Three films a day

#35, 3/30 – The Great Train Robbery (1979) (vod)

A late 70s heist movie starring Sean Connery, Lesley-Anne Down and Donald Sutherland? Even my disdain for Michael Crichton couldn’t overcome the general likability of such a film. And it was likable, especially because of the faux-Victorian silliness of the whole thing. I think it’s fair to say that the stars all mailed their performances in (at least it seemed that way to me), but with the right setup a charismatic set of actors can mug their way through an entire film without it being a problem.

And a heist film is about as perfect a setup as you can get. As I’ve said before, I love heist films for their inevitability (unsurprisingly, I’m thinking of seeing what may be another entry in the genre on Saturday). They’re so easy to get right. It’s all just details. The writer and director model for us exactly how the job would work in an ideal situation. The more clever the job, the more better. But then, of course, real life throws in (here’s that word again) inevitable complications which make executing the job (or getting away with it) even more difficult than initially planned. It’s just so much fun.

#34, 3/29 – Rivers and Tides (2001) (dvd)

Fascinating, sometimes beautiful portrait of an artist whose work deals with his ideas of nature and time. I wasn’t very familiar Andy Goldsworthy before I saw this and now I’m totally in love with the guy.

#33, 3/28 – Time to Leave (2005) (dvd)

I’ve always had mixed feelings about Francois Ozon’s movies. Truth be told, I’ve never much cared for the finished products, but I’ve liked the ideas behind them (usually) and I have nothing but good things to say about the actors he works with. Most notably, without Ozon I probably would never have found out about Ludivine Sagnier and that right there is a shame.

Still, my record with Ozon was abysmal. Under the Sand, 8 Women, and Swimming Pool were a trio of movies I’d very much wanted to like but, quite honestly, was closer to hating in each case. I skipped 5×2 and thought I would do the same with this movie, but I changed my mind for reasons I’m not quite clear on. And I’m glad I did. I’ve finally found an Ozon movie to like.

It’s based on a simple enough question which has been done in film any number of times (most memorably, for me, by Kurosawa in Ikiru, a movie that totally blew me away when I saw it): What would you do if you found out you had a very short amount of time left to live? The protagonist, Romain, doesn’t necessarily provide the the prettiest, easiest answer you’ll ever see, but Ozon’s treatment feels about right in its humanity. It’s less of an ordeal than Patrice Chereau’s Son Frere, but I also think it’s probably a little less successful in what it’s trying to do and may end up being less memorable. Time will tell, obviously.

#32, 3/27 – The Science of Sleep (2006) (nqpdd)

In each of the three fiction features Michael Gondry’s directed there’s been a heaping helping of fantasy, whimsy, and outright goofiness. And since Gondry’s strengths are visual, this tendency can make for some interesting scenes.

It can also make for some problems, though. Both of his first two features (which were written by my favorite whipping boy, Charlie Kaufman) featured somewhat silly scenes (curious sidetrips, really) which I often thought were out of place. I certainly believe Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (which I liked, but with qualifications) would be improved immensely if someone cut the stuff with Dunst and Ruffalo. And my mild distaste for Human Nature also owes to that occasional feeling of the movie working against its own momentum.

I have no such problems with The Science of Sleep, however. I really liked it, and I liked it without reservation. And that’s largely because the very qualities I thought didn’t fit correctly in those two earlier films seem much more at home here. Sure, I still find the whole thing a little ungainly, but I don’t think there’s anything in the movie which detracts from its emotional core. And that’s why I consider this is a big step forward for Gondry.

#31, 3/25 – Baby Face (Pre-Release Version) (1933) (dvd)

(I’ve never watched Barbara Stanwyck, James Dean, and Myrna Loy in the same weekend before. It’s almost too much goodness.)

A film whose reputation precedes it, Baby Face is a very interesting example of Hollywood’s pre-Code era. And while I can (and do) read it in a number of ways, I’m actually most entertained comparing and contrasting it with one of my favorite Broadway musicals, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. Yes, it is a daffy connection in a way, but consider the narrative similarities. Finch and Lily each start as social nobodies. Each joins a multinational corporation armed only with self-help philosophies gleaned from a book (Finch’s guide was probably much more direct than Lily’s). Each then rapidly gains more power/material/status by using their charm and guile to exploit people in positions of power (relative to them). The tones of the two works are different, of course—the film version of How to Succeed… is extremely goofy and lighthearted—but I think Finch’s ruthlessness is every bit the same as Lily’s.

I haven’t seen a lot of the late 20s, early 30s pre-Code films, but what I have seen has been rather enjoyable. Actually, they’re especially fun to talk about. For example, just before I sat down to watch this I told my soccer buddy about DeMille’s The Sign of the Cross, a 1932 spectacle which, I think, surpasses the unbearably dull 1951 version of Quo Vadis in every possible way. If you haven’t heard me babble at least once about Claudette Colbert’s bathing-in-milk scene, you’ve probably not talked to me very much. Lucky you.

#30, 3/24 – The Namesake (2006) (tofw)

I’ve said many things about Mira Nair’s films in the past, some good and just as much bad, but what I hope always comes through is this: she is a filmmaker I deeply respect. I’m not sure I get that across as clearly as I do when I’m talking about, say, Ang Lee, which is a shame.

In a lot of ways, I think The Namesake is Nair’s most solid film yet, and it makes me look forward to her next big feature (which, if I remember correctly, will star Johnny Depp). It also, surprisingly, makes me want to see her oft-panned adaptation of Vanity Fair. (Yeah, I’m not sure why.)

I don’t think it’s much of a surprise that some of the filmmakers I like the most started making documentaries before making features. What I most enjoyed about The Namesake, honestly, wasn’t the narrative (which, though I liked, holds almost no surprises), but Nair’s eye for humanity and small, telling details. It’s an aspect Salaam Bombay! (where Nair was still showing her documentary roots very clearly) taught me to look for in Nair’s films. She managed very well to catch both the feelings of immigrants (like my parents) and their Americanized children (like me), and did so in very small, wonderful ways.

Overall, the film has the same Classic Hollywood feel and approach that I was happy to see and recognize in East of Eden earlier in the day. A good experience for me, definitely.

#29, 3/24 – East of Eden (1955) (vod)

I haven’t read Steinbeck since high school and I’d never gotten around to East of Eden, so I wasn’t sure what to expect. Of course, once I heard the names of the brothers, Caleb and Aron, I knew exactly what I was in for. (Given the title of the piece, the parallel names were hard to miss.) And I think I liked it more because, despite my knowing exactly where it would go, the trip was engaging.

The funny thing, to me, is after the movie was done I had a series of thoughts which went something like this. “Wow. This is just classic Hollywood filmmaking. I’m now much more in tune with how they were telling stories back then than I was, say, 10 years ago. I think I would have appreciated Splendor in the Grass much more if I’d seen it now, instead of in college.” Why did Splendor come to mind specifically? I dunno. But it’s only after I looked it up that I remembered it was directed the same man who helmed this film, Elia Kazan. I like when my brain makes associations which end up making more sense than I initially think they do. (It happens from time to time. Like my “gee, this reminds me a little of Rosemary’s Baby” moment)

And three cheers for Julie Harris. I think her character, Abra, is the most rewarding supporting character I’ve seen in a while, mostly down to her portrayal. I can only remember Harris from one other movie, my longtime favorite The Haunting, but it’s still fair to say I’ve loved her in everything I’ve seen her in.

#28, 3/23 – The Rains Came (1939) (vod)

Here comes a little Myrna Loy appreciation.

About 40 minutes into The Rains Came, Lady Edwina Esketh (Loy) and her old friend, a very drunk playboy named Tom Ransome (George Brent), walk into a party together. They’re greeted at the door by their host, and then at the earliest opportunity Ransome helps himself to another drink. Esketh snarks: “Some night you’re going to fall flat on your face and people will begin to suspect that you drink”. It’s a good line, obviously. But there is something about Loy which makes the whole thing even more enjoyable than usual.

Soon after that moment, the film shifts in tone to show us who these characters really are. Although there’s no armed conflict involved whatsoever, you can get a hint of what kind of film this is if you swap out “Rains” in the title for “War”.

Anyway, the melodrama is a little thick and the film has a small number of things which annoy me. Notably, the casting of Tyrone Power as an Asian was something I had to make myself overlook; yes, it’s par for the course for Hollywood during this time period (in fact, I remember reading once that before she became a star, Loy was often cast as Chinese), but it tends to grate on me all the same. Regardless, I enjoy watching Myrna. I still can’t explain what it is I like about the actors I like, but just like Barbara Stanwyck (who I’ve called my favorite actor of all time) and Cary Grant (goofy genius that he was), Myrna Loy utterly embodies it.

#27, 3/21 – The Descent (2005) (dvd)

I started using this blog to keep a record of the movies I’ve seen because it seemed like a fun thing to do. I also thought it would be useful to look back at my impressions of what I’ve previously watched. Fortunately, I was right on both counts, but it’s the second one which matters here.

While I was watching Descent I realized that it seemed an awful lot like a movie I’d seen in the last couple of years. I couldn’t remember the title or much about it, except that Cole Hauser was in it. (You always remember Cole Hauser.) Searching for Cole Hauser on this blog doesn’t exactly overload one with results, so it didn’t take me long to see that the movie I was trying to remember was The Cave. Oy. The Cave is exactly the kind of movie I mostly forget minutes after I see it so I’m glad I had a record of my experience with it. I didn’t hate The Cave when I saw it, but I was clearly feeling charitable.

On the other hand, I just plain liked The Descent. Pretty much from the start (though I found those first 10 minutes a little shaky). Even when the script played obvious setup jokes (like when Juno says “Relax, I’ve never been lost in my life”) I was totally onboard with it.

I’m trying to remember the last time I saw an outing-gone-wrong movie with an all (or even mostly) female cast. (The Cave has Piper Perabo and Lena Headey, but they are most certainly in the minority.) I don’t think I’m gonna be able to pull some obscure title out of the dustier corners of my brain, so I’m gonna dare say that this is a first for me. And it was wonderful to see, actually. Especially because it didn’t feel like a gimmick.

And not only that, but either I’m getting soft in my old age or people are starting to make movies I find genuinely suspenseful. Really. I was a little surprised when scenes from The Host pulled me in like they did. But I was totally shocked when bits in The Descent actually had me tense and concerned. I’m almost never engaged in these kinds of movies. I’m the one watching the characters die and thinking about the machinations which made x or y death possible. So, I don’t get it. I thought I was supposed to be getting de-sensitized.

#26, 3/20 – It All Starts Today (1999) (dvd)

I tend not to like “one teacher can make a difference” movies. It’s not so much that I disagree with the premise but I think most of them are much too rosy, much too falsely upbeat. The ones I’ve seen tend to follow the formula of “things were shit, and then this one person decided to change things and now they’re much, much better!”. In those cases you can define “better” in any number of ways, but it often has something to do with test scores. (Actually, speaking of tests, I think my favorite teacher-focused drama is probably Cheaters. Heh.)

It All Starts Today is blessed with the one thing most of the “one teacher can make a difference” movies tend to lack: a pervasive, sometimes overwhelming feeling of despair. Many of the movies I’m thinking about try at it, but they make it something which can be put to right by one person. What makes the character of Daniel Lefebvre such a hero, and someone who is worth celebrating, is that there is simply no way he is going to overcome all the problems which beset his school and, more importantly, his community. Progress is made, but it is slow, it is agonizing, and it can be erased in quick, frustrating strokes from politicians and bureaucrats. But Lefebrve embodies hope and persistence. That, to me, is beautiful.

It also reminds me, ever so slightly, of the most recent season of The Wire. I’m not quite sure why. Different aged children, different cultures, much different specific problems. But come to think of it, despite those differences, both paint a similar picture.

#25, 3/18 – The Servant (1963) (dvd)

Class differences! A power struggle! Oodles of gay subtext! Of course I liked it.

#24, 3/18 – The Host (2006) (tofw)

I think the last time I saw a movie so effectively and enjoyably meld seemingly incongruent genre styles together was the rather amazing Battle Royale, which I’ve praised to the heavens in this space before. The Host essentially combines the classic enviro-horror movie (my favorite of the lot still being Them!) with the dysfunctional family-bonding outing comedy, and if you allow for a couple rather jarring switches in tone, it does so marvelously. Some moments it’s laugh out loud funny. Others, it’s downright frightening. And occasionally, it’s both. The whole thing works so well it makes me wonder if I would actually find the motivation to watch the I’ve-been-warned-off-it-by-people-I-trust Little Miss Sunshine if I knew that movie’s family were on the run from a pack of angry, deadly, four-headed, radioactive, screaming cows. (Oh my god. I just gave away the greatest script idea in the world. Whoever uses it better give me a story credit is all I’m saying.)

The Host is yet another recent example of the kind of film Hollywood could really excel at making if the studios would encourage projects which focus their energies on the right things. Hint: the monster is not what makes this movie cool. And it’s not strictly its self-awareness, either. The Host is a very smart, very enjoyable piece of work which, most importantly, never feels cheap. There’s genuine excitement to be had and it’s easy to get emotionally involved (always a plus). Yes, it uses all the tricks and gadgets (and silliness) a genre film has at its disposal but it doesn’t cheat the audience at any particular point.

If I hadn’t had conflicting plans (and if I felt like parting with another $9.50), I would gladly have watched it again.

#23, 3/17 – Clean Slate (1981) (dvd)

I really liked this one. It follows the doings of Lucien Cordier, a man who has been assigned to police a small French West African town in 1938. He doesn’t do a very good job of it. In fact, he doesn’t do much of a job at all. He’s not an authority figure in any sense of the word. People humiliate and bully him, often publicly. Crimes happen right in front of him and he doesn’t lift a finger. He seems resigned to the path of least resistance.

One day, of course, this all changes and the film becomes taut and fascinating as soon as it does. Watching Lucien and trying to understand the decisions his character makes (once he decides to take action) was a definite joy for me. Philippe Noiret and (a young) Isabelle Huppert were marvelous.

#22, 3/14 – Zodiac (2007) (tofw)

Sometimes I fixate on the silliest little detail after I see a movie. In this case, I couldn’t get over the fact that Dirty Harry was so clearly rooted in the Zodiac killer case and I’d never known that. I can’t tell one serial killer case from another and within five weeks I’ll forget all the details about the Zodiac case, too. The only slight exception is David Berkowitz, and I’m not sure why I remember anything at all about him. And, speaking of the .44 Killer, lest I pass up the opportunity to make a needless comparison, I think this movie trips over itself much like Spike Lee’s Summer of Sam.

But back to Dirty Harry. It’s funny to me because it’s been so long since I saw it I can remember only one moment from that film (you know the one). But as I was watching Zodiac I started saying to myself “Wait, wasn’t there a scene in Dirty Harry featuring a school bus full of kids?!”. And there was. (I checked my copy of Lalo Schifrin’s score—which I never listen to—and noted that there’s a track called “The School Bus”). I’m surprised Don Siegel and the writers didn’t find the “Scorpio” school bus scene a little too on the nose. And I wonder what my reaction might have been if I’d caught Dirty Harry when it was released and the Zodiac stuff was still fresh in people’s minds. (I was, for the record, a mere 3 months old when Dirty Harry premiered, but setting aside the obvious impossibility issues).

Anyway, I wanted to like this movie more than I did. I definitely liked it and I’m very glad I saw it, but I was hoping for something more somehow. Regardless, I think it’s a major step up from Panic Room and it clued me in on Dirty Harry’s real-world origins, so I shouldn’t complain.

#21, 3/13 – Half Nelson (2006) (nqpdd)

For me, a movie like Half Nelson succeeds or fails based on three questions I ask myself about the characters: Do I find the characters interesting (note: I couldn’t care less if they’re “sympathetic”)? Do I think the director is treating them with due respect? Are the characters acting in ways I find believable or do they seem slaves to some heavy-handed Point? After asking myself those questions consistently while watching Half Nelson I think it succeeds quite easily, steering well clear of After School Special territory. Given all the little issues it touches upon (to name a few: illicit drugs, counseling, education, society and history), there are so many places where it could have gone wrong for me, but it managed to keep its balance throughout.

I’ve been a fan of Ryan Gosling’s since The Slaughter Rule, but he won me over for life with this performance.