Starter for 10 (2006)

215px-Starter_for_tenOftentimes I get my greatest excitement not simply from the masterpieces I get to discover, but also hidden gems that get unearthed along the way. This one just happens to have some of Britain’s best talent. Starter for 10 is a coming-of-age film which immediately sets off a number of ideas in one’s head, and it has most of what you expect in that department. However, it also has an astounding plethora of young British talent. The list of names is as follows: James McAvoy, Alice Eve, Rebecca Hall, Benedict Cumberbatch, Dominic Cooper, and even James Corden.

The heart of this film is Brian Jackson a college-aged kid, who grows up wanting to be clever and he has a passion for trivia because he always wants to learn more and he spent some formative moments in front of the telly with his now deceased dad. Now in 1985, he gets ready to leave his mother (Catherine Tate) and head off for new experiences at Bristol University. But she’s not the only one he leaves behind. His friends Tone and Spencer are not as ambitious as him, but he promises not to forget them.

Still, when he gets to college, he’s excited for the new challenges ahead and although his first acquaintances are rather odd, he does meet the winsome girl Rebecca Epstein (Rebecca Hall), who has an affinity for political protests. Soon he’s quick to join the University Challenge quiz team anchored by a very stuffy post-grad (Benedict Cumberbatch) but that’s not all. He also gets his first encounter with the posh girl with a gorgeous figure (Alice Eve). He’s immediately smitten with this new quiz kid and for good reason.

But what follows is all the drama that one would expect. The pitter-patter of his beating fragile heart as he dreams of days with the beautiful Alice. It even manifests itself in a dinner date and a rather awkward New Years with her parents. But then there’s Rebecca too. She’s brilliant as well and he has to figure out what he’s doing. Mixing up names on New Year’s Eve is not the best plan, but of course, that’s what happens.

His best friend Spencer (Dominic Cooper) comes to visit and that fosters more turmoil than Bri would like with the old world intersecting with the new. He’s confused and apathetic about the University Challenge by now. Everything goes wrong before the big day of the final competition and to top it all off Brian messes things up in a big way that leaves him dejected. He cannot even face his team now. Early on Brian latched onto the idea that knowledge is the key to being happy, not a job that you might hate. Although that can be true, it seems he slowly realizes that there’s even more to happiness than knowledge. If that’s all you have, you’re probably not going to be all that content. You see, he’s certainly clever, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t do some stupid things and make some big mistakes. Don’t we all, and otherwise, this could not be a coming-of-age story full of discovery, confusion, and love.

It’s a bad metaphor, I know, but do you want the Marilyn Monroe blond bombshell or the sweet Audrey Hepburn brunette? Everyone has their proclivity, but Brian seems to make the right choice because he doesn’t go with the outward appearance, he goes with the one with a depth of character and the ability to forgive. That’s big.

There’s a formula being followed certainly, but it’s easy to look past that and enjoy Starters for 10 for its heartfelt performances and simply the good fun it brings to the table. The names attached to the picture were slowly on the rise and it’s impressive to see how far their careers have taken them.

3.5/5 Stars

Late Autumn: A Close Reading of a Japanese Auteur (2015)

lateautumn_1_originalYasujiro Ozu has the esteem of being christened “The Most Japanese Filmmaker.” It’s certainly a high honor, but at first it can feel rather counter-intuitive, because after all such a great master of cinema cannot be considered a composite or even representative of Japanese film history. And it doesn’t seem like that is what this name is trying to get at. In reality Ozu experimented with the conventions written by classical western filmmakers over time and out of those frameworks he built his own unique aesthetic. It’s quite evident especially in his later films. That being said, his films are very Japanese in the way they interact with and dissect the culture that he comes out of, and that is paramount to understanding and appreciating his work.

A prime example is Late Autumn, Ozu’s penultimate film, a social-familial drama that shares a great deal of similarity to some of his earlier storylines. The fact is he’s constantly returning to these ideas of marriage, family, generational differences, and the underlying etiquette that is so prevalent to Japan and Asian cultures in general. Yes, he takes on the everyday as his subject matter, but far from being mundane, it suggests that Ozu gets at the very fabric of Japanese society like few directors were ever able to. But of course, much of what he examines is universal and that’s part of what allows his films to remain timeless.

One scene that proves crucial in Late Autumn occurs when the radiant young beauty Ayako (Yoko Tsukasa) returns home to her mother in a huff. This scene is integral because she believes her mother is keeping secrets from her about getting remarried, and it threatens to drive a spike through their relationship.

As he often does, Ozu will use an extended establishing shot, in this case, the outside of the apartment, and he lingers on it for a time, as if to convey the space that his characters occupy. In fact, these type of sequence became so synonymous with the director they received the moniker “pillow shots.” Historians Bordwell and Thompson contend that we can “hardly consider these mere ‘establishing shots’ in the classical Hollywood usage, since many of them are more confusing than orientating” (6).

The following long shot is of young Ayako (Yoko Tsukasa) walking solemnly down a hallway, and it conveys her dismay even from a distance. Her downward gaze tells the full story as much as the muted colors on the walls around her. Next we are situated inside her home watching Ayako come into the space that she shares with her mother. However, the normally peaceful sanctuary is certain to be a place of conflict, at least this evening. What follows is a long shot peering in from the next room, once again suggesting the distance that has already been created between these characters. Akiko (Setsuko Hara) comes into the frame for the first time. What it does is create a space for the audience to observe this intimate scene while still maintaining a certain amount of space to analyze what is in front of us.

There is a medium shot of the mother sitting down and she begins to talk about something routine like the groceries she was buying at the local market. What follows is one of Ozu’s variations on the classic Hollywood shot-reverse shot formula, as mother and daughter trade comments. Ayako is facing away from the camera, sitting by the window sill. Understandably Akiko is oblivious about what happened earlier. How could she know what her daughter heard from Mr. Mamiya? We end up going back and forth between mother and daughter with Akiko facing the camera head on as if she’s talking directly to the audience. Her daughter is completely turned although she does finally turn around and accuse her mother of lying. There’s still a noticeable distance between them.

But the camera does another interesting thing during this climactic moment. It makes a move, ending up behind the daughter, looking over her shoulder. It’s still stationary, but Ozu has circulated through this world made of 360 degrees of movement. Thus, “Once this pattern of circular space is established, Ozu’s films use the same devices Hollywood does, but without the axis of action” (29). Essentially, he is not constrained by the 180 degrees of Hollywood filmmaking. Such a tactic allows him to elicit a different response and capture a different view in such an integral sequence. Because Ayako has just accused her mother of hiding her plans of marriage, and we know what she’s talking about, but if we look at Ayikko’s face we can tell she’s confused; certainly befuddled by it all.

Then, just like that Ayako gets up to leave and once more the camera shows a medium shot of the doorway. This time the mother gets up and questions her daughter, but really it’s directly to the audience once more. She doesn’t get an answer as her daughter leaves without a word, the door closing behind her. It’s seemingly such an everyday look at human interaction, but it’s full of so much meaning, so much emotion. A great deal of that is thanks to Ozu and how he situated his camera in reference to his two actors. Each works off the other in perfect unity to make this sequence simple but at the same time dynamic in its effectiveness. We care about these people and truly feel their hurt, because we are experiencing it alongside of them.

This scene really resonates because it feels like one of the first times we actually get to know these characters. Oftentimes we cannot judge people by how they interact when times are good. That especially rings true in a Japanese culture that often appears to hide behind manicured etiquette and demure smiles. True, all cultures do this in a sense, but it feels especially prevalent in Japan. It’s a nation where the whole is more important than the individual. You’re not to show how feeling out of respect for those around. However, it’s when there’s actually a source of conflict or pain that a person’s true character breaks through the guarded exterior. In this instance, Akiko no longer carries her ever-present grin, but instead it’s given way to a look of deep concern. Her daughter was equally bright-eyed most of the film, and now her brow is furrowed with frustration. These are not the character we first met, or perhaps this is the first time we have seen them for who they really are. They have shed the holistic mentality, and finally given way to their true self.

To Ozu’s credit, he sets up his scenes beautifully, optimizing the space in front of him and situating his camera in a way that is unobtrusive yet unique. It provides the perfect environment for examining his human subjects in their natural rhythms of life. It’s simple, it’s beautiful, and it’s ultimately very telling of the human condition.

R.I.P. Setsuko Hara

Easy Living (1937)

easyliving1Easy Living is a sizzling screwball comedy propelled by a Preston Sturges script and the direction of Mitchel Leisen (a former costume designer). It finds humor in the stratified 1930s society and the so-called easy livings of the affluent. But it also has it’s fair share of rip-roaring slapstick. Really the whole plot revolves around a rogue fur coat.

J.B. Ball (Edward Arnold) is the third most prominent banker in New York. His wife has a penchant for fur coats and his son John Jr. (Ray Milland) is fed up with his father’s constant criticism. He’s ready to leave the luxury and make a go of it on his own. Fed up with his wife and not all that pleased with his son, Mr. Ball tosses one of his wife’s sables off their balcony. Mary Smith (Jean Arthur) is the unsuspecting recipient of the coat as she rides by on a passing bus. By chance, she and Mr. Ball strike up a conversation and they hit it off after he resolves to buy her a new hat, in lieu of the one that was ruined. Of course, the clerk gets the wrong idea about their little friendship and it has major repercussions.

Many folks want to get on her good side since they’ve heard through the grapevine that she’s connected to Mr. Ball. This includes the befuddled hotel owner Louis Louis, who offers Mary one of his finest suites and she has no idea what she ever did to deserve it. Of course, Mary crosses paths with John Jr. who is smitten with her right off the bat. But she has no idea who his father is.

A joke from him, relayed by Mary, ends up having overwhelming consequences on the stock market and it ends up spelling major trouble for Mr. Ball. But of course, father and son and Mary all wind up in J.B.’s office together as the comedy of errors finally synchronizes. Son finally proves his acumen to father and gets the job he desperately needs.  Mary has her guy now and Mr. Ball’s marriage is all intact.

easyliving3Edward Arnold is an absolute riot and at his pushy best as the affluent banker. Jean Arthur has always been one of my favorite comediennes. She has such a great voice for delivering quips; there’s a certain lilt to it that is always invariably funny. She’s also the perfect independent working woman like a Barbara Stanwyck or Rosalind Russell. She’s no pushover. I knew Ray Milland for later films like The Lost Weekend or Dial M for Murder, but I saw here firsthand that he has some comedic chops. I also learned what an automat was and at the same time got treated with some top-notch slapstick. Thank you, Preston Sturges.

4/5 Stars

5 Fingers (1952)

5fingersHonestly, this doesn’t feel like a typical Joseph L. Mankiewicz film. It was written by someone else and because he was nearing the end of his contract with 20th Century, he didn’t end up editing the project. Supposedly the overseeing of Daryl Zanuck led to several scenes being scrapped which Mankiewicz thought were good. Also, as a director, his name does not usually scream spy thriller like an Alfred Hitchcock. He’s more in his element with cultured dramas about relationships. However, 5 Fingers is still an engaging tale based on the historical wartime events surrounding the informant code-named Cicero.

In real life, Elyesa Bazna was an Albanian born valet who worked under the British ambassador to Turkey. He played both sides, first ingratiating himself as a gentleman among the Brits and then taking pictures of top secret information and passing it off to the Germans in the period between 1943-44. Cicero, as he was called, could easily come off as an abhorrent traitor and yet James Mason plays his character Diello with an adeptness that is underlined with an air of civility. We don’t particularly care for the man, but he’s not a monster, just a bit crooked and concerned with personal gain. Mason certainly did have a knack for playing the criminal type and I must admit I’m curious to watch more films with him because his performances have not quite won me over yet. There’s still time for that.

The film altogether is not that tense, but it does set the groundwork for some interesting interactions which all seem to stem from Cicero. He is subservient and aloof when it comes to serving the ambassador. He’s quite open with the Countess Anna Staviska (Danielle Darreux), who turns into a confident, romantic partner, and in some ways an accomplice — just wait. Meanwhile, he deals with the Germans self-assuredly knowing what he wants and how he’s going to get it. He’s no slouch and he seems devilishly good at the spy game.

Throw in some double-crossing from the countess and a dynamite word like “Overlord” (aka D-Day) and Dellio finds himself on the run with the Brit’s counterintelligence operative (Michael Rennie) hot on his tail. Thanks to his assistance, the Germans are trying to protect him as he gets ready to hightail it to South America. There’s one small thing he didn’t account for. He’s been duped. He and the countess both. All he can do is break out in a fit of laughter. I’m not sure if that’s how the real story ended — probably not, but it makes for a fitting conclusion of this tale as his money slowly drifts away in the wind.

3.5/5 Stars

Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011)

crazystupid1Here is a film from screenwriter Dan Fogelman where Ryan Gosling acts as wingman for an estranged Steve Carell; seems like a basic enough pitch for a movie, and yet thankfully it’s not quite that simple. Early on Jacob (Gosling) implores the washed-up Cal (Carell) to lose the New Balance sneakers and drop the Gap for good. What follows is a lesson in how to be a “man again.” Also known as picking up women with new clothing, a better hairstyle, and a whole different strategy. Cal’s a man trying to step out and try new things after he found that his estranged wife of 20 years Emily (Julianne Moore) slept with another man. His understandable reaction at the time he heard the news was to jump out of a moving car. It hurt him both figuratively and literally.

So Jacob is the beginning of something new for Cal as he steps out to meet women. Some of the scenes make me want to crawl up into a ball out of the sheer awkwardness and that’s often the type of humor that Steve Carell revels in. He likes to make us squirm, and it happens on numerous occasions. He says all the wrong things at all the right times. You get the idea. But behind all this, he still has feelings for Emily, and he’s wistful in the presence of his kids. Everyone wants them to get back together. However, he’s not the only one facing romantic issues as his son Robbie and wing man Jacob soon have their own problems. Emily must figure out what she wants and up and coming lawyer Hannah (Emma Stone) must figure what is the best for her.

crazystupid2As for Cal, he attends a Parent Teacher Night to end all Parent Teachers Nights and it has to be the worst circumstances you could ever imagine. It gets uncomfortable quick as he learns who his son’s teacher is. I’ll spare you the details. Then there’s a  greatly hilarious twist that hits after all the primary cast find themselves in Emily’s backyard having a few unpleasant revelations. But the film doesn’t end there since the journeys of these characters have a little farther to go yet. They have to find themselves, navigating this crazy, and yes, maybe even a little stupid thing we know as love.

I must admit I like these guys in spite of those pick up lines (Lets get out of here) and attempts at romancing, because that stuff makes funny material for a film and we get some genuine laughs out of it, but it’s when we tear that down for a moment and look underneath all of that. That’s where we find true heart.crazystupid3Most of these characters are well-meaning and likable and with those who aren’t, it’s forgivable, because they are necessary for the film’s humor initially. Namely Ryan Gosling and Liza Lapira, who always seem ready with a quip or maybe a one night stand with an obliging member of the opposite sex. The movie needs these characters I suppose since for starters it’s Jacob who helps Cal find a different side of himself. Liz who goads her friend Hannah to take a chance which she finally capitalizes on. But in truth, most all of these main players have a sense of humanity about them, mixed in with their faults and failures. Cal was once a good father and now he’s made a lot of mistakes. Jacob is a total womanizer, but when he cares about people he really does. He loses all the false pretense about him. Ironically, Cal changes Jacob as much or perhaps more so than Jacob changes him, which is important in the evolution of this film. They teach each other and in turn help each other move forward.

Even the teenagers Robbie (Jonah Bobo) and Jessica (Analeigh Tipton) may have misguided affections in a sense, but we cannot help to empathize with them in their innocence. They’re young and in love and they don’t really know what that means. Very few of us probably do. Whether it’s finding “The One” or discovering your soulmate or not, it’s easy to forgive Crazy, Stupid, Love for its conclusions which might feel a tad cliche and bright. Just this one time, because these are characters who we don’t mind giving a happy ending to.

3.5/5 Stars

Noah Beery Jr. (1913-1994)

It’s putting itbeery-red-river lightly to say Noah Beery Jr. came out of an acting family. His father, and namesake, Noah Beery Sr., much like his son, was a character actor well respected during the dawn of the film industry. He appeared in both silents and talkies as diverse as The Mark of Zorro (1920) and She Done Him Wrong (1933). Young Noah’s uncle Wallace Beery achieved a wide degree of fame during the 1930s with such classics as The Champ (1931), Grand Hotel (1932), and Dinner at Eight (1933). Even Noah’s mother Marguerite Walker Lindsey was an actor at one point.

Thus, it makes complete sense that Noah Beery Jr. followed in the footsteps of the family lineage. Some of his most notable films included: Only Angels Have Wings (1939), Of Mice and Men (1939), Sergeant York (1941), Red River (1948), Jubal (1956), and Inherit the Wind (1960). And he could always be counted on to play a slightly pudgy, generally good-natured side kick or victim. That was his niche in Hollywood and it served him well even if it was not the most prominent of careers. However, it would prove useful in his later years.

Noah_Beery_Jr-stillFor most of us, including myself, Noah Beery Jr. will always and forever be the beloved “Rocky,” the concerned and often comical father of Private Investigator James Rockford (James Garner) on The Rockford Files (1974-1980).  What made the show work was the fact that they gelled so well together, because the roles already seemed to fit who they were so perfectly. It could have been just another cop show from any decade really, but that duo made the show a cut above. We wanted to watch them together, because it was good old-fashioned fun and we actually cared about them as individuals.

Fittingly Beery and Garner began in westerns. Beery in mostly films and Garner as the gambling drifter Bret Maverick in the TV western Maverick. By the 1970s they were both a pair of vets and the chemistry they created was perfection. There was no need to don a role, because they appeared to be playing themselves or at least the version of themselves that they had played for so many years now.  It felt like a genuine relationship between a son and his father. Even facially they share some resemblance.

noahbeery
I truly love James Garner, undoubtedly like many others. He made the Rockford Files  a perennial favorite, but Rocky gives the character of Jim even more depth. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that in the world of fictional television parents Rocky is one of my personal favorites. Maybe he feels different than most because his son is grown up, but he still has such a tremendous relationship with him. Rocky’s a bit of a country bumpkin,and still a generally caring man who worries about his son and can be a nag like any good parent. He has to let Jim be, and yet that doesn’t mean he can’t worry about him still.

Invariably some of the greatest moments in Rockford came not in the climatic car chases or frequent fist fights (which are great!), but in the equally frequent family squabbles between father and son. Maybe Jim borrowed something like Rocky’s truck or Rocky needs a favor, but in every one of these instances we feel connected with these two. Their lives play out in that beat up Malibu trailer much like our lives play out in reality. They come across as so human, and that has been rewarded over the years by a dedicated fan base.

I just hope no one every calls me “Sonny.” Rocky can get away with it but no one else! Here’s to you Noah Beery Jr. Here’s to you Rocky!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)

treasureofsierra2If you was to make a real strike, you couldn’t be dragged away.  Not even the threat of miserable death would keep you from trying to add ten thousand more.  Ten you’d want to get twenty-five, twenty-five you’d want to get fifty, fifty a hundred.  Like roulette. One more turn, you know.  Always one more.

If there’s anything to take away from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre it’s that wealth never satisfies, it only serves to compound our anxieties. John Huston’s film is without question an American classic pure and simple, and it maintains that distinction because it has lost very little of its power to this day. Huston returned from shooting WWII documentaries with this project waiting for him back home. He partnered once more with Humphrey Bogart, and he even cast his father in a role that proved to be the standout in the film. Also, he shot most of Sierra Madre actually on location in Mexico, while also hiring locals as extras. It adds to the gritty realism and it was a trend that was slowly becoming more popular.

His prospecting adventure film with shades of western or even noir follows three men who join forces to prospect for gold in the mountains. They first cross paths in the town of Tampico where they’re strapped for cash and barely scraping even. Fred Dobbs meets Bob Curtin (Tim Holt), who shares a similar predicament and they stick together. Upon hearing the tempting tales of gold and riches from a loquacious old prospector (Walter Huston), he plants an idea in their mind. And with nothing to lose the three partners embark on this grand undertaking.

Humphrey Bogart is undoubtedly our main protagonist. In fact, he had been playing them ever since dropping the supporting roles and donning the fedora of Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon (his first collaboration with John Huston). But down-on-his-luck, scraggly-faced Fred C. Dobbs is probably one of Bogey’s greatest performances. He’s a sourpuss and a bum, who’s begging for money and telling the local kids pestering him to beat it. These early sequences include a cameo from the director and young Robert Blake. I can also debunk a myth by confirming that Ann Sheridan is not the eye-catching woman walking down the street early on, at least not in this cut of the film.

These early moments set Bogart up in such a way that we feel pity for him, even if we are not completely sold on his moral character. Tim Holt’s Curtin likewise is a sorry fellow, and he’s far more understated which makes us want him to see success. Walter Huston steals his scenes because he fits his part so beautifully. He talks and talks and talks. Laughs, gives sage advice every once in awhile, and does a jig if he feels like it. He’s a completely free-spirit, comfortable in his years, and perhaps a little less invested than the other two. He’s in for the gold, but he realizes the transience of life.

treasureofsierra4

Their journey is plagued by harsh terrain, heat, banditos, and even a nosy fortune hunter from Texas named Cody. But Howard’s premonitions were right and they begin raking in a mother lode. It’s hard work, but it’s coming slowly but surely. This is the key turning point in the film and the keystone to Bogart’s whole performance.

The early warnings of Howard seem all too pertinent now, “Murder’s always lurkin’ about. Partners accusin’ each other of all sorts of crimes. Aw, as long as there’s no find, the noble brotherhood will last, but when the piles of gold begin to grow, that’s when the trouble starts.

And so it does. Dobbs is the perfect embodiment of what avarice does to a man. The paranoia builds up. Friends become foes, everyone is out to get him, and Reason no longer has any presence in his life. First, he wants to turn on Cody, who by all accounts wasn’t a bad fellow. Next, it’s Howard and then Curtin, who once was his closest companion. By the end of the film, “Dobbsie” has been so totally wrecked by greed, he no longer is the same person. In fact, Bogart has a similar trajectory to Gollum except he is not redeemed. The implications here are not simply some conclusion on wealth and gold, but more importantly what it does to the hearts and minds of men.

treasureofsierra3

However, with all the darkness and corruption pulsing through Sierra Madre, there also are some comedic undertones mostly delivered by Walter Huston. In a sense he was the mediator between Curtin and Dobbs, keeping things civil and so when he left them, they were left to their own devices. He also is the one who is able to look at the cruel hand that they are ultimately dealt and laugh it off. Thus, Bogart gave a wholly aberrant performance, Tim Holt was more morally steadfast, and Huston was the standout with his lively turn. Humor and treachery make strange, but thoroughly entertaining bedfellows indeed.

5/5 Stars

Au Hasard Balthazar (1966)

auhasard1Robert Bresson’s Balthazar is the best piece of art I have viewed in some time and it is art in the sense that it may have various interpretations, it causes us to think, and it elicits an emotional response. In truth, it is a story that I do not fully understand and I can never hope to know, but there is nevertheless an austere beauty to this parable. Furthermore, there is a kind of magic in this air of ambiguity. I want to watch it, again and again, to see if I can understand, to see what revelations come my way. It was one of those experiences that left me wondering what I had just watched, however, I know enough by now not to fight it, but enjoy that feeling of not comprehending in full.

Essentially this is a tale about a donkey cherished by a young girl and over the years they lose contact, reunite, and go away again, as is the rhythm of life day to day. The plot points started becoming less important in comparison to the images and emotions that begin to well up inside of us. At the same time that the donkey is often being mistreated or carrying the burdens of his various masters, his girl Marie (Anne Wiazemsky) is growing up trying to figure out what love is. She is close to a boy named Jacques only to have him drift in and out of her life several times. She cannot decide how she feels exactly about him. There’s the boy Gerard who is good at raising hell and Marie spends some time with him. But it remains to be seen what the real agenda of her parents or Gerard and his friends are. What of these matters of honor and murder? Do all the particulars even matter that much?

Balthazar’s own path includes whippings, long hard toil as a beast of burden, a stint in the circus with all the other captive animals, and happy times driving Marie’s cart. But is that wrong to personify him? Is he even capable of emotion? I’m not sure if he is, but the audience certainly is. We can be joyful when we see that cute young donkey being enveloped in hay with young children playing. We can become somber as Balthazar is slowly being worked to death as the years drag ever onward and his master considers putting him down in lieu of getting a new harness. Somehow a donkey can be a victim of his circumstances, bravely taking the abuse of others, and living without a shred of retaliation. In some strangely entrancing way, it works.

auhasard2Then, Balthazar takes a stray bullet and weakened he comes upon a green pasture where he kneels down peacefully to die. Around him comes a flock of sheep led by a shepherd. It’s a deeply heart-wrenching and visually arresting moment evoking Biblical imagery from Psalm 23. The full life having been lived and now it’s over in tranquility. It’s really a summation of the spiritual journey that each one of us traverses in our lifetime and yet Bresson brings us this allegory through simple, clean strokes. Images and sounds balanced exquisitely together in a completely naturalistic mode of expression.  Wiazemsky on her part is a natural beauty who positively captivates with every move she makes (reminding me of Anna Karina) Furthermore, Bresson somehow causes us to build a deep connection with a donkey which is hard to believe.

It’s the trademark of Bresson to have a stripped-down, straightforward approach to film-making, so much so that his style almost feels like no style at all. It’s so clean and unobtrusive. He shows us the world simply, succinctly, and without pomp. Even with the casting of non-actors, and in this case a donkey, as his main players. But he’s undoubtedly the master of inducing a response based on even the most basic of subjects. There are times it’s almost easy to forget you’re watching a film entirely because you get so wrapped up in what he is showing us.

4.5/5 Stars

The Young Girls of Rochefort (1967)

rochefort1If the Umbrellas of Cherbourg is a piercing operatic drama, The Young Girls of Rochefort is pure, unadulterated escapism at its finest. 

Directed by Jacques Demy and starring an ensemble cast including Catherine Deneuve, Francois Dorleac, Gene Kelly, Michel Piccoli, George Chakiris, Grover Paul, and Danielle Darrieux, this is a whimsical French musical that has no equal. 

rochefort9

The film opens with a group of performers coming into the town of Rochefort to get ready for a big outdoor show. They become acquainted with the local hangout that includes a kindly matron (Darrieux) and many locals including an idealistic artist and sailor who is searching for his ideal lover. Nearby her two adult twin daughters hold piano and ballet lessons as they too get their little prodigies ready for the big show. Delphine (Deneuve) is fed up with her suitor and desires a new love, while Solange (Dorleac) on her part hopes to advance her career as a pianist. She goes to the proprietor of a local music store to see if he can introduce her to a prestigious American Friend.

A great deal of dramatic irony sets in and the plot is constantly moved forward through song. Yvonne at the café is still depressed over a split with a lover 10 years prior, because he had an unfortunate name. Solange has a chance encounter while stopping to pick up her kid brother Booboo, and Delphine becomes curious about an artist who painted a portrait that looks strikingly like her. All of these events reach their apex on the Sunday of the big performance, and in need of some performer, the carnies enlist the help of the twins. They are a huge success and things wind down.

rochefort4

The next morning the performers get ready to leave for Paris and the girls decide to follow suit. However, Solange has another encounter that changes her plans and then Yvonne is united with her love. That leaves only Delphine to go with the boys to Paris, but not to worry, she would be united with her painter soon enough.

The light and very French-sounding tunes are hard not to like, but that is only the very beginning. Demy pays homage to Hollywood musicals of old going so far as casting Gene Kelly (Singin’ in the Rain) and George Chakiris (West Side Story) in his film. He undoubtedly owes a debt to Vincente Minnelli and Stanley Donen with some striking moments reminiscent of An American in Paris (1951). It makes sense. Demy uses the pastels and costumes of a Hollywood musical extravaganza while also including dashes of French style.

rochefort2

Rochefort takes place in a real location, but it truly is a fantasy world that the characters inhabit, full of perpetual dancing and dialogue that is delivered through song. The real-life sisters do a wonderful job in this film and there is something reassuring about seeing Gene Kelly. Rather like an old friend who gives comfort in a whimsical, but altogether new experience. The story arc of dashed, renewed, and ultimately newfound love allows Demy to once more explore the issues of fate and chance that always seem to enchant him.  His partnership with Michel Legrand is once again bountiful including the enduringly memorable “Chanson Des Jumelles,” an infectiously bouncy, trumpet-laden number performed by the sisters.

There’s nothing much else for me to say except The Young Girls of Rochefort is one of those underappreciated gems that is thoroughly enjoyable and chock full of all sorts of fun. It delivers a serving of something with a familiar flavor while giving it a little extra panache. It’s about as playful and fluffy as you can get which in this case is not a bad thing at all. 

4.5/5 Stars

No Way Out (1950)

220px-No_Way_Out_(1950_film)_posterI had a preconceived notion that No Way Out might be the kind of social drama that was groundbreaking for its day and by today’s standards looks mundane and quaint. 65 years have passed and this film from Joseph L. Mankiewicz still packs a wallop, believe it or not. We are blessed with the first major role for screen icon Sidney Poitier as young doctor Luther Brooks. His main antagonist is Richard Widmark playing a racist scumbag like he does best, and Linda Darnell also gives a key performance, although her career would soon be on the decline.

The film opens with the young interning doctor — Poitier was only 22 at the time –getting ready for a night shift. His first customers just happen to be Johnny and Ray Biddle, who both got it in the leg after a botched robbery attempt. At first glance, their wounds look superficial, but Luther notices Johnny is disoriented. His diagnosis is a brain tumor so he tries to administer a spinal tap which ends up unsuccessful, partially due to Ray’s constant berating. But Ray has no sympathy; all he knows is that this black doctor has killed his brother. A white doctor could have saved him and all his prejudiced beliefs of blacks are confirmed. At least that’s what he tells himself in his narrow little mind.  Luther even goes to his superior Dr. Wharton (Stephen McNally), and although he cannot be absolutely certain, he maintains confidence in Luther’s competence.

nowayout1Again that bears little importance to Ray and he will not grant them the opportunity to do an autopsy. After all, his mind is already made up. So the next best thing is to track down Johnny’s former wife Edie (Darnell), who has pulled herself out of the gutter which is Beaver Canal and made a modest living for herself. They want her help, and unbeknownst to them, she does go see Ray. You can see it in how they interact with each other. She was Johnny’s wife once, but there was something between them and Ray won’t let her forget it. That’s undoubtedly why she wanted to get away, but Ray brings out the worst in her. Even as they speak, her racist sentiments come bubbling to the surface. It’s in her veins after all. It doesn’t help that unrest is building in the city. A riot is at hand and the slow build-up leading to the imminent rumble is boiling with tension. Mankiewicz does something important here. He shows both perspectives. I cannot help but think some things have not changed a whole lot over the years. Black vs. white. The same racism. The same belligerence. The same lack of understanding.

nowayout2Of course, after that is all done, that still does not wrap things up with Ray. He still has to settle a score with Luther and he uses Edie against her will. They set a trap at the home of Dr. Wharton for the unsuspecting Luther, and this scene has vital importance to the film, not simply because Biddle and Brooks come face to face once more. This is the scene where Edie must make a choice. Really it’s the universal choice. Stand passively by as injustice is being done or take a stand against it.

So you can make your own diagnosis, but this was not a superficial message movie. It hits fairly hard. I was even surprised by how often Ray Biddle lets the N-word fly. It completely fit Widmark’s characterization, but the production codes allowed it. Supposedly the actor apologized profusely after many of his scenes with Poitier, but his performance is nevertheless potent. It’s certainly convicting and we cannot be too quick to find fault with any of these characters because, truth be told, we all have some apathy and narrow-mindedness stuck inside our skulls. No Way Out is a striking reminder of that.

4/5 Stars