Have you ever dreamed of being a movie star? Ever wonder what it would be like to live out one of your favorite stories from the movies? It's an interesting question that I'm sure plenty of people answer in the affirmative. Of course I wanted to be Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, or Wonder Woman. It's one of the reasons why people go to the movies in the first place. To live vicariously through someone else. And The Purple Rose of Cairo digs into those feelings. It is a romantic comedy set in the 1930s. It was directed by Woody Allen and stars Mia Farrow along with a cast of others including Jeff Daniels and Danny Aiello. The film was released in 1985.
The film is set in Depression era New Jersey. The action of the film revolves around Mia Farrow's character's obsession with films. She is a struggling waitress at a diner with Aiello as her abusive, unemployed, drunkard of a husband. Suddenly her life changes when Jeff Daniels' character comes down of a movie screen and declares his love for her. Cecilia is taken aback. Eventually there is a furor over what to do about Daniels' character Tom Baxter. The theater manager, the producer, and Gil Shepard (the guy who played Tom Baxter from the movie) all come together to try to fix the situation. This forces Cecilia to choose between Tom, who is from movie land and Gil who is the actor that played Tom.
I really liked Tom Baxter. The scenes with him caught in the real World and having no idea what to do were very funny. Jeff Daniels did a great job playing both parts of the Tom Baxter/ Gil Shepard character. Mia Farrow did a quality job in showing the hard life that Cecilia lived. I thought it was somewhat hard to believe as she suffers at her waitress job. And the film was so short, it runs only about eighty minutes, that the characters are only mere sketches. The film isn't too deep like a drama it is a short comedy that doesn't go too deep into any of the roles in the film. It just doesn't have a strong character that has an internal conflict to really move the film forward. There is no Alvy as in Annie Hall or Isaac in Manhattan. Even Owen Wilson's Gil was a stronger lead then any characters found in Purple Rose.
The film is like other Woody Allen films. It is minimalist. There is some great use of mise en scene like in the theater when they show people getting their tickets and finding their seats in the movie house. The settings are great. It really seemed like I was in New Jersey in 1935. The row houses, the big factory buildings, and, of course, the movie house with it's posters, marquee and move screen. Those elements create a romanticism for the glory days of Hollywood. When people went to the movies more. Before the rise of TV and the internet.
Infusing the setting and the plot was a soundtrack based around jazz and other classics that fueled the nostalgia for a simpler time in the past when people were mired in unemployment, poverty, and the Depression. It rekindles the feeling of that era. The Jazz Age. The Big Band sound. It was all quintessential Woody. It made the film watchable even if it was a little slow and boring. The montage at the end of the film could have been better. It was rather boring. I'm sure all of the great nightclubs of that era were great, but couldn't there have been a better way to show it? Rather than glossing it over with names in neon and Cecilia and Tom dancing?
The idea of the film was unique. I can't think of a film with a similar setup. And it goes right into the theme of the film. What is the point of watching films? Is it to find love? A better World? Is that why people go to the films? There are many opinions on why people like movies or why there should be movies period. Some people don't like movies. And I think the film shows that side of movies. Filling people up with false expectations. Leading them to dream rather then live life as it is. It's too bad all of us can't be movie stars.
I found the theme of The Purple Rose of Cairo to be similar to the theme in Midnight in Paris. In Midnight Gil wants to leave his boring life as a screenwriter and go back to the Paris of the 1920's. It's a similar dream that Cecilia has in Purple Rose. She dreams of leaving her simple, hard life in New Jersey and becoming a movie star. They both want an exit out of their lives. They wish for something else. And it's a sense of nostalgia and romance that drives them to dream. I suppose the film is a reminder that the Cinema serves a purpose. It allows us to dream. To think there is somewhere or some time which is better then where we are.
I didn't like Purple Rose as much as his early works like Manhattan and Annie Hall. Or even as much as Midnight in Paris or VickyChristinaBarcelona. It just isn't as funny or as romantic. I didn't laugh out loud. I like some of the situations, but they could have been better. I think Purple Rose is a precursor to a film like Midnight in Paris which I thought was one Woody's best. I'd recommend the film, but if you really want to see Woody at his best try another one of his films.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Monday, May 21, 2018
Review of Stranger Than Fiction (2006)
Stranger Than Fiction is one of the best written films I've seen that deals with writers. It delves deeply into the psyche of a novelist who must confront the question of what to do with her main character. The film is comedic and tragic at the same time. I enjoyed watching it, even though I thought the meaning of the film was muddled towards the end. Stranger Than Fiction was released in 2006. It was directed by Marc Forster and stars Will Ferrell, Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffman, and Maggie Gyllenhall.
The film centers around Harold Crick. He's an IRS agent who leads a rather dull life. All he thinks about is numbers, audits, etc. It is only when he begins to hear a voice narrating his life that he wakes up from his banal life to the reality that it could be better. He suspects he might be crazy, but that is not the case. In a twist of fate he is actually a character in a novelist's new book. The major conflict becomes a question of whether Harold should live. Will Emma Thompson's character kill off Harold? Or will he end up happily ever after with Maggie Gyllenhall?
There are four major characters in the film. I enjoyed all of the roles. They fit just right. First was Will Ferrell who was known for his impression of George W. Bush on Saturday Night Live. I thought he played the role of Harold admirably well. He is a comedic actor thrust into the very dour and unfunny world of auditors, the IRS, and bureaucratic dullness. It follows the playbook for comedies by putting Ferrell who is incredibly funny into a setting which is undeniably boring. When he changes into Harold by the end of the film it brings about a positive change in his character. It is well written and well thought out.
I thought the casting of the film was great. Emma Thompson as the author with writer's block was excellent. I could see this role growing out of her period piece dramas like Howard's End and The Remains of the Day. The same could be said for the character of Professor Hilbert played by Dustin Hoffman. It seemed as if he was a grownup Benjamin from The Graduate. Benjamin having grown into the role of a Professor of Literature was an excellent choice. And Maggie Gyllenhall turns in a good performance as the punk girl from the bakery. It's too bad her role was rather tamped down from the script. In the script there is more mention of her sympathies for Socialism and punk rock.
I thought the film was very well written. The idea of the story was original and new. I haven't encountered too many films that deal with an IRS agent who is really a character in a novel. When I watched the film for the first time it reminded me of Kafka and his writings about struggles against bureaucracy. It seemed that Harold was a bug that could be squashed by an unknown power at any moment.
The other aspects of the film were rather minimal. The math graphics added a nice touch to show how Harold was seeing the World. Counting everything. Seeing everything as a diagram. The closeups were a nice touch. But there was nothing too great about the cinematography or editing or mise en scene. It was a rather straight forward, simple film. Special effects weren't really needed to tell the story which was the best part of the film. It's refreshing to know that you can still make a great film with a very good story without having to jazz it up with too much special effects or spandex.
I would have liked to see more of what was in the script about Ana Pascal. In the screenplay she is far more left wing then in the film. Perhaps the producers thought if they made her too anarchist then audiences would dislike her. I thought the contrary. It makes her falling in love with Harold that much more improbable and funny and sweet. To think that a Socialist Revolutionary would fall for an IRS agent is very madcap and I would have liked to see it played up more. The song Harold plays for Ana is great. But the song from the script, I thought, was better. It was a song about a punk rock girl. Not some girl from Tahiti which she was obviously not. It would have been better if they stuck with the script.
The film is laden with analysis. I suppose the major theme is about fate. Do we control our destinies? Is there someone somewhere writing our story and we are just following along? The film illustrates that theme well. And we have Professor Hilbert there to explain it all. In the scene where Harold and Professor Hilbert are talking about the end of the novel, Professor Hilbert seems to say that we do have a destiny and we have to play our roles even if it means dying tragically. It seems that Harold, like the Kafka story, is just a bug crawling around a World that he has no say in what will happen. It seems that we have no control over our fates. It is only by the sympathy of a higher power that we have any chance to live a happy and fulfilling life.
I read the screenplay and watched Stranger Than Fiction as part of a study about films that deal with writers. It is a good film. It's enjoyable to watch, but never gets that serious or deep. It certainly isn't as dark as Sunset Boulevard which is a film noir from 1950. There Joe Gillis deals with a similar question as to Harold Crick, who controls his fate? Is it Norma Desmond? Why doesn't Joe just settle for being her boyfriend and try to writer something on the side? Why isn't he honest? Stranger Than Fiction is decidedly different. Harold is extremely honest. So are everyone else in the film. Perhaps there is too much honesty and it's too much of a sugar coated film that doesn't deal with the dark side of human nature. Why doesn't Harold just kill Kay? Why doesn't he take control of his life? And further more how could he fall for the anarchist? Isn't that against his firm principles as an IRS agent? But this is a comedy! It is funny in parts, but it's not hilarious, laugh out loud funny. It's a light romantic comedy that seems to have been marketed to the date night demographic.
So if you are looking for a movie to watch with your hubby this one would probably be enjoyable. But if you are looking for something that has high drama this one is probably one to avoid. But of course if you are looking for a film that shows the struggles of a writer and how they deal with characters and stories Stranger Than Fiction is a watch.
The film centers around Harold Crick. He's an IRS agent who leads a rather dull life. All he thinks about is numbers, audits, etc. It is only when he begins to hear a voice narrating his life that he wakes up from his banal life to the reality that it could be better. He suspects he might be crazy, but that is not the case. In a twist of fate he is actually a character in a novelist's new book. The major conflict becomes a question of whether Harold should live. Will Emma Thompson's character kill off Harold? Or will he end up happily ever after with Maggie Gyllenhall?
There are four major characters in the film. I enjoyed all of the roles. They fit just right. First was Will Ferrell who was known for his impression of George W. Bush on Saturday Night Live. I thought he played the role of Harold admirably well. He is a comedic actor thrust into the very dour and unfunny world of auditors, the IRS, and bureaucratic dullness. It follows the playbook for comedies by putting Ferrell who is incredibly funny into a setting which is undeniably boring. When he changes into Harold by the end of the film it brings about a positive change in his character. It is well written and well thought out.
I thought the casting of the film was great. Emma Thompson as the author with writer's block was excellent. I could see this role growing out of her period piece dramas like Howard's End and The Remains of the Day. The same could be said for the character of Professor Hilbert played by Dustin Hoffman. It seemed as if he was a grownup Benjamin from The Graduate. Benjamin having grown into the role of a Professor of Literature was an excellent choice. And Maggie Gyllenhall turns in a good performance as the punk girl from the bakery. It's too bad her role was rather tamped down from the script. In the script there is more mention of her sympathies for Socialism and punk rock.
I thought the film was very well written. The idea of the story was original and new. I haven't encountered too many films that deal with an IRS agent who is really a character in a novel. When I watched the film for the first time it reminded me of Kafka and his writings about struggles against bureaucracy. It seemed that Harold was a bug that could be squashed by an unknown power at any moment.
The other aspects of the film were rather minimal. The math graphics added a nice touch to show how Harold was seeing the World. Counting everything. Seeing everything as a diagram. The closeups were a nice touch. But there was nothing too great about the cinematography or editing or mise en scene. It was a rather straight forward, simple film. Special effects weren't really needed to tell the story which was the best part of the film. It's refreshing to know that you can still make a great film with a very good story without having to jazz it up with too much special effects or spandex.
I would have liked to see more of what was in the script about Ana Pascal. In the screenplay she is far more left wing then in the film. Perhaps the producers thought if they made her too anarchist then audiences would dislike her. I thought the contrary. It makes her falling in love with Harold that much more improbable and funny and sweet. To think that a Socialist Revolutionary would fall for an IRS agent is very madcap and I would have liked to see it played up more. The song Harold plays for Ana is great. But the song from the script, I thought, was better. It was a song about a punk rock girl. Not some girl from Tahiti which she was obviously not. It would have been better if they stuck with the script.
The film is laden with analysis. I suppose the major theme is about fate. Do we control our destinies? Is there someone somewhere writing our story and we are just following along? The film illustrates that theme well. And we have Professor Hilbert there to explain it all. In the scene where Harold and Professor Hilbert are talking about the end of the novel, Professor Hilbert seems to say that we do have a destiny and we have to play our roles even if it means dying tragically. It seems that Harold, like the Kafka story, is just a bug crawling around a World that he has no say in what will happen. It seems that we have no control over our fates. It is only by the sympathy of a higher power that we have any chance to live a happy and fulfilling life.
I read the screenplay and watched Stranger Than Fiction as part of a study about films that deal with writers. It is a good film. It's enjoyable to watch, but never gets that serious or deep. It certainly isn't as dark as Sunset Boulevard which is a film noir from 1950. There Joe Gillis deals with a similar question as to Harold Crick, who controls his fate? Is it Norma Desmond? Why doesn't Joe just settle for being her boyfriend and try to writer something on the side? Why isn't he honest? Stranger Than Fiction is decidedly different. Harold is extremely honest. So are everyone else in the film. Perhaps there is too much honesty and it's too much of a sugar coated film that doesn't deal with the dark side of human nature. Why doesn't Harold just kill Kay? Why doesn't he take control of his life? And further more how could he fall for the anarchist? Isn't that against his firm principles as an IRS agent? But this is a comedy! It is funny in parts, but it's not hilarious, laugh out loud funny. It's a light romantic comedy that seems to have been marketed to the date night demographic.
So if you are looking for a movie to watch with your hubby this one would probably be enjoyable. But if you are looking for something that has high drama this one is probably one to avoid. But of course if you are looking for a film that shows the struggles of a writer and how they deal with characters and stories Stranger Than Fiction is a watch.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Review of Sunset Boulevard (1950)
Sunset Boulevard was a groundbreaking film. It shows how the film industry moves quickly leaving to waste former stars and former glory only to move on with new technologies leaving groups of people alienated, disillusioned, and with only memories left to think about. Norma Desmond is the personification of the transition from the Silent era to the sound era. Just like the "wax works" that Joe Gillis alludes to in the film. Buster Keaton makes a brief appearance in the film. Keaton is still regarded as a great film director, but his career never reached the giddy heights of the 1920's again. Neither did Gloria Swanson's. She worked in TV and lived into old age and died in New York City. The film was released in 1950. It is still considered one of the best films about the dark side of fame and Hollywood. Sunset Boulevard is a film noir that was directed by Billy Wilder. It stars the aforementioned Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond and William Holden in a career defining film as the screenwriter Joe Gillis. Erich von Stroheim plays the butler.
The film centers around Joe Gillis and Norma Desomond. Gilis is a down on his luck screenwriter who is desperate to find money to pay his rent and car payment. In an accident he stumbles upon Norma Desmond and her macabre existence with her butler, her giant house, and wealthy lifestyle. All is not well, however. Norma still lives in a fantasy World where she is still famous. Still sought after for big pictures like when she was young. The conflict between Norma who is increasingly unstable and Joe who is conniving to use Norma and still find success as a screenwriter is what drives the action of the film. It all plays until a dramatic ending that ends up with Joe shot three times and floating in a swimming pool.
The film has been called the best film noir ever made. Sunset Boulevard is one of the few films that shows the life of a screenwriter. William Holden is exceptional as Joe Gillis. He hits every line of dialogue with genuine inflection. At the time William Holden was up and coming so he could identify well with the struggles of young writers, directors, and actors. Gillis is hapless and naive. He willingly goes into the deal with Norma and doesn't see himself losing the deal. He can't bring himself to accept his status. And Norma is just as stubborn. She sees herself as the center of the World. She still thinks she's a huge star that can command box office like she did when she was hot. Joe and Norma are memorable characters. They will go down as one of the greatest couples in film history. Forever remembered in a film just as a great.
I was totally taken in with the character of Norma Desmond. I felt sympathy for her lonely, forgotten existence. I kept asking myself, did Joe really have it that bad? All the suits, the big house, etc, etc. Why pass it all up? Looks like he struck it rich. But then again this is a Hollywood story. And in Hollywood everyone thinks their going to be famous. The next big thing. And Joe is just as naive to think that he's got what it takes to be the next big writer. He is long on ambition and short on reality.
I liked Holden in this film. He reminded me of Bob Hope. He is steadfast, good looking, with always a witty comeback in his dialogue which he delivers with snobby self confidence. It is a similar character that Holden became known for. Throughout the 1950's Holden played the smart, handsome, playboy who had the World by the tail. Love is a Many Splendored thing, The World of Suzie Wong, Sabrina, and Paris When it Sizzles. All great films that show how great an actor William Holden was. Like Norma Desmond, Holden faded and tragically died before he grew old and was lauded with honorary awards. It's too bad he didn't see the day. He deserved some form of recognition.
Sunset Boulevard is a film noir. It is very dark with a lot of play with shadows and macabre settings. The Mansion is festooned with tapestries, a dark staircase, and a chandelier. It reeks of 1920's extravagance. And it is so well done. Not a bad shot, not a bad edit. The editing is a little dated. The newspapers flying over one another at the beginning is rarely used nowadays. But in 1950 it worked well. It evokes the same technique used in films like Citizen Kane.
The shots of Norma Desmond show her glamour. As she slowly deteriorates into madness we got shot after shot of her becoming less and less glamorous. In the phone scene where Betty is getting harassed by Norma, there is an excellent use of deep focus. It shows Joe silently opening a door. Then walking in, grabbing the phone, and telling Betty to come to the Mansion. It ignites the tension in the third act and starts the film towards it's wild, sad ending.
The film is laden with meanings that could be over analyzed. Technology versus labor? The old versus the new. The young against the aging. The great wave up against the establishment. The film shows the dark side of Hollywood and is a message for every aspiring screenwriter; Hollywood is a business and it will chew you up and spit you out. As William Goldman says in his iconic book Adventures in the Screentrade; Hollywood is a gold rush business. Very rarely does anyone last for more then a decade. Sunset Boulevard is a testament to that message. Norma a fading star. Joe a struggling writer. Why does anyone want to be in pictures after all?
If your looking for a happy ending this film is one to avoid. It is similar to Citizen Kane or Casablanca. Its in black and white. There is no up ending. And its message is dark and disturbing. After all the books I've read about screenwriting and the struggles that go into even breaking into the film industry I've become immune to the negativity. I try not to think about all that much. Sunset Boulevard is a film that confronts you with what you fear. You will remain anonymous or you will fade from memory, the machine that is Hollywood devouring you and laying waste to your sanity and sense of reality.
The film centers around Joe Gillis and Norma Desomond. Gilis is a down on his luck screenwriter who is desperate to find money to pay his rent and car payment. In an accident he stumbles upon Norma Desmond and her macabre existence with her butler, her giant house, and wealthy lifestyle. All is not well, however. Norma still lives in a fantasy World where she is still famous. Still sought after for big pictures like when she was young. The conflict between Norma who is increasingly unstable and Joe who is conniving to use Norma and still find success as a screenwriter is what drives the action of the film. It all plays until a dramatic ending that ends up with Joe shot three times and floating in a swimming pool.
The film has been called the best film noir ever made. Sunset Boulevard is one of the few films that shows the life of a screenwriter. William Holden is exceptional as Joe Gillis. He hits every line of dialogue with genuine inflection. At the time William Holden was up and coming so he could identify well with the struggles of young writers, directors, and actors. Gillis is hapless and naive. He willingly goes into the deal with Norma and doesn't see himself losing the deal. He can't bring himself to accept his status. And Norma is just as stubborn. She sees herself as the center of the World. She still thinks she's a huge star that can command box office like she did when she was hot. Joe and Norma are memorable characters. They will go down as one of the greatest couples in film history. Forever remembered in a film just as a great.
I was totally taken in with the character of Norma Desmond. I felt sympathy for her lonely, forgotten existence. I kept asking myself, did Joe really have it that bad? All the suits, the big house, etc, etc. Why pass it all up? Looks like he struck it rich. But then again this is a Hollywood story. And in Hollywood everyone thinks their going to be famous. The next big thing. And Joe is just as naive to think that he's got what it takes to be the next big writer. He is long on ambition and short on reality.
I liked Holden in this film. He reminded me of Bob Hope. He is steadfast, good looking, with always a witty comeback in his dialogue which he delivers with snobby self confidence. It is a similar character that Holden became known for. Throughout the 1950's Holden played the smart, handsome, playboy who had the World by the tail. Love is a Many Splendored thing, The World of Suzie Wong, Sabrina, and Paris When it Sizzles. All great films that show how great an actor William Holden was. Like Norma Desmond, Holden faded and tragically died before he grew old and was lauded with honorary awards. It's too bad he didn't see the day. He deserved some form of recognition.
Sunset Boulevard is a film noir. It is very dark with a lot of play with shadows and macabre settings. The Mansion is festooned with tapestries, a dark staircase, and a chandelier. It reeks of 1920's extravagance. And it is so well done. Not a bad shot, not a bad edit. The editing is a little dated. The newspapers flying over one another at the beginning is rarely used nowadays. But in 1950 it worked well. It evokes the same technique used in films like Citizen Kane.
The shots of Norma Desmond show her glamour. As she slowly deteriorates into madness we got shot after shot of her becoming less and less glamorous. In the phone scene where Betty is getting harassed by Norma, there is an excellent use of deep focus. It shows Joe silently opening a door. Then walking in, grabbing the phone, and telling Betty to come to the Mansion. It ignites the tension in the third act and starts the film towards it's wild, sad ending.
The film is laden with meanings that could be over analyzed. Technology versus labor? The old versus the new. The young against the aging. The great wave up against the establishment. The film shows the dark side of Hollywood and is a message for every aspiring screenwriter; Hollywood is a business and it will chew you up and spit you out. As William Goldman says in his iconic book Adventures in the Screentrade; Hollywood is a gold rush business. Very rarely does anyone last for more then a decade. Sunset Boulevard is a testament to that message. Norma a fading star. Joe a struggling writer. Why does anyone want to be in pictures after all?
If your looking for a happy ending this film is one to avoid. It is similar to Citizen Kane or Casablanca. Its in black and white. There is no up ending. And its message is dark and disturbing. After all the books I've read about screenwriting and the struggles that go into even breaking into the film industry I've become immune to the negativity. I try not to think about all that much. Sunset Boulevard is a film that confronts you with what you fear. You will remain anonymous or you will fade from memory, the machine that is Hollywood devouring you and laying waste to your sanity and sense of reality.
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
Review of Shakespeare in Love
I decided to study this film as part of research into films about screenwriters or writers in any media. It does touch on some aspects of the writer’s process. The parts where Will has writer’s block and is looking for a muse are certainly part of writing anything. Inspiration comes and goes. And sometimes doesn’t come at all for weeks at a time. The current films at the cinema shows how many films are made without much contemplation. I’m not interested in any of them. Either they are too adolescent or are marketed like a brand ready be eaten or put on. Shakespeare in Love isn’t one of those. It’s a large Indie film that was made for 25 million and grossed nearly 300 million at the global box office. The cast is great and the story interesting. It won 7 academy awards and upset Saving Private Ryan for best picture in 1999. That seems like another age. I wonder if a movie like Shakespeare in Love could even get made with audiences the way they are these days.
The films major conflict is a love story of star crossed lovers. Will and Viola are just like Romeo and Juliet. They are doomed. Never to marry. Their relations illicit and, perhaps, illegal. Will risks certain death by pursuing Viola. The love triangle is complete when Lord Wessex negotiates to marry Viola. Things get more complicated when Viola learns Will is already married. The show must go on. Will continues to write drawing inspiration from Viola. He writes and writes until he completes the play that has come to be known as Romeo and Juliet. In the final sequence the play is performed for the first time to a rousing reaction from the audience. And the Queen plays the role of savior to the playhouse which has violated laws against having women on stage.
I thought the acting was good enough. Gwyneth Paltrow turns in an award winning performance. She shows how conflicted and repressed women were in Pre-Modern England. She is forced into a marriage which she had no choice. Only to find love with Will, but to learn he has a wife and was cheating with her. She is merely a pawn or a mistress. And Paltrow makes those emotions known as the film progress to when she accepts the role of Juliet. Until that point Juliet is down and out. The play was canceled her marriage a phony and Will already betrothed. That she comes back from that to play Juliet, then accept her fate makes a classic heroine who shows how far women have come in gaining equality. Maybe next up is equal pay?
The supporting cast around Paltrow is great too. Colin Firth, Joseph Fiennes, Geoffrey Rush, and Judi Dench all turn in solid performances My heart jumped a beat when Judi Dench spoke. Especially in the last scene where she comes to rescue and makes her statement about life in a man’s job. There were also other actors in the film that did a solid job as well. The film seems to be a stepping stone for some actors like Geoffrey Rush who went onto to star in The King’s Speech with Colin Firth who was also a role player in Shakespeare in Love. Ben Affleck also gives a supporting role as Ned Allyn.
The film is beautiful to look at. I was in deep admiration of the settings and costumes. The period detail is like something from a major museum exhibit brought to life. The streets of London in 1593 are brought resoundingly to life. Every little detail presented to give the illusion that Pre-Modern London still exists. I was especially taken with Queen Elizabeth’s costumes. She looked so very regal in her outfits. The golden sheen and peacock feathers were something to be admired. Similarly were everyone in their goatees, swords, and period costumes. I felt like I was seeing Rembrandt paintings come to life.
The fight scenes were a little weak. They seemed to me too fake. Not real enough. They did provide a heightened intensity to the film as it progressed to it’s grand finale. The writing was extremely well done. The characters are presented realistically. The subplots grow into a cohesive narrative that finishes well with Paltrow walking on a beach somewhere in the New World. The dialogue was well written with Shakespearean poetry blended into the Elizabethan influenced English.
There have been many films to tackle historical, period piece dramas and many of them have failed miserably. A few like Shakespeare in Love were successes. There is a whole treasure trove of films from the Pre-Modern days. The latest one to reach major distribution was Tulip Fever, likely to be Harvey Weinstein’s last film before he was scandalized this past year. Tulip Fever also deals with forbidden love in a time much different from our own. Similar to Shakespeare it is long on period detail and shorter on substance than Shakespeare in Love. Shakespeare in Love blends myth and a classic play to much greater effect than I’ve seen in recent films. It reminded me of the film Bird Man for it’s behind the scenes look at how a script gets made and all the pressures a production faces as it moves towards a stage or in front of a camera.
The film’s hero is Paltrow and with her comes one of themes. There is a distinct current of feminism. It is revealed in the conflict that Viola faces; will she find true love in a world dominated by men? Is it better to submit than to fight? She struggles with this conflict and we see that the World is the villain in this picture. For it is the World of class relations which keeps Viola in a subordinate position. She cannot be an actor, a playwright, or a poet. She can only be property in an exchange of money between her father and Lord Wessex. Viola can do little to fight against a society so stacked against her. All she can really do is submit and hope to survive with poetry in her heart.
Similar to another film, The English Patient, the heroine is conflicted, but seems to have no choice but to be a pawn in a man’s World. Tulip Fever is also about two conflicted lovers that are doomed to oblivion. And of course the play Romeo and Juliet is, perhaps, the classic tale of lovers against a World that will not permit them to live in love with each other. Made almost twenty years ago and now scandalized because of it’s affiliation with Harvey Weinstein, the film should be commended for showing the World through a woman’s eyes in the character of not just Viola, but the Queen too.
Along with other films that deal with the Pre-Modern historical period, Shakespeare shows us a World only accessible through art, history, literature, and best of all films. I was a European History major so I may be overly biased for films that deal with History. Shakespeare in Love along with The Girl with the Pearl Earring, Tulip Fever, and Cromwell, among others are a testament of how powerful a medium like film is. It can present a World that is gone from the earth only to be re-imagined in film.
The films major conflict is a love story of star crossed lovers. Will and Viola are just like Romeo and Juliet. They are doomed. Never to marry. Their relations illicit and, perhaps, illegal. Will risks certain death by pursuing Viola. The love triangle is complete when Lord Wessex negotiates to marry Viola. Things get more complicated when Viola learns Will is already married. The show must go on. Will continues to write drawing inspiration from Viola. He writes and writes until he completes the play that has come to be known as Romeo and Juliet. In the final sequence the play is performed for the first time to a rousing reaction from the audience. And the Queen plays the role of savior to the playhouse which has violated laws against having women on stage.
I thought the acting was good enough. Gwyneth Paltrow turns in an award winning performance. She shows how conflicted and repressed women were in Pre-Modern England. She is forced into a marriage which she had no choice. Only to find love with Will, but to learn he has a wife and was cheating with her. She is merely a pawn or a mistress. And Paltrow makes those emotions known as the film progress to when she accepts the role of Juliet. Until that point Juliet is down and out. The play was canceled her marriage a phony and Will already betrothed. That she comes back from that to play Juliet, then accept her fate makes a classic heroine who shows how far women have come in gaining equality. Maybe next up is equal pay?
The supporting cast around Paltrow is great too. Colin Firth, Joseph Fiennes, Geoffrey Rush, and Judi Dench all turn in solid performances My heart jumped a beat when Judi Dench spoke. Especially in the last scene where she comes to rescue and makes her statement about life in a man’s job. There were also other actors in the film that did a solid job as well. The film seems to be a stepping stone for some actors like Geoffrey Rush who went onto to star in The King’s Speech with Colin Firth who was also a role player in Shakespeare in Love. Ben Affleck also gives a supporting role as Ned Allyn.
The film is beautiful to look at. I was in deep admiration of the settings and costumes. The period detail is like something from a major museum exhibit brought to life. The streets of London in 1593 are brought resoundingly to life. Every little detail presented to give the illusion that Pre-Modern London still exists. I was especially taken with Queen Elizabeth’s costumes. She looked so very regal in her outfits. The golden sheen and peacock feathers were something to be admired. Similarly were everyone in their goatees, swords, and period costumes. I felt like I was seeing Rembrandt paintings come to life.
The fight scenes were a little weak. They seemed to me too fake. Not real enough. They did provide a heightened intensity to the film as it progressed to it’s grand finale. The writing was extremely well done. The characters are presented realistically. The subplots grow into a cohesive narrative that finishes well with Paltrow walking on a beach somewhere in the New World. The dialogue was well written with Shakespearean poetry blended into the Elizabethan influenced English.
There have been many films to tackle historical, period piece dramas and many of them have failed miserably. A few like Shakespeare in Love were successes. There is a whole treasure trove of films from the Pre-Modern days. The latest one to reach major distribution was Tulip Fever, likely to be Harvey Weinstein’s last film before he was scandalized this past year. Tulip Fever also deals with forbidden love in a time much different from our own. Similar to Shakespeare it is long on period detail and shorter on substance than Shakespeare in Love. Shakespeare in Love blends myth and a classic play to much greater effect than I’ve seen in recent films. It reminded me of the film Bird Man for it’s behind the scenes look at how a script gets made and all the pressures a production faces as it moves towards a stage or in front of a camera.
The film’s hero is Paltrow and with her comes one of themes. There is a distinct current of feminism. It is revealed in the conflict that Viola faces; will she find true love in a world dominated by men? Is it better to submit than to fight? She struggles with this conflict and we see that the World is the villain in this picture. For it is the World of class relations which keeps Viola in a subordinate position. She cannot be an actor, a playwright, or a poet. She can only be property in an exchange of money between her father and Lord Wessex. Viola can do little to fight against a society so stacked against her. All she can really do is submit and hope to survive with poetry in her heart.
Similar to another film, The English Patient, the heroine is conflicted, but seems to have no choice but to be a pawn in a man’s World. Tulip Fever is also about two conflicted lovers that are doomed to oblivion. And of course the play Romeo and Juliet is, perhaps, the classic tale of lovers against a World that will not permit them to live in love with each other. Made almost twenty years ago and now scandalized because of it’s affiliation with Harvey Weinstein, the film should be commended for showing the World through a woman’s eyes in the character of not just Viola, but the Queen too.
Along with other films that deal with the Pre-Modern historical period, Shakespeare shows us a World only accessible through art, history, literature, and best of all films. I was a European History major so I may be overly biased for films that deal with History. Shakespeare in Love along with The Girl with the Pearl Earring, Tulip Fever, and Cromwell, among others are a testament of how powerful a medium like film is. It can present a World that is gone from the earth only to be re-imagined in film.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Review of True Grit
True Grit is a rather small tale of adventure in The West. It reads almost like a young adult fiction novel. It is mostly benign and very clean about anything to do with violence or sex or any adult themes. I thought it was a good film with another memorable character from John Wayne. Without his persona the film would be of little value or entertainment. The film was released in 1969. It was directed by Henry Hathaway and is based on a novel by Charles Portis. The film stars a John Wayne who was reaching the twilight of his acting career. The supporting cast is rounded out with a young Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper, Glen Campbell, and Kim Darby.
The premise that drives the film is the murder of Mattie Ross's father by Tom Chaney. From there the action escalates to a showdown between Rooster Cogburn and Ned Pepper. Along the way Glen Campbell joins the forces for good. The film is a battle between law and order and bandits set in the Indian country. It is a rather simple story that is slow to develop, but ends up satisfying with a big ending.
The characters of the film are believable. Mattie Ross is convincing as the teenage girl looking to bring in her father's murderer. John Wayne won an Oscar for his role as Rooster Cogburn. Deservedly so. His attitude and swagger are distinct traits of his acting persona. As in his many other roles in Westerns the John Wayne persona is on full display for lovers of The Duke. He is frank, violent, and swigs a whiskey bottle for all to see with no regrets about his actions. It would seem Rooster was invincible and Wayne could continue to make films forever. It is films like True Grit, The Searchers, and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance that created the myth of John Wayne. A myth that will go down in film history as one of the most popular onscreen personas ever to grace the screen. Quality performances were had from Dennis Hopper and Robert Duvall as well. This must have been a stepping stone film for them.
The film doesn't have many gimmicks or special effects. It's straight forward, rough riding film that pulls no punches. In fact, it was obviously low budget. It looked like most of the scenes were shot on location. There was good use of mise en scene in the cabin scene and some shots of the great West added to the allure of the film. Save to say this wasn't an art film or looking to break any rules. The writing was well done. In parts it seemed to reflect it's literary basis as the words were well written and well spoken. There was nary a cuss word or any display of vulgarity that wasn't played to light comic effect.
The film starts out with a bang. The killing of Mattie's father and then the hanging of three men in the square as Mattie watches. The action reaches a lull as things develop. The ending is clearly the best part of the film. The inclusion of the pit with the snake added a twist that places a time constraint on the rest of the film. It added suspense and intensity and created a moment of relief when Mattie is safe and healthy. She offers Rooster a place for him to buried which was a nice touch.
The ending was not Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch or any of the Leone films with Clint Eastwood. Perhaps that's why the film is not considered one of the best Westerns ever made. It is comparable to Seven Men From Now, Ride the High Country, and other Westerns that tell simple stories about the Old West. True Grit is far from a bloodbath of a shootout or an orgy of violence and debauchery. It adds a story to the myth of the West as righteous, courteous, but insistent and courageous.
The message of the film like many Westerns is that good triumphs over evil. And that persistence and courage will lead to victory over the forces of evil. It seemed to take the stand that human nature is evil and there needs to be a strong hand to keep it from devolving into chaos. There are many references to Federal authority, Judges, and Rooster Cogburn as a Federal Marshall. The point was well made and obvious. In the face of authority the bandits had no chance.
If you like films that are based on literature, you may like this film. If you are looking for a film that delves deep into the darkness or violence you will probably be bored by this film which was made before or in opposition to the New Hollywood of the late 60's and 70's. However, if you are a big John Wayne fan this one is not to be missed. His performance is great and adds to the myth of The Duke. That was the main reason I watched the film. As I've mentioned before Wayne won the Oscar for best actor for True Grit. And it was a good decision by the Academy to award him with the statuette.
The premise that drives the film is the murder of Mattie Ross's father by Tom Chaney. From there the action escalates to a showdown between Rooster Cogburn and Ned Pepper. Along the way Glen Campbell joins the forces for good. The film is a battle between law and order and bandits set in the Indian country. It is a rather simple story that is slow to develop, but ends up satisfying with a big ending.
The characters of the film are believable. Mattie Ross is convincing as the teenage girl looking to bring in her father's murderer. John Wayne won an Oscar for his role as Rooster Cogburn. Deservedly so. His attitude and swagger are distinct traits of his acting persona. As in his many other roles in Westerns the John Wayne persona is on full display for lovers of The Duke. He is frank, violent, and swigs a whiskey bottle for all to see with no regrets about his actions. It would seem Rooster was invincible and Wayne could continue to make films forever. It is films like True Grit, The Searchers, and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance that created the myth of John Wayne. A myth that will go down in film history as one of the most popular onscreen personas ever to grace the screen. Quality performances were had from Dennis Hopper and Robert Duvall as well. This must have been a stepping stone film for them.
The film doesn't have many gimmicks or special effects. It's straight forward, rough riding film that pulls no punches. In fact, it was obviously low budget. It looked like most of the scenes were shot on location. There was good use of mise en scene in the cabin scene and some shots of the great West added to the allure of the film. Save to say this wasn't an art film or looking to break any rules. The writing was well done. In parts it seemed to reflect it's literary basis as the words were well written and well spoken. There was nary a cuss word or any display of vulgarity that wasn't played to light comic effect.
The film starts out with a bang. The killing of Mattie's father and then the hanging of three men in the square as Mattie watches. The action reaches a lull as things develop. The ending is clearly the best part of the film. The inclusion of the pit with the snake added a twist that places a time constraint on the rest of the film. It added suspense and intensity and created a moment of relief when Mattie is safe and healthy. She offers Rooster a place for him to buried which was a nice touch.
The ending was not Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch or any of the Leone films with Clint Eastwood. Perhaps that's why the film is not considered one of the best Westerns ever made. It is comparable to Seven Men From Now, Ride the High Country, and other Westerns that tell simple stories about the Old West. True Grit is far from a bloodbath of a shootout or an orgy of violence and debauchery. It adds a story to the myth of the West as righteous, courteous, but insistent and courageous.
The message of the film like many Westerns is that good triumphs over evil. And that persistence and courage will lead to victory over the forces of evil. It seemed to take the stand that human nature is evil and there needs to be a strong hand to keep it from devolving into chaos. There are many references to Federal authority, Judges, and Rooster Cogburn as a Federal Marshall. The point was well made and obvious. In the face of authority the bandits had no chance.
If you like films that are based on literature, you may like this film. If you are looking for a film that delves deep into the darkness or violence you will probably be bored by this film which was made before or in opposition to the New Hollywood of the late 60's and 70's. However, if you are a big John Wayne fan this one is not to be missed. His performance is great and adds to the myth of The Duke. That was the main reason I watched the film. As I've mentioned before Wayne won the Oscar for best actor for True Grit. And it was a good decision by the Academy to award him with the statuette.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Review of Dances With Wolves
Dances With Wolves is one of the saddest films I've seen in recent years. Th ending is as melancholy as the ending from Gone With the Wind. I was asking myself at the end of the film; why did he have to leave the Sioux camp? Couldn't he have stayed? I guess not. After all that was said and done Dances With Wolves had to leave the camp and go his own way. If not he might have caused undo harm to the tribe. Still, I asked myself weren't they all screwed in the end? Couldn't they have known that the Union forces were too strong and that they would be defeated? I guess not. The film was made in 1990. It won several academy awards. It starred Kevin Costner who was also the director and co-producer. The film is a Western. It was the first serious film I watched as a kid.
The premise of the film centers around John Dunbar and his quest to find himself. Dunbar attempts to kill himself in the first twenty minutes of the film. Instead of seeing this as an act of cowardice, a Union General thinks it's bravery. In reward for his bravery Dunbar is given a horse and allowed to pick his post. He chooses to go out West to prairie country. There he befriends a Sioux tribe and becomes a member. In a final sequence he saves the tribe but is apprehended by Union soldiers and sentenced to be hanged. The Sioux tribe conducts a raid and frees Dunbar. In the final sequence he says he must go on his own way away from the tribe.
The acting was top notch. I really believed Costner's character. I thought he showed how a White man would behave in a similar situation. I thought his actions and words were genuine and his acting thoroughly believable. The other actors also came across as genuine. Wind in His Hair and Kicking Bird made me believe that they were plains Indians to the core. I never doubted for a minute that they were anything but real Indians able to speak the language and act the parts given to them.
Kevin Costner was the big star associated with Dance With Wolves. He turned in another great performance. After Untouchables and Field of Dreams, Dances With Wolves is another great performance for the ages that will last as examples of acting excellence in the 80's of American Cinema.
The film couldn't have been better with regards to film techniques. The editing, cinematography, everything was top notch. I couldn't get over the great shots of the plains. They were of overwhelming beauty. The canyons, the prairie, it made me want to visit there soon. Also top notch was the costumes. The Indian attire was totally believable. I felt like I was in that World. The Indian Village became alive with color and setting. So much so that I forgot about where I was and became immersed in the period decor of the film. The film was near perfect. The score was uplifting, the settings were unforgettable, everything was what an epic of The American West should be.
The film heralds a new kind of Western. It is particularly unique. It is a World away from The Searchers which demonizes Native Americans unfairly. The two films are similar in some technical ways. They both show the beauty and grandeur of the American West. The stories and characters of the two films are vastly different though. Dance With Wolves develops in its viewers an overwhelming sympathy for the plight of the American Indians. It is a thoroughly realist portrait of an experience of the American West totally unlike Sergio Leone's Spaghetti Westerns. It is perhaps familiar with Robert Altman's McCabe and Mrs. Miller. Both are very realist portraits of experiences of The West. The only difference is that Dances With Wolves has a very recognizable opinion about Western Settlement. McCabe and Mrs. Miller is less subtle in it's expression of theme and conflict.
The message of the film comes across very clearly. With it's depictions of White settlers and soldiers as wasteful and brash there is no doubt that the Native American way of life, at least in some ways, is portrayed as better than how the Whites live. This develops a deep sympathy for the Native Americans who populate Dance With Wolves. It also upends decades of thought that White Settlement of The West was a good thing. It raises serious questions about how The West was won and how the Native American were treated. The film reveals its theme in even the most minute of details. It so ingrains its theme deep into the film that it becomes unquestionable that the Native American way of life was to be cherished and lamented at its passing.
Dances With Wolves is a revisionist film. It is much different from other films like The Searchers or other films that demonize the Native Americans unfairly. I remember back to Middle School Social Studies when we watched numerous movies about the Native American experience. In these films about Chief Joseph and others. a deep sympathy was created for the Native American experience. Dances With Wolves puts forth a new theme about Western Settlement. It destroys prejudice and breaks down barriers between Native American and Settler and only begins to ponder the amount of suffering that Native Americans endured while there lands were taken and their way of life was destroyed.
Dances With Wolves is a great film. It is different from other films from before the late 1960's when film started to change and themes were treated differently. I can only compare this film to The Searchers and how different it is from that film. In The Searchers the Native Americans are portrayed from a biased point of view. In Dances With Wolves the entire film shows how the Native Americans lived and survived without the help of the whites. The deep empathy which develops after repeated viewings of the film for Native Americans eliminates bias and prejudice and creates room for new narratives about The West. I would highly recommend this film to anyone with an interest in films about The American West.
The premise of the film centers around John Dunbar and his quest to find himself. Dunbar attempts to kill himself in the first twenty minutes of the film. Instead of seeing this as an act of cowardice, a Union General thinks it's bravery. In reward for his bravery Dunbar is given a horse and allowed to pick his post. He chooses to go out West to prairie country. There he befriends a Sioux tribe and becomes a member. In a final sequence he saves the tribe but is apprehended by Union soldiers and sentenced to be hanged. The Sioux tribe conducts a raid and frees Dunbar. In the final sequence he says he must go on his own way away from the tribe.
The acting was top notch. I really believed Costner's character. I thought he showed how a White man would behave in a similar situation. I thought his actions and words were genuine and his acting thoroughly believable. The other actors also came across as genuine. Wind in His Hair and Kicking Bird made me believe that they were plains Indians to the core. I never doubted for a minute that they were anything but real Indians able to speak the language and act the parts given to them.
Kevin Costner was the big star associated with Dance With Wolves. He turned in another great performance. After Untouchables and Field of Dreams, Dances With Wolves is another great performance for the ages that will last as examples of acting excellence in the 80's of American Cinema.
The film couldn't have been better with regards to film techniques. The editing, cinematography, everything was top notch. I couldn't get over the great shots of the plains. They were of overwhelming beauty. The canyons, the prairie, it made me want to visit there soon. Also top notch was the costumes. The Indian attire was totally believable. I felt like I was in that World. The Indian Village became alive with color and setting. So much so that I forgot about where I was and became immersed in the period decor of the film. The film was near perfect. The score was uplifting, the settings were unforgettable, everything was what an epic of The American West should be.
The film heralds a new kind of Western. It is particularly unique. It is a World away from The Searchers which demonizes Native Americans unfairly. The two films are similar in some technical ways. They both show the beauty and grandeur of the American West. The stories and characters of the two films are vastly different though. Dance With Wolves develops in its viewers an overwhelming sympathy for the plight of the American Indians. It is a thoroughly realist portrait of an experience of the American West totally unlike Sergio Leone's Spaghetti Westerns. It is perhaps familiar with Robert Altman's McCabe and Mrs. Miller. Both are very realist portraits of experiences of The West. The only difference is that Dances With Wolves has a very recognizable opinion about Western Settlement. McCabe and Mrs. Miller is less subtle in it's expression of theme and conflict.
The message of the film comes across very clearly. With it's depictions of White settlers and soldiers as wasteful and brash there is no doubt that the Native American way of life, at least in some ways, is portrayed as better than how the Whites live. This develops a deep sympathy for the Native Americans who populate Dance With Wolves. It also upends decades of thought that White Settlement of The West was a good thing. It raises serious questions about how The West was won and how the Native American were treated. The film reveals its theme in even the most minute of details. It so ingrains its theme deep into the film that it becomes unquestionable that the Native American way of life was to be cherished and lamented at its passing.
Dances With Wolves is a revisionist film. It is much different from other films like The Searchers or other films that demonize the Native Americans unfairly. I remember back to Middle School Social Studies when we watched numerous movies about the Native American experience. In these films about Chief Joseph and others. a deep sympathy was created for the Native American experience. Dances With Wolves puts forth a new theme about Western Settlement. It destroys prejudice and breaks down barriers between Native American and Settler and only begins to ponder the amount of suffering that Native Americans endured while there lands were taken and their way of life was destroyed.
Dances With Wolves is a great film. It is different from other films from before the late 1960's when film started to change and themes were treated differently. I can only compare this film to The Searchers and how different it is from that film. In The Searchers the Native Americans are portrayed from a biased point of view. In Dances With Wolves the entire film shows how the Native Americans lived and survived without the help of the whites. The deep empathy which develops after repeated viewings of the film for Native Americans eliminates bias and prejudice and creates room for new narratives about The West. I would highly recommend this film to anyone with an interest in films about The American West.
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
Review of The Wild Bunch
The final shootout of the film is incredible. It's the best shootout in the history of Westerns that I have seen so far. After it was over I asked my "do you think you could do something as good in a film you make?" I had to say no I couldn't. It was that good. The film is as good as the best of the Leone Westerns. I drew a comparison to The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and, in my opinion, it ranks in the same class as that film. It has all the elements that The Good.. does. More on that later. The films was released in 1969. Directed by Sam Peckinpah, it stars William Holden and Ernest Borgnine along with Robert Ryan.
The film follows aging bandits out for a last heist before they move South to Mexico. But all is not easy. Bounty hunters are hot on their trail, anticipating their every move. The plot thickens when the bandits meet up with a Mexican warlord out to get guns and become a power in Northern Mexico. The bandits commit to the general. They plot to steal guns from an American arms shipment. The bandits steal the guns and defeat the bounty hunters. But they still have to get payment for the guns from the general. This they do, but when one of their own is taken prisoner and tortured it's one step to far. The Wild Bunch stands up to the general and dies in a hail of bullets killing the general, his top men, and themselves in a great, final shootout.
I have to say upfront that I'm a big William Holden fan. So anything he does I'm biased for him. This was his last major role. And I thought he pulled it off well. I bought into him as the aging leader of the gang with baggage. His near apprehension with Thornton. His ongoing rivalry with him. The flashback to his lost love. Killed by her husband and severely wounding Pike. Holden is no John Wayne or Clint Eastwood. He is older, scarred, and looking for a way out. Like Holden, Dutch (Borgnine) wants a way out. He plays his role well as the trusted sidekick. I couldn't get over his little chuckles or his crazy eyes at the beginning of the shootout. Both put in solid performances.
The film uses creative techniques to tell the story. In particular the use of slow motion was effective and gruesome. Every time the slow motion effect was applied there was a gruesome death depicted. The use of fast cutting, close ups, and deep focus revealed the film in all it's glory. The palette of a filmmakers tools were all used in The Wild Bunch.
A strength of the film was it's violence. The shootouts at the beginning of the film, and in particular the end of the film, were excellent. They coordinated actors, guns, and cameras in a final sequence that was memorable. Perhaps too violent for some people, the shootouts were clearly influential on other filmmakers. Quentin Tarrantino for one, and, I'm sure, others delved into the horrific portrayal of violence shown in The Wild Bunch. The spurting of blood, the slow motion falls, the close ups on the guns, the faces, and the fallen bodies were a montage of violence unrivaled in film up to that point. Of course there have been similarly violent sequences in films after The Wild Bunch, but to my knowledge, none before it equaled it's depiction of blood and guts.
The film is true to it's name. The group of bandits stays close to one another. In the end they decide to rescue their friend. They take the side of the underdog. They throw away everything and fight for what they believe is right. The films message isn't too preachy or some kind of high minded narrative about human nature. It is simply that fighting for what's right at the cost of death is the right thing to do. Sticking close to the American Revolutionary slogan of "give me liberty or give me death" the group of bandits sticks it to the general in the final sequence. They die an honorable death in the cause of freedom.
The Wild Bunch is a rather unique film. It reminds me of Shakespeare in the way that everyone dies. But they do die honorably. In past Westerns it is almost always that someone lives to collect the gold. In The Good... Clint Eastwood is left standing to collect his gold. In The Searchers John Wayne has put aside his racial hatred of Indians and embraced his niece. In The Wild Bunch there is no one left standing to collect the gold. Thornton is left to resume his life as a bandit. He is no richer and is a rather minor character in the film.
The film ranks as one of the best Westerns ever made. Alongside The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and The Searchers it upped the ante for filmmakers to out do what Peckinpah did with the use of violence, camera techniques, and editing. It ushered in a new era of Westerns like the films of The New Hollywood. It is brilliant and beautiful. I would highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in film.
The film follows aging bandits out for a last heist before they move South to Mexico. But all is not easy. Bounty hunters are hot on their trail, anticipating their every move. The plot thickens when the bandits meet up with a Mexican warlord out to get guns and become a power in Northern Mexico. The bandits commit to the general. They plot to steal guns from an American arms shipment. The bandits steal the guns and defeat the bounty hunters. But they still have to get payment for the guns from the general. This they do, but when one of their own is taken prisoner and tortured it's one step to far. The Wild Bunch stands up to the general and dies in a hail of bullets killing the general, his top men, and themselves in a great, final shootout.
I have to say upfront that I'm a big William Holden fan. So anything he does I'm biased for him. This was his last major role. And I thought he pulled it off well. I bought into him as the aging leader of the gang with baggage. His near apprehension with Thornton. His ongoing rivalry with him. The flashback to his lost love. Killed by her husband and severely wounding Pike. Holden is no John Wayne or Clint Eastwood. He is older, scarred, and looking for a way out. Like Holden, Dutch (Borgnine) wants a way out. He plays his role well as the trusted sidekick. I couldn't get over his little chuckles or his crazy eyes at the beginning of the shootout. Both put in solid performances.
The film uses creative techniques to tell the story. In particular the use of slow motion was effective and gruesome. Every time the slow motion effect was applied there was a gruesome death depicted. The use of fast cutting, close ups, and deep focus revealed the film in all it's glory. The palette of a filmmakers tools were all used in The Wild Bunch.
A strength of the film was it's violence. The shootouts at the beginning of the film, and in particular the end of the film, were excellent. They coordinated actors, guns, and cameras in a final sequence that was memorable. Perhaps too violent for some people, the shootouts were clearly influential on other filmmakers. Quentin Tarrantino for one, and, I'm sure, others delved into the horrific portrayal of violence shown in The Wild Bunch. The spurting of blood, the slow motion falls, the close ups on the guns, the faces, and the fallen bodies were a montage of violence unrivaled in film up to that point. Of course there have been similarly violent sequences in films after The Wild Bunch, but to my knowledge, none before it equaled it's depiction of blood and guts.
The film is true to it's name. The group of bandits stays close to one another. In the end they decide to rescue their friend. They take the side of the underdog. They throw away everything and fight for what they believe is right. The films message isn't too preachy or some kind of high minded narrative about human nature. It is simply that fighting for what's right at the cost of death is the right thing to do. Sticking close to the American Revolutionary slogan of "give me liberty or give me death" the group of bandits sticks it to the general in the final sequence. They die an honorable death in the cause of freedom.
The Wild Bunch is a rather unique film. It reminds me of Shakespeare in the way that everyone dies. But they do die honorably. In past Westerns it is almost always that someone lives to collect the gold. In The Good... Clint Eastwood is left standing to collect his gold. In The Searchers John Wayne has put aside his racial hatred of Indians and embraced his niece. In The Wild Bunch there is no one left standing to collect the gold. Thornton is left to resume his life as a bandit. He is no richer and is a rather minor character in the film.
The film ranks as one of the best Westerns ever made. Alongside The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and The Searchers it upped the ante for filmmakers to out do what Peckinpah did with the use of violence, camera techniques, and editing. It ushered in a new era of Westerns like the films of The New Hollywood. It is brilliant and beautiful. I would highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in film.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)