocents such a special film for me. Many similar films that rely on supernatural intrigue lose much of their punch once the mystery is solved. Films that were enjoyable the first time can quickly be cast aside, as once all of the questions have been answered there is little appeal left in the film. The genius of this film, and due to the skill of writers William Archibald and famed novelist Truman Capote, was to remedy such a situation by never answering whatever questions may have built up in the minds of the viewer. Instead, they lay out what appears to be happening and leave to each person to decide whether it is reality or hallucination.

The story is very simple and is based on the classic novella The Turn of the Screw by Henry James. Miss Giddens (Deborah Kerr), a young and inexperienced governess, is hired by a rich Londoner (Michael Redgrave) to care for his niece and nephew on his country estate. The Uncle is an admittedly selfish man, making it clear to Miss Giddens that he has little time for the children and that she will be solely responsible for what happens at Bly House.


Upon arriving at the mansion and its beautiful lands, Miss Giddens at first believes that she has arrived at paradise. She meets the young girl Flora (Pamela Franklin), who appears to be the model of a courteous young lady, and Mrs. Grose (Megs Jenkins), who had been caring for the children until Giddens’ arrival. Shortly thereafter, the young boy Miles (Martin Stephens) also arrives at Bly House after having been expelled from his boarding school. For a time things are idyllic, but soon Miss Giddens begins to experience strange events – mainly, she hears voices and continually sees two mysterious people roaming the grounds. Slowly she begins to learn of the circumstances of her predecessor’s death and comes to believe that Mrs. Jessel (Clytie Jessop) and her lover Quint (Peter Wyngarde), also recently killed, are haunting the property. Not only that, but she believes that their spirits have taken control of the children and are manipulating them in order to keep their presence a secret. Suddenly Miss Giddens begins to observe what she perceives to be conniving on the part of Miles and Flora, putting her into situations in which she is taunted and terrified by the sudden appearance of ghosts and sounds of voices.

Miss Giddens’ response to the ghosts becomes the central issue to the film. Throughout all of the sightings of a lone woman in the swamps or a solitary dark figure in the distance moving toward a window, Miss Giddens is the only one who sees them. The children claim to be absolutely oblivious and Mrs. Grose is always nearby to offer a harmless explanation. The question then becomes, are these ghosts real? Are these supernatural beings actually there or are they all in Miss Giddens’ mind? Are the children truly in danger of being consumed by these wicked spirits or is Miss Giddens really the one that poses the greatest threat to them? And if everything is in fact in the mind of Miss Giddens, what is causing her to wreak such havoc on herself and the children? Everything from frustration with her work to sexual repression are alluded to and become conceivable possibilities. The answers to each of these questions will depend on who you ask, and the film was intentionally designed this way. While it has been a long time since I read James’ novella, my personal recollection is that there is much less doubt concerning the ghosts. I never remember doubting their existence (I could be wrong on this – as I said, it’s been a while, but this is how I remember it). In Archibald and Capote’s script, the doubt is interwoven into everything that happens.


Amazingly, all of this uncertainty works. Far from being a cop out as one might wrongly suspect, this ambiguity allows the horror created in the film to be inescapable. The two options left for the viewer to decide between lead only to two equally terrifying interpretations. Either the ghosts suspected of inhabiting the country estate are real, meaning that there are two slain lovers possessing innocent children. Or, the perceived voices, images and haunting are purely in the mind of Miss Giddens, and the audience is witness to a deranged woman so obsessed by her visions that she drives children to madness as well. Neither option is comforting; both are equally tragic in their result.

While it has become cliché to lament the current state of horror films, watching The Innocents only reinforces how simple it can be for a director and his staff to make a story chilling without any reliance on gore or violence. There is no need to use sudden shocks, such as ghosts jumping out from behind a wall or loud shrieking music to tell the audience that they are supposed to be scared. The horror instigated by Clayton is much more psychological and as a result is much more effective. Even in moments where there are perceived ghosts appearing, they don’t simply pop into the screen for once quick scare. Clayton allows the audience to see Quint’s approach to the window, to experience the dread as you slowly realize what is happening. It is highly effective because it forces the viewer to go through the same fear and second-guessing that Miss Giddens is going through in that moment. And then there is the stunning photography of cinematographer Freddie Francis, which is arguably the most impressive element of the entire film. Francis is able to create a fitting Gothic atmosphere to perfectly set the mood of all that happens. Equally as effective is the inventive camera work that he employs during Miss Giddens’ solitary walks through the halls of Bly House, in which the camera is sometimes completely engulfed in darkness, picking up only the lights that are in Miss Giddens' line of sight.

Rating: 9/10

Other Contenders for 1961: While I don’t think this is quite as strong of a year as those surrounding it, there is still a lot depth in the number or outstanding films. In the United States, come three particular films that I really like. Shock Corridor and The Naked Kiss seem to get the most attention during this period of Samuel Fuller’s career, but I prefer Underworld U.S.A. over both of them. Judgment at Nuremberg has also always been a favorite, containing a number of superlative performances, both large and small. Montgomery Clift, although on screen for a very short time, is amazing and was rightfully nominated for an Academy Award. And finally there is the classic Robert Rossen film The Hustler. Paul Newman gets adoration for his role as Fast Eddie, but my personal favorite role in the film has always been Jackie Gleason as Minnesota Fats. Also, I can appreciate the greatness of West Side Story (Jerome Robbins, Robert Wise) and even enjoy it, but I wouldn't call it a favorite film.

Films made outside the United States in this year elicit interesting reactions from me. Among my favorites is Pietro Germi’s Divorce Italian Style, with the murder dream sequences always providing excellent black comedy. For two other highly acclaimed films from this year I’ve never been able to determine exactly how I feel about them. Even after multiple viewings, I can;t completely decide whether I really like or really hate Alain Resnais’ Last Year at Marienbad. I would guess others have had similar reactions to this film. Now that I’ve started approaching it just to watch it rather than try to get wrapped up in a story (which is how I pretty much approach Fellini now too), it’s enjoyable. I have had similar mixed reactions toward Bunuel’s Viridiana, although I lean more towards not being a great fan of it. I like Ingmar Bergman’s Through a Glass Darkly, but throughout his whole Faith Trilogy I can’t shake the feeling that I’m watching a movie that is trying to be Dreyer-like, but never quite reaches that level.

In regards to Truffaut’s Jules and Jim, I’m unsure whether to comment on it in 1961 or 1962 – the earliest release date I can find is 62, but most movie guides or books label it 61. At any rate, it doesn’t really matter in my selections as it was a complete miss for me.

Monday, August 3, 2009

1960: Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock)

Released: June 16, 1960

Director: Alfred Hitchcock; Screenplay: Joseph Stephano and Samuel Taylor based on the novel by Robert Bloch; Cinematography: John Russell; Studio: Paramount Pictures; Producer: Alfred Hitchcock; Music: Bernard Herrmann

Cast:
Anthony Perkins (Norman Bates), Janet Leigh (Marion Craine), Martin Balsam (Detective Milton Abrogast), John Gavin (Sam Loomis), Vera Miles (Lila Crane), Simon Oakland (Dr. Fred Richmond), John McIntire (Sheriff Al Chambers), Frank Albertson (Tom Cassidy), Patricia Hitchcock (Caroline)

It’s quite easy to look back on this landmark 1960 horror film and acknowledge what a powerful and trendsetting movie that Psycho would become. Try analyzing it as if you were a studio executive in the late 1950s trying to make sense of what Alfred Hitchcock wanted to do. Hitch was on a run of films that was stunning, receiving praise among critics and at the box office as well. His list of achievements over this period – ranging from Strangers on a Train, to Dial M for Murder, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Vertigo, North By Northwest among others – were blockbusters, boasting first-rate stars and massive budgets. Hitchcock was filming in Technicolor, convincing studios to construct unprecedented lavish sets, and shooting on location in exotic locales. And it had all worked, with the English-born director becoming one of the most successful men in Hollywood. He had found a niche in the type of movies he wanted to create, was able to extract the performances he wanted from actors that he obviously felt contempt for, and was prized by studio employers as a result.

So as amazing as it is to think of it today, Paramount Pictures was dead set against Hitchcock even bothering to make Psycho. Although Hitchcock was famous for toying with the fears and insecurities of audiences, the studio felt that the murderous storyline of Psycho would be too much. Hitchcock had to try and finance the film himself and make due with what he had at hand. Rather than the lavish finances he had recently enjoyed, he shot the entire movie on a budget of less than $1 million. The beautiful use of Technicolor in his films was discarded so as to further cut costs and he shot the film in black-and-white. Most of the crew used in filming was plucked from the set of his Alfred Hitchcock Presents television series, reducing expenses even further. The sets used had already been constructed for other films. And in the story itself, defying all conventional wisdom, he deliberately has the most identifiable personality in the entire movie killed less than halfway through.

In retrospect, it’s easy to see why Paramount was leery about distributing such a movie. Looking at it now, of course, the fact that they botched the handling of rights to the film and ultimately lost out on much of the $40 million profits is a decision akin to Decca passing on The Beatles. But at the time, it’s easy to imagine them wanting Hitchcock to simply stick to the playbook that he had put together over the course of his major-studio 50s run. Fortunately for movie fans, Hitch did as he pleased and the result is one of the most influential films ever made.


The film opens with Phoenix secretary Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) at a surreptitious lunchtime rendezvous with her soon-to-be divorced boyfriend Sam Loomis (John Gavin). When she returns to work that day and is asked to make a $40,000 bank deposit for a client, Marion begins scheming. Rather than make the expected deposit, Marion takes off with the money and begins to make plans of meeting up with Sam and going away together. Here is Hitchcock defying conventional wisdom right from the outset, as the biggest star in the film is immediately shown to be a thief. Marion quite clearly shows nervousness and questions what she is doing, but there is no getting around what she has done. She manages to get a new car and is quickly on the run, but in the process becomes caught in a rainstorm and lost on the road. This is how she comes to find the Bates Motel and meets the seemingly normal Norman Bates.

You quickly learn that like Marion, however, Norman also is not as he seems. Soon after Marion retires to her room, Norman scrambles to a hole in the wall that allows him to look into her chalet and spy on her. It is Hitchcock returning to a theme he had explored in the past, the idea of voyeurism and what it could lead to. Soon thereafter, in quite possibly the most famous sequence in the history of cinema, Marion is killed in the famed shower scene. The shock of the brutality of the scene may have lessened over time, but it’s still manages to be chilling in its minimalism.


Just 45 minutes into the film and the leading character, the only person in the film that the audience has been able to identify with, is gone. It’s an audacious movie by any director. For fellow music and classic rock fans, it reminds me of The Band deciding to lead off their debut album Music From Big Pink with a slow, sad song simply because everybody told them that’s something that just can't done. From this point on, the focus of the story quickly shifts to Norman and the demons that he is wrestling with. Hitchcock begins to probe what has made Norman into the socially awkward man he is. Are his homicidal tendencies ones that he was born with or are they the result of other developments? As we follow further investigations into the death of Marion, the answers to these questions slowly begin to be answered. Bernard Herrmann’s contribution to the film also cannot be ignored. His all-strings score is chilling and creates an atmosphere that perfectly matches the dark black-and-white photography. It sounds like a soundtrack to a nightmare.

As a mystery and thriller, Psycho is as good as they come. Watching it purely for the escapist entertainment still makes for an unbelievably wild ride. But as is the case with nearly all of Hitchcock’s masterpieces, there are other striking facets of his characters that are always intriguing. The thing that immediately struck me is how every character that is introduced to the audience has something to hide. Marion is making off with $40,000 of someone else’s money. Sam is having an affair and scrambling to clean up financial problems. Marion’s co-worker Caroline (Patricia Hitchcock) is revealed to have hidden prescription medication. Cassidy (Frank Albertson), the client who asks Marion to make the deposit for him, is concealing income to avoid paying taxes. Norman Bates is hiding secrets that are unthinkable. Everybody has something to suppress. I point this out not to show that every character is shady or a bad guy, as might be the case in many noirs. I bring it up because these are situations one can relate to. _Everybody_ on this planet has a dirty little secret or small detail that they want to keep to themselves. I don’t care who you are, there is some tidbit – however innocuous or serious – that you are not going to want aired to the public. Hitchcock knows this and show people as they scramble to maintain control of such information.


The most fascinating facet of the film for me is how Hitchcock deliberately manipulates who the audience identifies with over the course of the story. For the first third of the movie, the audience witnesses Marion taking part in a clandestine affair and then running off with $40K in stolen money. Still, you identify with Marion and basically reach the point of rooting for her to make a successful escape. Once she is killed, then the only readily available character to identify with is Norman. Hitchcock then deliberately begins to maneuver the viewer to see things as Norman does. Things begin to be shown as Norman sees them, miraculously managing to make a killer somewhat endearing. I don’t know that I would go so far as to say that you root for Norman to get away with murder, but it’s not a stretch to say that you at least hope that no drastic harm comes to him.

Psycho
would be the last of Hitchcock’s irrefutable masterpieces. At times, I think it might be my favorite of his films. Even after all of the thrills have been experienced, when you know every twist and turn that is going to come up in the story, it still never disappoints. It is a film that has spawned thousands of imitators and none have come close to matching it.

Rating: 10/10

Other Contenders for 1960:
Psycho is another that was never challenged in my mind for the top spot. But Billy Wilder’s The Apartment is a favorite and I would consider it to be Wilder’s best comedy, certainly ahead of Some Like It Hot. Jack Lemmon once again shines. The other films that I want to at least mention as being among my favorites for the year are: The Magnificent Seven (John Sturges), Comanche Station (Budd Boetticher), Rocco and His Brothers (Luchino Visconti), Le Trou (Jacques Becker), and a film that many consider 1959 but I’m staying consistent and counting it as 1960, Jean-Luc Godard’s Breathless. Godard is a director I struggle with, but I find this to easily be my favorite of his films that I have seen.

It is no oversight that I did not include Federico Fellini’s lauded La Dolce Vita. I simply did not like it and have not revisited it since. I own it, so I suppose I will at some point, but it’s going to take a proper time and mood to make it through the three hours again. At the end of the film I remember thinking, “so what?” It’s not good to feel like you just wasted three hours after completing a movie. That’s how I felt after La Dolce Vita. I also surprisingly have never been a fan of Truffaut’s Shoot the Piano Player.

The only glaring omission in this year is Antonioni's L'avventura. It is one that I have not seen and so obviously it was not in consideration. It's one I should have seen by now, but haven't. As I said at the beginning, I consider myself pretty well-rounded, but there are some movies that I'm still in the process of getting to. This is one of them.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

1954: Rear Window (Alfred Hitchcock)

Released: August 1, 1954 (U.S.)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock; Screenplay: John Michael Hayes based on the short story “It Had to Be Murder” by Cornell Woolrich; Cinematography: Robert Burks; Studio: Paramount Pictures; Producer: Alfred Hitchcock; Music: Franz Waxman

Cast: James Stewart (L.B. “Jeff” Jefferies), Grace Kelly (Lisa Carol Fremont), Thelma Ritter (Stella), Wendell Corey (Det. Lt. Thomas J. Doyle), Raymond Burr (Lars Thorwald), Irene Winston (Mrs. Anna Thorwald), Judith Evelyn (Miss Lonelyhearts), Ross Bagdasarian (Songwriter), Georgine Darcy (Miss Torso)

As I’m sure happens to everyone who shows a passion for films, I am constantly asked the loaded question, “What is your all-time favorite movie?” Answering such a question is hopeless, as it's one that is impossible to give a valid response to. There are just too many factors that are constantly shifting. The answer at any given point in time is dependent on things such as which films I’ve watched most recently, what kind of films I have been into, what my mood is at that time – basically, a change in any of these elements is likely to produce a different response to the question. Now, with that being said, I could likely draft a list of 10-15 films from which an answer at any given point is likely to be chosen. If forced to narrow things even further, I would venture to say that if someone were to have the time or inclination to track my answers to this question over an extended period (and I pity the person who would even be interested in trying such a thing!), that there is a film that would likely pop up more often than any other. To this day, after countless viewings, I still find Alfred Hithcock’s Rear Window thrilling and exciting every time I watch it.

The amazing thing is that 1954 is such a monstrous year that it has to be a movie that I love this much in order to be chosen as my top film. While there are not quite the volume of contenders that I dealt with in years like 1939 or 1950, those at the top of are magnificent. This year is like a small tournament of heavyweight directors, pitting the likes of Hitchcock, Kazan, Mizoguchi, Kurosawa, Fellini and Ray against each other. So for me, this is another banner year for cinema.

If Alfred Hitchcock is not my favorite director, he’s certainly on the short list. With Rear Window, the director was in the middle of a ten-year run of classics that can be matched favorably against the best decade-long run of any other director to ever work in film. When watching this film, it’s abundantly clear that you are observing a genius at work – a director who feels like he can do whatever he wants to on the screen and make it work. Forgetting about the reputation and acclaim that it has acquired over the years, think about describing this film to someone at the most basic level. Here is a major motion picture that takes place on one set, and for the most part in just a single room. It is a murder mystery in which the audience never sees the crime or any other violence take place. The story unfolds by viewing a number of seemingly innocuous events, watching them from the rear window of an apartment. Even further, the events that the audience does see transpire take place from a distance, well out of earshot.

To think that a film described in this fashion manages to become one of the most thrilling movies ever made is mind-blowing. And while it is not due solely to the efforts of Hitchcock – there are many other collaborators that contribute to the film’s success – there is no question that it took a personality like Hitch to achieve the greatness that Rear Window does. Only Hitchcock, with this personal interest (and some would even argue paranoia) concerning voyeurism and its place in society could elevate the movie from the bland description given above to the suspenseful masterpiece it is.


I’ll start the meat of this review in the same way that the movie itself begins, exploring the stunning set constructed at Paramount Studios. The base description given earlier saying that the film takes place on a single set is somewhat misleading, because that single set is spectacular. At the time, it was the largest set Paramount had ever constructed, allowing Hitchcock to accurately depict the setting of the Greenwich Village apartment complex and the open-air courtyard at its center. Every apartment that we see through Jeff’s window is like a world of its own, each with its own individual characters and personalities. In Miss Torso’s room you see a blond bombshell, constantly dancing and stretching in skimpy clothing and always being wooed by young men. Miss Lonelyhearts is the middle-aged woman seen in her very domesticated looking apartment, longing for a companion. She is portrayed in the most sympathetic light. The Songwriter lives in an apartment that looks like an artist’s loft, with his piano situated at the center of his room so that he can try to write his first hit song. In the newlyweds that move in early in the film, Jeff and the audience watch as the love struck couple progresses from the bliss early in their marriage to more difficult times that loom ahead. Then of course, there is the apartment of the Thorwalds, where Lars is said to have murdered his invalid wife. Each room is its own world, with those in Jeff’s apartment acting as something of an “all-seeing eye.”

And all of this is shot in beautiful Technicolor, which creates an interesting contrast. There are vibrant colors on display, whether it is in the gorgeous costumes designed by the famed Edith Head or outdoor shots in the quad. Yet many vital scenes hinge on darkness and subtle uses of light. The ability to be seen across the courtyard is dependent upon lights, or lack thereof. Thus, Jeff and Lisa are constantly scrambling to cut off the lights of his apartment, to make it impossible for Thorwald to see them spying on him. There are numerous scenes where Jeff or Stella are stepping (of in Jeff’s case wheeling) back into the shadows to remain unobserved. The same is true for conditions in Thorwald’s apartment, which allow Hitchcock and cinematographer Robert Burks to create the chilling images of his living room in complete darkness, the only visible thing being the cherry of his lit cigarette. It is dazzling stuff, reinforcing the fact that it is not just Hitchcock who deserves praise for the look of the film. Robert Burks photographed many other Hitchcock films (among them Strangers on a Train, Vertigo, and North By Northwest) but his accomplishment here is as good as anything else he ever did.


I would be shocked if everyone reading this is not at least vaguely familiar with the plot of the film, but for the sake of completeness I’ll at least offer a brief summary. L.B. “Jeff” Jefferies (James Stewart) is a celebrated freelance photographer who has been recently injured while filming a car race. With his left leg in a cast up his midsection, Jeff is confined to a wheelchair in his apartment. Combating boredom, and without the ability to go out to find something better to do, Jeff finds himself people-watching from his back window and observing the various idiosyncrasies and habits of his neighbors. Over the course of his spying, Jeff comes to suspect that Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr), whose apartment is directly across the courtyard, has murdered his ailing wife. After hearing a pained scream in the early morning hours, Jeff sees Thorwald, said to be a traveling jewelry salesman, quickly leaving his apartment at 2:00 AM carrying a suitcase. From that point on, Mrs. Thorwald is never observed again. Jeff then attempts to convince his friends that a murder has taken place. The first skeptic is his insurance agency nurse Stella (Thelma Ritter), who is constantly scolding him for his peeping tom antics. His girlfriend and notable socialite Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly) is also initially skeptical, but is slowly convinced. Eventually, Jeff calls in an old army buddy, Lt. Det. Thomas Doyle (Wendell Corey) to investigate Thorwald. Doyle remains unconvinced right up until the finish, but Jeff will never let him completely disregard the possible murder.

Whereas many mysteries might lose some appeal in repeat viewings, Rear Window manages to stay interesting no matter how often it is watched. The reason is that it can be experienced and enjoyed on a number of different levels. Due primarily to the tight script of writer John Michael Hayes, the interaction between the small core of primary characters manages to add a lighthearted element. Just witness Stella’s constant scolding of Jeff for his spying or her straightforward values, such as when she declares to Jeff, “What people ought to do is get outside their own house and look in for a change. Yes sir. How's that for a bit of homespun philosophy?” and then admitting to copping it from Reader’s Digest. Although discussing the murder and dismemberment of a helpless woman, it’s impossible not to chuckle or smile at some of the exchanges. The best example is when the trio of Jeff, Lisa and Stella are watching Thorwald scrub down his apartment and Stella suddenly blurts out, “Must’ve splattered a lot” as matter-of-factly as possible. Lisa squirms as Stella explains, “Come on, that’s what we’re all thinking.” Jeff is the ultimate cynic, sparing no one from his sharp wit. Lt. Doyle, someone who he obviously cares for, is a constant target of Jeff’s dry humor as he tries to goad him into investigating the supposed murder. At times, all of this repartee plays like a light comedy.

At the same time, the film looks at the nature of relationships, using the views into various rooms to explore the different ways that the relationships between couples can progress. In peering into the apartments, you see how different people cope with their own relationship situations. Miss Torso constantly has callers, to the point of having to beat them away, but misses her true love, a soldier who is away. The married couple above the Thorwalds seems to be the model of domesticity, sleeping together on their balcony along with their pet dog. Miss Lonelyhearts desperately wants someone to be with, reaching the point of suicide when she is unsuccessful. Contrast this with Lars Thorwald, who has someone to be with but may have become so fed up with her that he kills her. Jeff, taking all of these scenarios in, has all of this to process as he contemplates his own relationship with Lisa, which appears to be at a crossroads. Arguably the central issue of the entire story is the relationship between Jeff and Lisa. Lisa wants a permanent commitment, while Jeff is unsure whether the two would be able to survive his nomadic lifestyle. To a certain degree, the unraveling of the Thorwald murder can be seen as the vehicle that brings the two of them together for the long-term. While engaged in the various plans to solve the case, Jeff begins to see Lisa in a different light and starts to believe that she would be able to survive his assorted assignments around the globe.


The obvious, and most interesting level in my opinion, is the issue of voyeurism. Exactly what judgment Hitchcock is passing on the innate human desire to watch something one is not meant to see is open to interpretation, but there are some key things that I think can help to craft an explanation. For the entirety of the film, the audience is viewing the action from Jeff’s apartment, with much of our view being the exact same as the leading character. When Jeff picks up his camera and looks through the high-powered lens, Hitchcock gives the audience the exact same vantage point. Is he implicating the audience in whatever trouble is stirred up by Jeff’s actions? Or is he making the point that the viewers would act similarly to Jeff if they were in the same situation? It’s hard to give a definitive answer to those questions, but they are interesting to ponder. The fact that in many cases Hitchcock frames shots that literally give the impression that you are viewing things through Jeff’s eyes are meant to make everyone watching feel that it could be them in this scenario.

The exact statement on the voyeurism is also left a bit ambiguous. Is Jeff’s spying justified by the fact that he is able to call in Det. Doyle and solve a murder? It would be easy to say yes, but the fact that Jeff doesn’t exactly come away unscathed seems to point to the fact that he at the very least was the recipient of some kind of karmic backlash. After all, it wasn’t just Thorwald that Jeff was spying on. He also invaded the privacy of many other oblivious tenants. While certainly a “happy ending” for the main characters, it is far from the Hollywood fairytale conclusion. For his trouble, Jeff ends the movie with a cast on both legs, guaranteeing many more weeks of life in the wheelchair. Sure, he has the gorgeous Lisa nearby to comfort him, but he did not come away scot-free.

The performances have been lauded by far better writers than me, but it’s still worth pointing out how incredible the interaction is between the three amateur gumshoes of Jeff, Lisa and Stella. James Stewart has far too many memorable performances to choose a best one, but L.B. Jefferies certainly ranks alongside any other accomplishments. Rather than portraying the usual All-American image for which he has become so beloved, Stewart plays Jeff differently. He is still likable, but he seems to have a restless streak about him. While the audience always identifies with Jeff, it can never be forgotten that we are watching a peeping tom at work. I’ll go on record now and say that Grace Kelly is as beautiful as any woman who ever worked in Hollywood and I would use this film as Exhibit A to back up my argument. Kelly took home the Oscar for Best Actress in 1954 – but not for Rear Window! She won it for her role in George Seaton’s The Country Girl. I’m in no way suggesting that Kelly’s role as Lisa was worthy of an award, but she certainly shows why she remained one of Hitchcock’s favorite leading ladies (and on a personal level, one of the few actors or actresses he seemed to genuinely like). She looks the part of a debutante and plays the role without exaggerating it. Lisa is a socialite with a taste for material things, but Kelly’s performance doesn’t stress this to the point of making it a caricature. And finally there is Thelma Ritter, who to me is like the female Walter Brennan of this era. By this I mean that in whatever supporting role she plays, she manages to very nearly steal the spotlight from those that are top-billed.

I’ll close in reiterating how the suspense created by Hitchcock, writers Hayes and Woolrich, and all other principals involved is the best I’ve ever seen. The reason is that the suspense is not dependent on any parlor tricks. Nothing has to be faked; there is no need for suspension of belief in order for the tension to feel very real. Everyone can relate to situations like when Jeff is forced to watch helplessly as Lisa scrambles to hide from the returning Thorwald. What can he do? If he calls out to her, it will only lead the potential murderer to her even quicker. A call to the police would likely bring help too late. The audience has no choice but to squirm along with Jeff as he can hardly bear to watch. I think that the fact that we are seeing all of the action from a distance only adds to the anxiety created. Since things are not as up close, you’re never able to make complete sense of what is happening. For me, there is no worse feeling than knowing that things are far removed from your control and there is nothing that can be done but to sit and watch what happens. Hitchcock plays on this fear in such simple, yet effective ways.

Every time I put on Rear Window, it rekindles my love of both the film itself and movies in general. There is no better compliment that I can pay to a film than this.

Rating: 10/10

Other Contenders for 1954: As I said, this is an incredibly top-heavy year, with many films that have just as strong a claim to the top spot as my personal favorite. If creating a complete list of rankings, there would be three films that would be tied for second place. First is the touching Kenji Mizoguchi film Sansho Dayu (also known as Sansho the Bailiff). The visuals are stunning and the story truly is moving. It is not hyperbole at all to say that this movie is just devastating. I prefer this one to Mizoguchi’s other recognized masterpiece Ugetsu, and would probably go so far as to say this is the best movie in Japanese cinema history -- again, no hyperbole at all. The winner of Best Picture of 1954 was Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront. This is a prime example of a film that manages to take outstanding individual pieces (director, actors, etc.) and bring them together to create a superb film. This sounds like this should always happen with great individual parts, but this isn’t always the case. The Budd Schulberg screenplay has nearly attained mythical status, as has Marlon Brando’s lead performance. It’s my definitely my favorite Kazan movie. While I chose Jacques Becker’s Casque d’or as my top movie of 1952, my favorite Becker film is actually this year’s Touchez pas au grisbi. Jean Gabin is perfect as the aging gangster, struggling to maintain control in a changing underworld. It is among the best French gangster films ever made. Outside of these three, I see something of a drop off, but that is more an affirmation of there greatness rather than shortcomings of other films.

There are two other movies from this year that I would classify as outstanding films, and that many would call great, but that never really contended in my choice for #1. Many reputable critics and film fans cite Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai as the greatest film ever made. I don’t quite place it that high – and in fact there are two other Kurosawa films that I like more – but it’s still cinema at its finest. The other is Nicholas Ray’s western noir Johnny Guitar. It took me a long time to finally track this one down, but when I did I was not disappointed. It has the feel of noir dialogue set in the West and works very well.

I also expect some support for Federico Fellini’s La Strada. This is another instance of my being able to recognize a film’s importance but not enjoying it. In fact, after my first viewing, I was somewhat shocked at the status that it had acquired. I’ve softened on that stance since, but it’s still one that falls short for me.