When I picked this month's theme out of the hat, I had secretly hoped that Mr. X would deliver a Zatoichi film to my hands. I've heard of the series before, in the context of both Lone Wolf & Cub and the 80s Rutger Hauer film Blind Fury. I knew that Blind Fury was actually an American remake of a Zatoichi film, and I've always been interested in seeing the source material but never got around to it. Well now I have. And the movie didn't disappoint. According to the DVD case, Zatoichi featured in 27 films and 100 television episodes. It's easy to see why: Ichi (as he's nicknamed in this first film) is an enigmatic, charismatic Catalyst Hero. He enters a story like a force of nature, affecting everything around him but essentially remaining the same. The basic plot is as follows:
Blind ex-masseur Zatoichi enters the compound of yakuza boss Iioka at the boss' request. Iioka believes that rival boss Sasagawa is preparing for a gang war and knows that Sasagawa has hired his own samurai, Hitake, to help bolster his smaller army of gangsters. Ichi meets Iioka's gangsters, who upon first meeting try to con Ichi out of his money but are conned in turn by the wise blind man. Gangster Tate, who almost kills Ichi to get back the gang's money, is put in charge of Ichi. Tate's sister Tane is married to Seisuke, Iioka's second-in-command and a violent jerk. Tane has left Seisuke and desperately wants to escape him completely. Tate has his own drama as he has impregnated a local girl and doesn't want to accept responsibility. Ichi overhears these little intrigues, sometimes counseling and sometimes keeping his mouth shut. Ichi also arranges to meet Hitake to take the measure of the man and finds that he's the only honorable man around. Unfortunately, Hitake has tuberculosis and has little reason to live. As Ichi attempts to get out of fighting in Iioka's war for the sake of his own sense of honor and Hitake begins to seriously suffer the ravages of his disease, Sasagawa plots to get Hitake involved in the fight. Tate's pregnant girl is found floating dead in the river and Seisuke threatens Tane's life. Tate claims ignorance of the pregnant girl's demise and Tane begs Ichi, who is kind in a way that her husband is not, to take her away. On the day of the battle, Sasagawa tells Hitake that he's going to use a rifle to remove the threat of Ichi. Hitake refuses to allow Ichi such an ignoble death and vows to fight. Ichi is told about Hitake and refuses to allow Hitake to take his own life so foolishly. Sasagawa's men put up a decent fight, particularly as Hitake cuts down Iioka's goons easily. Both sides momentarily cease fighting as Ichi meets Hitake on a bridge for a final showdown. Ichi asks Hitake to cease the fighting and care for his health, but Hitake cares only for their impending fight. Ichi agrees and the two men clash. Hitake is fatally pierced and dies leaning against Ichi's back. Ichi takes Hitake's body back to the temple and insures that the fallen samurai will receive a noble burial. Ichi tells Iioka that his men have died needlessly and that he, as their boss, should be ashamed. Ichi leaves his sword-cane, which is too connected with Hitake's death for him to bear, with Hitake's body and heads out of town. On his way out, Tate takes a chance for infamy and tries to sneak-attack Ichi, but Ichi dodges the blow and knocks Tate into the same river where his pregnant victim drowned. We watch Ichi walk through the woods along the main road, careful to avoid Tane and maintain his solitary, lonely existence.
I know when I first talked about this blog that I wasn't going to focus much on the technical stuff. Well, that's hard to do when the film is a classic Japanese samurai film. There's something about the cinematography of this region in this time period that is absolutely stunning. The quality of the image, from lighting and framing to camera movement and mis-en-scene, is among the best ever put to film. This isn't to say that all Japenese samurai films from the 50s and 60s are beautiful because they aren't. But the work of Kurosawa certainly is, and director Misumi clearly also has a grasp of poetic image-making. The DVD transfer in the first few minutes was pretty crap, which made me angry. But eventually the transfer evened out, leaving me with a gorgeous film. In particular, I was impressed by the long takes and camera movement. These visual elements are so important to a film in the martial arts genre. Combatants are so focused on the discipline and fluidity of movement, it only makes sense for the image to be equally focused. This is even more important for a Zatoichi film as quick-cutting would feel out of place for the sightless protagonist. We as the audience must be able to take in as much information as possible with as few distractions as possible, like Ichi himself.
The character of Zatoichi lives on in 26 sequels and a television show, so it's no surprise that he's a protagonist worth following. Like many of the protagonists in this month's theme, Ichi struggles for self-respect in the face of his handicap. People dismiss him out of hand and often don't even realize that he's present. Ichi's also fascinating because he's so much an enigma. He hides his status as a great swordsman, he doesn't talk about how he was blinded, he never expresses a desire for himself. Ichi is a humble man who accepts that he has a certain reputation and just tries to get by without people taking advantage of him. Humility and mystery are dual pulls on an audience. We want to know more about this man, but he clearly doesn't think he's that interesting. It's a hilarious tease if you know anything about storytelling, and it's incredibly effective. Ichi also benefits from being surrounded by scumbags. Because of his condition and his prior work as a masseur (considered by Japanese culture of the time to be a lowly position - Google it!), Ichi lives among the low, which puts him in contact with the criminal element. Ichi may have to work for yakuza, but he maintains a personal code and expects other yakuza to live by one as well. Bad guys being bad guys, of course the majority of Ichi's peers are honorless. Tate murders the girl he knocked up, Iioka doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself, and the other thugs would rob and kill a blind man. The only other character in the film with any honor is Hatake, which makes his status as antagonist complex and engrossing, like the best antagonists in film.
It's worth noting, as I did earlier, that Zatoichi is a Catalyst Hero. He doesn't change throughout the course of the story. You see this more outside of mainstream American film, which tends to favor a protagonist who arcs. Australia seems to favor the Catalyst Hero, particularly the Anti-Hero, which certainly also applies to Zatoichi. As something of an American cinema traditionalist, I find Zatoichi appealing but not as personally engrossing as the standard American arcing protagonist. Your mileage may vary depending on your own feelings about heroes. Especially action/adventure heroes. Zatoichi is a fuzzy character for me in particular because he's so much a mystery. I can appreciate that he has a personal code and tries to live honorably. I really like that he spends much of his time trying to show people how prejudiced they are against the handicapped. But I kinda wish I knew more about the guy, particularly what he WANTS. His personality is sufficiently intriguing to get me through the movie, but if there's any weakness to be found here it's that you aren't given a whole lot to work with from a character-attachment POV. I'll take guys like Riggs or John McClane over Zatoichi or The Man with No Name any day. Even though I like all four characters.
As usual, here are some random thoughts I jotted throughout my viewing:
- Janus films, eh? Good sign.
- Box says "fully restored image". Really? This transfer looks like shit.
- hahaha... idiots. Don't they know when they're being conned? I love hired goons in films. So stupid.
- Great, funny stuff with Iioka. Way to make the douche who was going to kill Ichi his slave.
- Are the governor's mistress' teeth black? What the fuck? (Note: A little internet research tells me that this was a custom among married women and that the dye actually helps preserve teeth.)
- Is Ichi hitting on Hitake? "come here often?"... hahaha
- I like the casualness of Ichi's admission to being a gangster.
- This is kind of an awesome scene, this meeting between hired swords. Modern films like Heat understand how powerful it is to keep the protagonist and antagonist apart until it's dramatically compelling to get them together, prior to the climax.
- So refreshing to see a swordfight movie with silent scabbards! American/Western expectations of sound (the ssshhhingggg sound) are so wrong-headed.
- Samurai movies are so good at push-ins and pull-outs. Is it the genre or the cameramen?
- Slicing the candle in two? Bad. Ass.
- hahaha... Ichi's head wrap makes him look like a Russian grandma
- Oh my god. The tension between Hitake and Ichi is so... homoerotic...
- (at random shot of Ichi between bamboo shoots) Man, look at that framing!
- I wonder if the writers/producers of The Incredible Hulk watched samurai films. There's definitely a similarity.
- This scene between Ichi and Tane is 1000% more sensual than anything in Daredevil, which tried 1000X harder to be all sexy.
- Rutger Hauer was a fantastic choice to play the American version of Ichi. He has that same world-weary sense of humor, that feeling that he's constantly, every second wryly amused. Kind of a shame that Blind Fury is the only U.S. attempt to adapt Zatoichi. (Note: it's not, according to a quick Google search. I'm a dummy. But it IS the only one that I've seen, if you don't count Book of Eli, and I don't. Oh, spoiler alert. Shut up, it's not that big a twist, trust me. You won't care.)
- Oh man, that is some awesome conflict set-up right there. Manipulating Ichi and Hitake both to fight each other...
- It seems to me like a lot of these samurai movie battles are a matter of one guy who actually takes time to concentrate and hit his target. The goons spaz out too easy and just end up shaking their swords and screaming a lot.
- The anticipation for the face-off between Ichi and Hitake is KILLER! That moment, before they strike? Man, so awesome.
- Watching Ichi's face as Hitake dies at his back is f'ing fantastic. Great acting.
- Awesome shot of Ichi walking with Tane in the background on the main road.
Did the movie live up to the theme? Eh, more or less. Ichi spends a lot of the movie proving how little a handicap being blind is, but then again he has samurai movie super-powers. It's my complaint about Daredevil as a character. Sure, he's blind, but he never really seems to be affected by that blindness. Ichi stumbles a bit, but the guy cuts a candle in half, length-wise, including the wick. Sorry, but that's not compensating for a disability, that's fucking MAGIC. It's cool, but it doesn't really, truly address the subject of blindness.
So there we have it. The Tale of Zatoichi. I'd definitely recommend the movie to anyone who's into samurai films. Straight-up action fans may not want to bother as there isn't a whole lot of actual action involved. The swordfights are mostly quick affairs. Film fans who love quality cinematography should DEFINITELY check this out. And anyone who's interested in Catalyst Heroes should also give the movie a view. Probably not a movie I'd watch over and over (I'm too much a fan of bigger, bloodier action) but a movie I'd put on for someone who is getting their feet wet in the art of cinema.
See you guys next week for Theme the Third: Cross-Dressers! It'll be interesting to see what movies Mr. X picks up for me as I've seen a LOT of cross-dressing films. ALSO: check here soon for a bonus review of Blind Fury. I'm not counting it as the standard Film Themantics review because I've already seen it AND I picked the movie myself. But it's been a long time since I last saw the movie and I don't really remember much of it. It should be fun, especially in light of today's film.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Blind People Movie #3: A Patch of Blue
Apologies for the lateness of this post, folks. Doing Blindness a few days late has thrown me off. I'm going to try getting the next one up shortly after this one.
While Legionnaire may have been the most pleasant surprise thus far of the Film Themantics films, A Patch of Blue is by far my favorite. I can't tell you how much I fell in love with these characters! The disheartening thing about sequels and remakes is that they're so infrequently a by-product of such wonderfully compelling origin material. If ever a movie could be remade and updated for modern sensibilities (recast Poitier's role as an Arab American and BANG we're off!), this is it. And this is definitely a film that begs the question, "What happened next?" Which is really the hallmark of great, compelling drama. But once again I'm getting ahead of myself. The basic plot:
Blind Selina (Golden Globe winner Elizabeth Hartman) has been sheltered her whole life by her abusive mother Roseanne and her drunken grandfather Old Pa. Selina almost never leaves the tiny, shabby apartment that she shares with her mother and grandfather, but one day she decides to take her work (stringing together bead necklaces) to a nearby park. A neighbor took her on a walk there recently and Selina has decided that she'd like to go again. At the park, Selina discovers the joy of sitting under a tree but panics when a caterpillar crawls into her shirt. Passerby Gordon (Poitier) stops to help Selina out with the caterpillar and the two strike up a conversation. Selina's shy of strangers but Gordon's a very friendly guy. Gordon accidentally knocks over Selina's box of beads and stays behind to help her clean them up. Slowly the movie develops the friendship between Selina and Gordon, who meet several times in the park. Gordon teaches Selina several techniques to manage her blindness, amazed that nobody has taught her this before now. For her part, Selina is an engaging and delightful student, taking joy in each new discovery. Unfortunately Roseanne senses that something is afoot with her daughter and makes efforts to prevent Selina's park meetings. Old Pa isn't much help, leaving Selina alone in the park until well after dark. Eventually Gordon brings Selina to his apartment, where she reveals two startling facts: 1) she used to have a friend named Pearl but Roseanne forbade their friendship upon learning that Pearl was black and 2) she was raped by a gentleman caller of Roseanne's. The heartbreaking stories strengthen Gordon's resolve to help Selina become independent. Selina begins to fall in love with Gordon, whose own feelings are uncertain and challenged by Gordon's classicist brother Mark. Roseanne spies the pair from afar one afternoon and treats Selina horribly when she returns home. The following day Roseanne tells Selina that they're going to move in with a friend of Roseanne's to start a "business", which the movie strongly hints is an underground brothel. Desperate, Selina strikes out on her own to find Gordon. Gordon and Selina come together in the park and he tells her that he's enrolled her in a school for the blind. Relieved that she can escape Roseanne but saddened that she will have to leave Gordon behind, Selina accepts the offer. Roseanne finds the couple in the park and causes a huge scene. To Roseanne's surprise, everyone in the park sees her bigotry and abuse for what they are and shield the couple from Roseanne's further abuse. That night, Selina and Gordon wait for the bus that will take her away. Selina tells Gordon that she loves him and wants to be married to him. Gordon begins to tell her that he's black, but Selina beats him to it and tells him that she knows. Gordon is struck that Selina still loves him, but the bus arrives to take her to the school. They part, Gordon vowing to see her at the school but leaving the audience wondering if that will actually happen once Selina begins to live for herself.
As I said, A Patch of Blue is my favorite of the films I've watched thus far for this blog. The story is a simple romantic drama whose complications are enormous but entirely relatable. And the characters are absolutely lovely. I think if you don't fall in love with either or both of the leads, you have a heart of stone. It would be easy to see Selina as a pitiful victim if it weren't for her spirit, her indominatable will. It's truly rewarding to see her realize, thanks to Gordon, that her guardians have been completely abusing her and that she doesn't have to rely on others for everything. Again, it would be easy to see Selina as ONLY a victim and thus less dramatically compelling, but the movie makes it very clear that she was only victimized out of ignorance. And for as much as she's been infantilized by her guardians and her condition, Selina clearly has a young woman's desires. Not just sexual desires, but freedom and autonomy. I can't imagine having to face the kind of life Selina faced, and the fact that she's such a kind-hearted, big-spirited girl despite her crummy life makes her absolutely lovable to me. Then there's Gordon. Characters like Gordon give me hope for the world and hope for myself. It's possible to be kind to others and want better for them without having ulterior motives. One of the great tensions in this film is the fact that Gordon wants Selina to have a better life and he feels like Selina getting involved with him would just make things worse for her. He makes the argument to his brother, and later to Selina, that he wants her to be her own person before he even begins to think about what he feels for her. THAT, my friends, is chivalry. THAT is the way that a real man should act. My ideal for masculine behavior is 100% exhibited by Sidney Poitier in this film. Gordon is kind, he's suave in a goofy but charming manner, he's concerned with bettering others before himself... he's everything that I would like to be as a male of the species. I completely fell in love with these characters, and every time their friendship/relationship was threatened I got incredibly worked up. Shelley Winters does a fantastic job of playing the abusive mother, but she really earned my hatred because of the way writer-director Guy Green (and source material writer Elizabeth Kata) wrote the romantic leads. I loved these characters so much I want to see what happened to them. Did Selina learn how to be independent at the school for the blind? Did she learn a trade? Did Gordon visit her? Did she make blind friends and begin to distance herself from Gordon? Even the saddest possibilities would be thrilling to me as long as I got to spend more time with these two characters. I wanted them to be real people, a real couple that I could hang out with and befriend. THAT's how much I loved these characters.
This isn't to say that the film is only good because of the character work. It's also a very "clean" story with a clear protagonist, a clear antagonist, clear desires, and clear obstacles. Nothing in the story is obfuscated by the director's artistic "vision" or by some ham-fisted metaphor. All of the tension is real/organic and obstacles arise naturally from one scene to the next as a result of actions taken in the prior scene. And those tensions become greater and greater, raising the stakes until the climactic confrontation in the park. From a structural writing POV, this is damn near perfect. As well, though Selina is a slightly "Cinderella" character and her isolation is hard to fathom in the age of overprotective parents and equally overprotective society, the situation in the film feels real. It's all too easy to imagine that a blind girl could be treated the way that Selina is treated, particularly in a large city. It's also worth mentioning the technical elements of the film. In particular, there's a poetry to the way that the film is shot and scored, giving the proceedings a romantic edge that serves to heighten the burgeoning love Selina has for her independence and for Gordon. It's subtle, but present, which is the way these things should be done. You should notice the technical flourishes when they serve the means of the story, not when they attempt to be ends of themselves. The visual poetry isn't a surprise considering that, according to the DVD case, Green received an Oscar for cinematography on 1946's Great Expectations.
I wanted to talk briefly about an interesting reaction I had watching the film. I found myself a great deal more shaken by the neglect and abuse that Selina suffers in A Patch of Blue than I did by the rapes in Blindness. I thought about this for a while and I believe that because A Patch of Blue is focused more on character development and realism, I cared more about what happened to Selina. In Blindness, the rapes felt like the visualization/realization of a message/belief about human behavior and thus I was left relatively unaffected on an emotional level. It's strange to say, but the rapes in that film felt far more abstract and intellectualized than the neglect and abuse in this film, which I felt more personally.
As usual, here are some random thoughts I had while watching:
- Music by Jerry Goldsmith. Holy shit, that dude has been around FOREVER!
- So acting like an out-and-out bitch got Winters an Oscar? She might as well twirl a moustache.
- hahahaha... Selina is doing that thing to Gordon that I hate: when you're trying to walk away from someone and they just keep calling you back. Finish your damn thought, Selina!
- Oh man, this is kinda heart-breaking. This poor girl hasn't been told ANYTHING?
- Fantastic job of making her so sympathetic. Give your protagonist HUGE hurdles right away and you engender sympathy right away.
- There is something crazy fascinating and great about watching someone getting empowered.
- Is the dog named Scumdog??? Weird.
- Poitier is a charming motherfucker.
- Oh geez, and he's singing now. I LOVE THESE TWO!!!!!
- Holy fuck!!! The movie just dropped a huge rape-bomb on me. Jeez, that hurt.
- Oh man... you just know that music box is gonna get tossed against a wall when Roseanne finds it. (10 seconds later) OH! Smart girl! Bury that treasure!
- Evil bitch Roseanne!!! Man, I don't know if being a shitty person is hard acting work, but if it is then Winters earned that Oscar.
- hahahaha... wow, Selina getting pissed and cursing is kinda awesome.
- Nice! Class prejudice from Mark. There's some great interplay going on with Mark and Gordon.
- Ah dammit, Selina's gonna run into Roseanne, I just know it. RUN, girl, RUN!!!!
- This movie is damn amazing. That Selina's grinning in the middle of getting run down because she realizes that Gordon is black and has been too afraid to tell her is just fabulous. That grin in general, the satisfied "fuck you, mom, I love him anyway" grin, is priceless.
- Don't you dare ruin this park moment, Roseanne, you horrible witch.
- This is a beautiful movie.
Regarding the theme, I think this movie did a good job of being relevant. It really shows you how difficult those initial steps into independence can be for a blind person. It also forwards the notion that blindness is a condition that CAN be overcome with willpower, a positive attitude, and some training. I still wouldn't want to be blind, but if I had to be, this movie makes me feel like it'd be okay.
So there you have it. Absolutely see this movie at your earliest convience, if you're in the mood for something dramatic and/or romantic.
I'll be back in another day or two for the final Blind People movie.
While Legionnaire may have been the most pleasant surprise thus far of the Film Themantics films, A Patch of Blue is by far my favorite. I can't tell you how much I fell in love with these characters! The disheartening thing about sequels and remakes is that they're so infrequently a by-product of such wonderfully compelling origin material. If ever a movie could be remade and updated for modern sensibilities (recast Poitier's role as an Arab American and BANG we're off!), this is it. And this is definitely a film that begs the question, "What happened next?" Which is really the hallmark of great, compelling drama. But once again I'm getting ahead of myself. The basic plot:
Blind Selina (Golden Globe winner Elizabeth Hartman) has been sheltered her whole life by her abusive mother Roseanne and her drunken grandfather Old Pa. Selina almost never leaves the tiny, shabby apartment that she shares with her mother and grandfather, but one day she decides to take her work (stringing together bead necklaces) to a nearby park. A neighbor took her on a walk there recently and Selina has decided that she'd like to go again. At the park, Selina discovers the joy of sitting under a tree but panics when a caterpillar crawls into her shirt. Passerby Gordon (Poitier) stops to help Selina out with the caterpillar and the two strike up a conversation. Selina's shy of strangers but Gordon's a very friendly guy. Gordon accidentally knocks over Selina's box of beads and stays behind to help her clean them up. Slowly the movie develops the friendship between Selina and Gordon, who meet several times in the park. Gordon teaches Selina several techniques to manage her blindness, amazed that nobody has taught her this before now. For her part, Selina is an engaging and delightful student, taking joy in each new discovery. Unfortunately Roseanne senses that something is afoot with her daughter and makes efforts to prevent Selina's park meetings. Old Pa isn't much help, leaving Selina alone in the park until well after dark. Eventually Gordon brings Selina to his apartment, where she reveals two startling facts: 1) she used to have a friend named Pearl but Roseanne forbade their friendship upon learning that Pearl was black and 2) she was raped by a gentleman caller of Roseanne's. The heartbreaking stories strengthen Gordon's resolve to help Selina become independent. Selina begins to fall in love with Gordon, whose own feelings are uncertain and challenged by Gordon's classicist brother Mark. Roseanne spies the pair from afar one afternoon and treats Selina horribly when she returns home. The following day Roseanne tells Selina that they're going to move in with a friend of Roseanne's to start a "business", which the movie strongly hints is an underground brothel. Desperate, Selina strikes out on her own to find Gordon. Gordon and Selina come together in the park and he tells her that he's enrolled her in a school for the blind. Relieved that she can escape Roseanne but saddened that she will have to leave Gordon behind, Selina accepts the offer. Roseanne finds the couple in the park and causes a huge scene. To Roseanne's surprise, everyone in the park sees her bigotry and abuse for what they are and shield the couple from Roseanne's further abuse. That night, Selina and Gordon wait for the bus that will take her away. Selina tells Gordon that she loves him and wants to be married to him. Gordon begins to tell her that he's black, but Selina beats him to it and tells him that she knows. Gordon is struck that Selina still loves him, but the bus arrives to take her to the school. They part, Gordon vowing to see her at the school but leaving the audience wondering if that will actually happen once Selina begins to live for herself.
As I said, A Patch of Blue is my favorite of the films I've watched thus far for this blog. The story is a simple romantic drama whose complications are enormous but entirely relatable. And the characters are absolutely lovely. I think if you don't fall in love with either or both of the leads, you have a heart of stone. It would be easy to see Selina as a pitiful victim if it weren't for her spirit, her indominatable will. It's truly rewarding to see her realize, thanks to Gordon, that her guardians have been completely abusing her and that she doesn't have to rely on others for everything. Again, it would be easy to see Selina as ONLY a victim and thus less dramatically compelling, but the movie makes it very clear that she was only victimized out of ignorance. And for as much as she's been infantilized by her guardians and her condition, Selina clearly has a young woman's desires. Not just sexual desires, but freedom and autonomy. I can't imagine having to face the kind of life Selina faced, and the fact that she's such a kind-hearted, big-spirited girl despite her crummy life makes her absolutely lovable to me. Then there's Gordon. Characters like Gordon give me hope for the world and hope for myself. It's possible to be kind to others and want better for them without having ulterior motives. One of the great tensions in this film is the fact that Gordon wants Selina to have a better life and he feels like Selina getting involved with him would just make things worse for her. He makes the argument to his brother, and later to Selina, that he wants her to be her own person before he even begins to think about what he feels for her. THAT, my friends, is chivalry. THAT is the way that a real man should act. My ideal for masculine behavior is 100% exhibited by Sidney Poitier in this film. Gordon is kind, he's suave in a goofy but charming manner, he's concerned with bettering others before himself... he's everything that I would like to be as a male of the species. I completely fell in love with these characters, and every time their friendship/relationship was threatened I got incredibly worked up. Shelley Winters does a fantastic job of playing the abusive mother, but she really earned my hatred because of the way writer-director Guy Green (and source material writer Elizabeth Kata) wrote the romantic leads. I loved these characters so much I want to see what happened to them. Did Selina learn how to be independent at the school for the blind? Did she learn a trade? Did Gordon visit her? Did she make blind friends and begin to distance herself from Gordon? Even the saddest possibilities would be thrilling to me as long as I got to spend more time with these two characters. I wanted them to be real people, a real couple that I could hang out with and befriend. THAT's how much I loved these characters.
This isn't to say that the film is only good because of the character work. It's also a very "clean" story with a clear protagonist, a clear antagonist, clear desires, and clear obstacles. Nothing in the story is obfuscated by the director's artistic "vision" or by some ham-fisted metaphor. All of the tension is real/organic and obstacles arise naturally from one scene to the next as a result of actions taken in the prior scene. And those tensions become greater and greater, raising the stakes until the climactic confrontation in the park. From a structural writing POV, this is damn near perfect. As well, though Selina is a slightly "Cinderella" character and her isolation is hard to fathom in the age of overprotective parents and equally overprotective society, the situation in the film feels real. It's all too easy to imagine that a blind girl could be treated the way that Selina is treated, particularly in a large city. It's also worth mentioning the technical elements of the film. In particular, there's a poetry to the way that the film is shot and scored, giving the proceedings a romantic edge that serves to heighten the burgeoning love Selina has for her independence and for Gordon. It's subtle, but present, which is the way these things should be done. You should notice the technical flourishes when they serve the means of the story, not when they attempt to be ends of themselves. The visual poetry isn't a surprise considering that, according to the DVD case, Green received an Oscar for cinematography on 1946's Great Expectations.
I wanted to talk briefly about an interesting reaction I had watching the film. I found myself a great deal more shaken by the neglect and abuse that Selina suffers in A Patch of Blue than I did by the rapes in Blindness. I thought about this for a while and I believe that because A Patch of Blue is focused more on character development and realism, I cared more about what happened to Selina. In Blindness, the rapes felt like the visualization/realization of a message/belief about human behavior and thus I was left relatively unaffected on an emotional level. It's strange to say, but the rapes in that film felt far more abstract and intellectualized than the neglect and abuse in this film, which I felt more personally.
As usual, here are some random thoughts I had while watching:
- Music by Jerry Goldsmith. Holy shit, that dude has been around FOREVER!
- So acting like an out-and-out bitch got Winters an Oscar? She might as well twirl a moustache.
- hahahaha... Selina is doing that thing to Gordon that I hate: when you're trying to walk away from someone and they just keep calling you back. Finish your damn thought, Selina!
- Oh man, this is kinda heart-breaking. This poor girl hasn't been told ANYTHING?
- Fantastic job of making her so sympathetic. Give your protagonist HUGE hurdles right away and you engender sympathy right away.
- There is something crazy fascinating and great about watching someone getting empowered.
- Is the dog named Scumdog??? Weird.
- Poitier is a charming motherfucker.
- Oh geez, and he's singing now. I LOVE THESE TWO!!!!!
- Holy fuck!!! The movie just dropped a huge rape-bomb on me. Jeez, that hurt.
- Oh man... you just know that music box is gonna get tossed against a wall when Roseanne finds it. (10 seconds later) OH! Smart girl! Bury that treasure!
- Evil bitch Roseanne!!! Man, I don't know if being a shitty person is hard acting work, but if it is then Winters earned that Oscar.
- hahahaha... wow, Selina getting pissed and cursing is kinda awesome.
- Nice! Class prejudice from Mark. There's some great interplay going on with Mark and Gordon.
- Ah dammit, Selina's gonna run into Roseanne, I just know it. RUN, girl, RUN!!!!
- This movie is damn amazing. That Selina's grinning in the middle of getting run down because she realizes that Gordon is black and has been too afraid to tell her is just fabulous. That grin in general, the satisfied "fuck you, mom, I love him anyway" grin, is priceless.
- Don't you dare ruin this park moment, Roseanne, you horrible witch.
- This is a beautiful movie.
Regarding the theme, I think this movie did a good job of being relevant. It really shows you how difficult those initial steps into independence can be for a blind person. It also forwards the notion that blindness is a condition that CAN be overcome with willpower, a positive attitude, and some training. I still wouldn't want to be blind, but if I had to be, this movie makes me feel like it'd be okay.
So there you have it. Absolutely see this movie at your earliest convience, if you're in the mood for something dramatic and/or romantic.
I'll be back in another day or two for the final Blind People movie.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Blind People Movie #2: Blindness
Apologies, all. This review is a few days later than it should have been, mostly because I had a good weekend and didn't want to spoil it by watching the reputedly grim film of today's blog post. Having now watched Blindness, I probably should have just sucked it up and reviewed the film over the weekend. The film definitely has its share of grim moments, but mostly it's just boring. Looooong and boooooring. But first: the quickie plot synopsis.
Through a series of interesting interconnected first-act scenes, a group of people whose lives touch each other experience the titular phenomenon of white-blindness. White-blindness is characterized by the inability to see anything but a bright blank whiteness, which differs from the typical "blackness" of standard blindness. Oh, also, it seems that this white-blindness is infectious and spreads quickly to the core group of characters. These characters include Mark Ruffalo's opthamologist and his wife Julianne Moore, Danny Glover's benign poor old man, a frightened child, a thief, an Asian couple, and call-girl Alice Braga. Some of the characters have names, but I didn't really catch them. Strangely, Julianne Moore's character seems immune, but she'd rather be quarantined with her husband and take the chance of catching the disease than leave him alone. Our group is quarantined in an abandoned asylum by a frightened military who leaves the group's survival largely to chance. Moore struggles to hold the place together as the only sighted person, but it becomes harder and harder as more and more people fall victim to the disease. Eventually the entire asylum is filled with these victims, including a block of sociopaths lead by Gael Garcia Bernal. A few people try to get answers from the military guards but are shot down by the careless soldiers. Inside, Bernal has a gun and a blind friend whose birth-blindness puts them at an advantage over the newly-blinded populace. Bernal gains control over the food supply to the asylum and sets up a dictatorship wherein only those who can pay are allowed to eat. Moore resists making a move on Bernal out of fear that he will hurt others to get his way. Meanwhile, Ruffalo is tired of his wife taking care of him "like my mother" and has a quickie fling with Braga's call-girl. Eventually everyone runs out of goods to trade for food, so Bernal and his blind friend (who is quite an asshole, it turns out) decide that food will now cost sex from the female population. During one of these rapes, a girl is brutally murdered and the women, lead by Moore, decide that it's time to fight back against Bernal. Moore personally performs the assassination, ceasing to care if a few innocents are shot so long as he is taken out of power and his people are thrown into disarray. One of the women sets the evil block on fire, which spreads to the entire facility and forces everyone outside. Fortunately the military guards are now gone. Unfortunately this is because EVERYONE has caught the white-blindness. Our group wanders NYC trying to find food and shelter. Moore locates a locked grocery store stockroom and our group finds its way to Moore and Ruffalo's house, even picking up a dog along the way. As they begin to settle in and appreciate the sense of community and friendship they have discovered, the husband of the Asian couple regains his sight, giving everyone hope that perhaps they, too, will recover.
Yeah, I said "quickie plot synopsis", right? This is brevity in comparison with the actual film. One of the reasons this movie feels so long is that it's an adaptation of a novel, and like so many of its brethren the plot is entirely episodic to squeeze in as much material as possible. Don McKellar was the writer on this, and I have to believe that the guy has never studied the art of adaptation. You have to choose what works about the source material and build from there, not hand-pick a series of moments that you think are especially effective. Many events occur in this film, but because the cast is borderline ensemble and director Fernando Meirelles chooses to spend long stretches on visual "artistry", none of the events carry much impact and they are connected by the loosest of loose through-lines. Yes, horrible shit happens to essentially decent people, but it doesn't feel like it means anything. It's like the movie just wants to remind you that human beings can be horrible creatures. Oh, also, cinematography is purty. It makes the narrative so long and so boring that I found myself struggling to continue with the proceedings. Which isn't to say that every scene was worthless. Far from it.
What really works in Blindness are the moments between characters. The breakdown and rebuilding of the central relationship between Moore and Ruffalo is fascinating stuff. You get a sense in the early scenes that she's not entirely happy with the marriage. There's a tension between Moore and Ruffalo that feels like early-middle-age marital boredom. He's obsessed with his career and she doesn't appear to have her own, leaving her with far too much free time. What's great is that Ruffalo isn't a typical career-obsessed character who is unaware of his wife or his own emotional needs. In fact, Ruffalo seems just as frustrated as Moore by whatever blockage exists between them. The Asian couple experiences some classic Jin-Sun tension (yes, I love Lost, shut up) as he expects her to obey and she wants to help her fellow victims (this is especially poignant when she volunteers for the rape duty). Braga gets involved in Moore and Ruffalo's marriage in a triangle that eventually strengthens the marriage without sacrificing the audience's sympathy for Braga. As long as I'm mentioning the character dynamics, it's worth mentioning that the performances, with a few exceptions, are top-notch. Everyone fills their role with aplomb, giving characters a personality beyond what occurs on-screen. This might not have been possible without such fantastic casting. Ruffalo and Moore, for example, are critically-acclaimed actors in their own right, but they also carry a certain amount of audience baggage with them that the film exploits for the better. The only disappointment here is Danny Glover, whose line reads are strangely amateurish. This may be the fault of the script or the direction, however, as I've seen Glover perform strongly in other roles. In any case, the character dynamics and the performances thereof are fantastic and truly the only reason I was able to make it through the plodding, episodic, essentially meaningless plot.
As long as I'm ending that praise on a complaint, I want to register now my utter loathing of high-minded technical "artistry" at the expense of story. Meirelles really pissed me off, frankly. We give up crucial moments that could be used to forward a narrative for intricately-staged and beautifully-filmed visual poetry. Is it great to look at? Sure. Blindness is a visually stunning film. I watched a DVD copy but I'll bet the Blu-Ray is jaw-dropping. I don't want to take away from the man's ability to create a tableau that takes the breath away. But. Who gives a shit if the tableau doesn't go anywhere? Further, in a film that is about how unfortunately beholden we are as a society to our visual sense, it strikes me as laughable that so much emphasis is on the visual elements. When you take away the ability to see, all the other senses are necessarily heightened. If your narrative is concerned with the removal of sight, wouldn't it be more poetic and appropriate for the visuals to be the least interesting element? Wouldn't you want to heighten the narrative itself? And for the love of god, can "artsy" directors please, please, please stop using Philip Glass-style minimalist tinkly piano to evoke a sense of the dramatic? You just call attention to yourself, like you desperately want me to think your movie is artsy and important and meaningful. All it does is make me want to kick you in the beret-wearing teeth.
Whoo. Okay, that was a bit of hostility. Sorry about that. As before, here are some random thoughts:
Through a series of interesting interconnected first-act scenes, a group of people whose lives touch each other experience the titular phenomenon of white-blindness. White-blindness is characterized by the inability to see anything but a bright blank whiteness, which differs from the typical "blackness" of standard blindness. Oh, also, it seems that this white-blindness is infectious and spreads quickly to the core group of characters. These characters include Mark Ruffalo's opthamologist and his wife Julianne Moore, Danny Glover's benign poor old man, a frightened child, a thief, an Asian couple, and call-girl Alice Braga. Some of the characters have names, but I didn't really catch them. Strangely, Julianne Moore's character seems immune, but she'd rather be quarantined with her husband and take the chance of catching the disease than leave him alone. Our group is quarantined in an abandoned asylum by a frightened military who leaves the group's survival largely to chance. Moore struggles to hold the place together as the only sighted person, but it becomes harder and harder as more and more people fall victim to the disease. Eventually the entire asylum is filled with these victims, including a block of sociopaths lead by Gael Garcia Bernal. A few people try to get answers from the military guards but are shot down by the careless soldiers. Inside, Bernal has a gun and a blind friend whose birth-blindness puts them at an advantage over the newly-blinded populace. Bernal gains control over the food supply to the asylum and sets up a dictatorship wherein only those who can pay are allowed to eat. Moore resists making a move on Bernal out of fear that he will hurt others to get his way. Meanwhile, Ruffalo is tired of his wife taking care of him "like my mother" and has a quickie fling with Braga's call-girl. Eventually everyone runs out of goods to trade for food, so Bernal and his blind friend (who is quite an asshole, it turns out) decide that food will now cost sex from the female population. During one of these rapes, a girl is brutally murdered and the women, lead by Moore, decide that it's time to fight back against Bernal. Moore personally performs the assassination, ceasing to care if a few innocents are shot so long as he is taken out of power and his people are thrown into disarray. One of the women sets the evil block on fire, which spreads to the entire facility and forces everyone outside. Fortunately the military guards are now gone. Unfortunately this is because EVERYONE has caught the white-blindness. Our group wanders NYC trying to find food and shelter. Moore locates a locked grocery store stockroom and our group finds its way to Moore and Ruffalo's house, even picking up a dog along the way. As they begin to settle in and appreciate the sense of community and friendship they have discovered, the husband of the Asian couple regains his sight, giving everyone hope that perhaps they, too, will recover.
Yeah, I said "quickie plot synopsis", right? This is brevity in comparison with the actual film. One of the reasons this movie feels so long is that it's an adaptation of a novel, and like so many of its brethren the plot is entirely episodic to squeeze in as much material as possible. Don McKellar was the writer on this, and I have to believe that the guy has never studied the art of adaptation. You have to choose what works about the source material and build from there, not hand-pick a series of moments that you think are especially effective. Many events occur in this film, but because the cast is borderline ensemble and director Fernando Meirelles chooses to spend long stretches on visual "artistry", none of the events carry much impact and they are connected by the loosest of loose through-lines. Yes, horrible shit happens to essentially decent people, but it doesn't feel like it means anything. It's like the movie just wants to remind you that human beings can be horrible creatures. Oh, also, cinematography is purty. It makes the narrative so long and so boring that I found myself struggling to continue with the proceedings. Which isn't to say that every scene was worthless. Far from it.
What really works in Blindness are the moments between characters. The breakdown and rebuilding of the central relationship between Moore and Ruffalo is fascinating stuff. You get a sense in the early scenes that she's not entirely happy with the marriage. There's a tension between Moore and Ruffalo that feels like early-middle-age marital boredom. He's obsessed with his career and she doesn't appear to have her own, leaving her with far too much free time. What's great is that Ruffalo isn't a typical career-obsessed character who is unaware of his wife or his own emotional needs. In fact, Ruffalo seems just as frustrated as Moore by whatever blockage exists between them. The Asian couple experiences some classic Jin-Sun tension (yes, I love Lost, shut up) as he expects her to obey and she wants to help her fellow victims (this is especially poignant when she volunteers for the rape duty). Braga gets involved in Moore and Ruffalo's marriage in a triangle that eventually strengthens the marriage without sacrificing the audience's sympathy for Braga. As long as I'm mentioning the character dynamics, it's worth mentioning that the performances, with a few exceptions, are top-notch. Everyone fills their role with aplomb, giving characters a personality beyond what occurs on-screen. This might not have been possible without such fantastic casting. Ruffalo and Moore, for example, are critically-acclaimed actors in their own right, but they also carry a certain amount of audience baggage with them that the film exploits for the better. The only disappointment here is Danny Glover, whose line reads are strangely amateurish. This may be the fault of the script or the direction, however, as I've seen Glover perform strongly in other roles. In any case, the character dynamics and the performances thereof are fantastic and truly the only reason I was able to make it through the plodding, episodic, essentially meaningless plot.
As long as I'm ending that praise on a complaint, I want to register now my utter loathing of high-minded technical "artistry" at the expense of story. Meirelles really pissed me off, frankly. We give up crucial moments that could be used to forward a narrative for intricately-staged and beautifully-filmed visual poetry. Is it great to look at? Sure. Blindness is a visually stunning film. I watched a DVD copy but I'll bet the Blu-Ray is jaw-dropping. I don't want to take away from the man's ability to create a tableau that takes the breath away. But. Who gives a shit if the tableau doesn't go anywhere? Further, in a film that is about how unfortunately beholden we are as a society to our visual sense, it strikes me as laughable that so much emphasis is on the visual elements. When you take away the ability to see, all the other senses are necessarily heightened. If your narrative is concerned with the removal of sight, wouldn't it be more poetic and appropriate for the visuals to be the least interesting element? Wouldn't you want to heighten the narrative itself? And for the love of god, can "artsy" directors please, please, please stop using Philip Glass-style minimalist tinkly piano to evoke a sense of the dramatic? You just call attention to yourself, like you desperately want me to think your movie is artsy and important and meaningful. All it does is make me want to kick you in the beret-wearing teeth.
Whoo. Okay, that was a bit of hostility. Sorry about that. As before, here are some random thoughts:
- Clever menu: the choices are blurred, you have to select them to make them visible
- Interesting how people are trying to be helpful to the Japanese guy. This is a hopeful little message.
- The japanese couple has an AWESOME apartment!
- The switching focus between subplots is good, keeping me on my toes and interested
- Love Ruffalo's immediate reaction to Moore - "I'm infected, get away from me!" Great way to get the audience on his side. Also great to show him calling his colleagues right away, approaching the problem scientifically.
- Ruffalo breaking up the blind-dude fight... oh man, that was unintentionally hilarious! The fight is obviously, painfully staged. Suddenly the movie gets silly with speeches and over the top melodramatics.
- Not sure I get why these people were just thrown into this abandoned asylum. I get paranoia, but this is actually pretty cruel. Unbelievably so.
- Why is everything pushed up to 11? It's just way too intense. It feels like freshman acting class doing The World's Screamiest/Cryingest Monologues
- Holy shit... Julianne Moore is freckley!
- Fuck. This is all writing to theme. I refuse to believe this situation is at all realistic. I don't buy it.
- Almost an hour in, not really sure where the story is going.
- The born blind guy as more aware of survival techniques is clever.
- 65 minutes in. I'm fucking boooooored.
- Why the fuck aren't you letting us hear what Moore is saying to the hooker?
- The women walking in a row, holding shoulders is a great visual! Spooky as hell.
- Wow! The dynamic change with Moore taking charge was necessary. Was starting to feel very static.
(Two or three scenes later) What was the fucking point of changing the dynamic and empowering Moore if the fire thing is just going to take away that momentum? What the fuck is this movie's through-line?
- Story logic hole - if there's at least one blind guy who can help out, why aren't there more? Also, are all naturally blind people inherently evil assholes?
- So many utilities are automated, I find it hard to believe that they would break down this way. No water? No electricity? I just don't buy it.
- That said, the "gathering rain for water" scene is beautiful.
- It's like every few sequences is the start of an entirely new story. Can't they just pick one and tell it?
- Okay? I guess that was an ending?
Does the movie address the theme? Well, yeah. It's kinda the central conceit. Though to be fair, it's not really about blindness but more about how horrible we are to each other and how easily our society can fall apart if one of our basic survival mechanisms is taken away. So.... no, I guess it doesn't really address the theme. Nevermind.
Overall, I think Blindness is a movie to watch if you're interested in cinematography and/or acting. The performances are impressive and the visuals stunning. It's just unfortunate that outside of some pretty stellar character interactions the story leaves so much to be desired.
Until next time!
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Blind People Movie #1: Wait Until Dark
Wait Until Dark is the kind of movie that film lovers watch to feel shitty about the state of modern studio filmmaking. The movie was thoroughly engrossing and I absolutely adored it, but every few scenes I kept shaking my head and saying to myself, "Nobody would make this now." Wait Until Dark is a classic thriller, the kind of story you'd read in an Alfred Hitchcock/Ellery Queen Mystery magazine. It's a slow burn, the tension creaking along on a steady uphill trajectory while the lovable protagonist and the villainous antagonists play a fascinating game of cat-and-mouse. Most studios today don't know what to do with a slow burn thriller, choosing instead to fill the screen with as much flesh and blood as possible, murder or sex every 10 minutes accompanied by a generic orchestral sting. Wait Until Dark is classier by far and peopled by honest-to-goodness ACTORS like Audrey Hepburn and Alan Arkin, not musician-actress hybrids (coughBeyonceObsessedcough) or CW children looking to play grownup (coughCamGigandetRoommatecough). But enough crying about the industry.
The plot of Wait Until Dark is this: Roat (Arkin) is a dangerous heroin dealer and con man whose model wife Lisa has been selling on the side. Lisa arrives in NYC carrying a heroin-stuffed doll but when she discovers that hubby has followed her into town she hands the doll off to Sam, a photographer she met on the plane. Roat locates Lisa's NYC contacts, a crooked cop named Carlino and a con named Mike, and meets them at Sam's apartment so they can try to find the doll and the drugs. Sam turns out to be the husband of Suzie (Hepburn), a woman blinded in a car accident the year prior. Suzie's frustrated by Sam's well-intentioned expectations for her capabilities and by her dependence on others. Complicating matters is neighbor girl Gloria, who helps around the apartment but often takes out her tween frustrations on Suzie. Sam heads out to a photo shoot, leaving Suzie and Gloria alone. After a brief fight that ends in apologies from Gloria and Suzie both, Gloria leaves for the grocery store. Mike comes by the apartment and claims to be an old Marine buddy of Sam's. Suzie is charmed and delighted to meet Mike as Sam doesn't ever talk about his time in the military. Mike, Carlino, and Roat put on an elaborate con (with Mike and Carlino doing Good Cop-Bad Cop while Roat enters in a variety of convincing guises) to locate the doll, but their con backfires as Suzie's more capable than she seems and Gloria slips in to help. Eventually Suzie realizes that even charming Mike is in on the con. She sends Gloria out to get Sam and the police while she plays cat-and-mouse with the cons. The stakes of the game rise and rise until the deadly climax that takes place almost entirely in darkness. Suzie emerges triumphant, though worse for wear, having proved herself more than capable of surviving as a sightless woman.
I'll admit that my contemporary monkey-mind initially had trouble with Wait's slow approach. The movie is structured in a way that introduces the audience to the villains first, waiting until almost a half hour in to let us meet Suzie. In retrospect this was a wise decision as it not only sets up an important tension between the villains but also shows the audience that these guys are dangerous. Hepburn carries with her a certain degree of audience empathy so it isn't as important to see her first, particularly as Suzie's blindness puts us on her side anyway. This slow approach also helps create rising tension, a component sadly lacking in many contemporary horror/thriller films. Contemporary horror/thriller struggles to balance action with the build up to action, resulting in films on the wrong side of either spectrum. So we get the Saw series where every moment is just time between elaborate deaths or House of the Devil where nothing happens at all until the last 5 minutes. By contrast, Wait Until Dark strings the audience along, throwing out tense moments every so often and slowly increasing the risks of the game until our eyes are bugging out of our skulls with wanting to see what happens next. I started this movie skeptical and slumped in my chair but by the end I was literally leaning forward with my face inches from the screen.
The structure wasn't the only element of Wait Until Dark that had me skeptical but eventually won me over completely. Audrey Hepburn's a star, no doubt, but her British accent and attitude are off-putting when Suzie first shows up. Her performance seems awfully mannered, her character melodramatic, and the film uses several "glamour" soft-focus close-ups in that first act. What's really fascinating is how the cinematographer strips away those soft-focus close-ups, the writer motivates the melodrama with dialogue and a relationship with a tween, and Hepburn broadens Suzie's emotional range. It's all done slowly and in such a way that I barely noticed. But I did notice, and I have to believe that it was the intent of the filmmakers to warm us up to Suzie while simultaneously putting her in increasing peril. We come to respect Suzie because we didn't think she was capable of the cunning she later displays, and this cunning also gets her deeper into trouble. The way this movie wins you over is frankly brilliant. But it does require patience, which so many contemporary films and audiences lack. (I know, "Enough bitching about modern film, Newt!" It's just a major element of my reaction.)
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the other standout performances in this film. Alan Arkin is superb as the creepy but oddly charming Roat. Arkin imbues Roat with a constantly working intellect tainted by violent impulses. Roat's dangerous because he's smart and because you never quite know what he's going to do next. There's a sly ruthlessness in Roat that you don't get from small-time con Mike. Speaking of whom, Richard Crenna holds his own in the difficult role of Good Cop. In some ways it's easier to play Roat as he's more broadly villainous. By comparison, Crenna has to win over Hepburn, keep Roat off his back, and not make the audience wonder why he doesn't just sock the poor woman in the face and be done. Crenna gives Mike a soft edge that lets the audience know he means business, but he's not a psychotic like Roat. If Arkin/Roat wasn't so much damn fun, I'd say Crenna's was the best male performance in the film. But Arkin really nails the psycho villain role.
As before, here are some random thoughts I had during the film:
- Lisa (played by 60s model Samantha Jones) is so damn 60s HOT!
- Opening music is weird, uncomfortable. I dig it. Good stuff.
- Wait... at the airport, why could we hear the foley sound but not the dialogue? Was that a choice?
- Cold NYC street - oh my god, that looks AWESOME! Stupid L.A. summer...
- Old-school thug types are fantastic. There's just something respectful and classy about them.
- Arkin looks and sounds like a young Raimi kid! It's so weird!
- Movies didn't care about bad ADR as much back then, did they?
- The tension of how much Suzy can figure out and how the thugs can get away with it is pretty great.
- How much does she know? How much has she figured out? I HAVE TO KNOW!!!
- "How would you like to do something dangerous?" "I'd love it!" Hahahahahahaha.... this is only something you would see in an older film. People today are so sensitive about the safety of children, no movie character on earth could endanger a kid like this now. We need to go back to endangering children in movies.
- Jeez, Audrey, dial it back a scoche. The phone line's cut, not your femoral artery.
- Holy shit!!! This climax in the dark is AWESOME!!!
- After all that, Sam's patronizing "you're doing fine" schtick is some bullshit! Suzie should kick him in the balls and be like, "I know I'm doing fine, you dickweed! I just knifed a motherfucker!!!" Seriously, he said that line and I got furious on Suzie's behalf. "You're doing fine." ..... Go to hell, 60s male chauvanism.
As far as the theme goes, I'd say this was a huge success. The film features a blind person. The central tension relies on the fact that she's blind. Her lack of sight informs her character but doesn't define it. All in all, well done.
Between the limited physical space used in the film, the plot motivator of a handicap, and the emphasis on sight (or lack thereof), Wait Until Dark reminded me a lot of Rear Window, my favorite Hitchcock film. This fondness for Rear Window likely colored my feelings here, but I can objectively state that Wait Until Dark is a fine classic thriller that should please any fan of the genre and will greatly reward those who have the patience.
I have to say that this is a very strong opening to the theme, which is a little worrisome. Hopefully at least one of the remaining three films will come close to the brilliance of Wait Until Dark.
The plot of Wait Until Dark is this: Roat (Arkin) is a dangerous heroin dealer and con man whose model wife Lisa has been selling on the side. Lisa arrives in NYC carrying a heroin-stuffed doll but when she discovers that hubby has followed her into town she hands the doll off to Sam, a photographer she met on the plane. Roat locates Lisa's NYC contacts, a crooked cop named Carlino and a con named Mike, and meets them at Sam's apartment so they can try to find the doll and the drugs. Sam turns out to be the husband of Suzie (Hepburn), a woman blinded in a car accident the year prior. Suzie's frustrated by Sam's well-intentioned expectations for her capabilities and by her dependence on others. Complicating matters is neighbor girl Gloria, who helps around the apartment but often takes out her tween frustrations on Suzie. Sam heads out to a photo shoot, leaving Suzie and Gloria alone. After a brief fight that ends in apologies from Gloria and Suzie both, Gloria leaves for the grocery store. Mike comes by the apartment and claims to be an old Marine buddy of Sam's. Suzie is charmed and delighted to meet Mike as Sam doesn't ever talk about his time in the military. Mike, Carlino, and Roat put on an elaborate con (with Mike and Carlino doing Good Cop-Bad Cop while Roat enters in a variety of convincing guises) to locate the doll, but their con backfires as Suzie's more capable than she seems and Gloria slips in to help. Eventually Suzie realizes that even charming Mike is in on the con. She sends Gloria out to get Sam and the police while she plays cat-and-mouse with the cons. The stakes of the game rise and rise until the deadly climax that takes place almost entirely in darkness. Suzie emerges triumphant, though worse for wear, having proved herself more than capable of surviving as a sightless woman.
I'll admit that my contemporary monkey-mind initially had trouble with Wait's slow approach. The movie is structured in a way that introduces the audience to the villains first, waiting until almost a half hour in to let us meet Suzie. In retrospect this was a wise decision as it not only sets up an important tension between the villains but also shows the audience that these guys are dangerous. Hepburn carries with her a certain degree of audience empathy so it isn't as important to see her first, particularly as Suzie's blindness puts us on her side anyway. This slow approach also helps create rising tension, a component sadly lacking in many contemporary horror/thriller films. Contemporary horror/thriller struggles to balance action with the build up to action, resulting in films on the wrong side of either spectrum. So we get the Saw series where every moment is just time between elaborate deaths or House of the Devil where nothing happens at all until the last 5 minutes. By contrast, Wait Until Dark strings the audience along, throwing out tense moments every so often and slowly increasing the risks of the game until our eyes are bugging out of our skulls with wanting to see what happens next. I started this movie skeptical and slumped in my chair but by the end I was literally leaning forward with my face inches from the screen.
The structure wasn't the only element of Wait Until Dark that had me skeptical but eventually won me over completely. Audrey Hepburn's a star, no doubt, but her British accent and attitude are off-putting when Suzie first shows up. Her performance seems awfully mannered, her character melodramatic, and the film uses several "glamour" soft-focus close-ups in that first act. What's really fascinating is how the cinematographer strips away those soft-focus close-ups, the writer motivates the melodrama with dialogue and a relationship with a tween, and Hepburn broadens Suzie's emotional range. It's all done slowly and in such a way that I barely noticed. But I did notice, and I have to believe that it was the intent of the filmmakers to warm us up to Suzie while simultaneously putting her in increasing peril. We come to respect Suzie because we didn't think she was capable of the cunning she later displays, and this cunning also gets her deeper into trouble. The way this movie wins you over is frankly brilliant. But it does require patience, which so many contemporary films and audiences lack. (I know, "Enough bitching about modern film, Newt!" It's just a major element of my reaction.)
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the other standout performances in this film. Alan Arkin is superb as the creepy but oddly charming Roat. Arkin imbues Roat with a constantly working intellect tainted by violent impulses. Roat's dangerous because he's smart and because you never quite know what he's going to do next. There's a sly ruthlessness in Roat that you don't get from small-time con Mike. Speaking of whom, Richard Crenna holds his own in the difficult role of Good Cop. In some ways it's easier to play Roat as he's more broadly villainous. By comparison, Crenna has to win over Hepburn, keep Roat off his back, and not make the audience wonder why he doesn't just sock the poor woman in the face and be done. Crenna gives Mike a soft edge that lets the audience know he means business, but he's not a psychotic like Roat. If Arkin/Roat wasn't so much damn fun, I'd say Crenna's was the best male performance in the film. But Arkin really nails the psycho villain role.
As before, here are some random thoughts I had during the film:
- Lisa (played by 60s model Samantha Jones) is so damn 60s HOT!
- Opening music is weird, uncomfortable. I dig it. Good stuff.
- Wait... at the airport, why could we hear the foley sound but not the dialogue? Was that a choice?
- Cold NYC street - oh my god, that looks AWESOME! Stupid L.A. summer...
- Old-school thug types are fantastic. There's just something respectful and classy about them.
- Arkin looks and sounds like a young Raimi kid! It's so weird!
- Movies didn't care about bad ADR as much back then, did they?
- The tension of how much Suzy can figure out and how the thugs can get away with it is pretty great.
- How much does she know? How much has she figured out? I HAVE TO KNOW!!!
- "How would you like to do something dangerous?" "I'd love it!" Hahahahahahaha.... this is only something you would see in an older film. People today are so sensitive about the safety of children, no movie character on earth could endanger a kid like this now. We need to go back to endangering children in movies.
- Jeez, Audrey, dial it back a scoche. The phone line's cut, not your femoral artery.
- Holy shit!!! This climax in the dark is AWESOME!!!
- After all that, Sam's patronizing "you're doing fine" schtick is some bullshit! Suzie should kick him in the balls and be like, "I know I'm doing fine, you dickweed! I just knifed a motherfucker!!!" Seriously, he said that line and I got furious on Suzie's behalf. "You're doing fine." ..... Go to hell, 60s male chauvanism.
As far as the theme goes, I'd say this was a huge success. The film features a blind person. The central tension relies on the fact that she's blind. Her lack of sight informs her character but doesn't define it. All in all, well done.
Between the limited physical space used in the film, the plot motivator of a handicap, and the emphasis on sight (or lack thereof), Wait Until Dark reminded me a lot of Rear Window, my favorite Hitchcock film. This fondness for Rear Window likely colored my feelings here, but I can objectively state that Wait Until Dark is a fine classic thriller that should please any fan of the genre and will greatly reward those who have the patience.
I have to say that this is a very strong opening to the theme, which is a little worrisome. Hopefully at least one of the remaining three films will come close to the brilliance of Wait Until Dark.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Theme the Second: Blind People!!!
Having gratefully moved on from the theme of Foreign Legion, I walked into Mr. X's office and picked a second theme from the mystical Hat of Themes(!). I handed Mr. X the little slip of paper and he was waaaay too excited about the result. I don't know why he reacted this way, but I'm glad he was thrilled to see that this month's theme is: Blind People.
If you check Wikipedia, there's a whole lot of information on "blindness". When I say "whole lot of information" I mean "more information than I feel like combing through on a Wednesday night when I could be reading A Storm of Swords, the third book of the Song of Ice & Fire series." I realize that this is an awfully long sentiment to have meant considering the brevity of the prior quoted sentiment, but that's the set up of the joke, stupid. Besides, who cares about facts or research?
In truth, I did look through the research a little bit. And holy shit, was that depressing! I don't recommend researching blindness. The causes are varied, but the most common is cataracts. Which are themselves caused by a host of factors. The terrible part is that cataracts are often caused by simple bacterial infections or treatable diseases, but the majority of the world goes largely untreated for these diseases and infections due to the cost of medical care. Yep, that's right, the number one reason that people go blind in the world is because they can't afford to NOT be blind.
As most people know, there are degrees of blindness. Legal blindness, partial blindness, color blindness (though I don't think that counts for the theme) and of course Hysterical Blindness, which is a condition wherein every woman you meet is both incredibly attractive and simultaneously odd-looking, like Juliette Lewis and Uma Thurman.
There are many ways to adapt to blindness, such as walking sticks and seeing-eye dogs. I find seeing-eye dogs fascinating. I love dogs, but the idea of trusting my health and well-being to an animal that hides from thunder doesn't instill much confidence. To be fair, thunder is scary. I've also always thought it would be interesting to see what other animals might serve this purpose. A seeing-eye lemur? Or how about a seeing-eye fish that you have to drag along with you in an IV bag? I know that wouldn't help at all, but the image of a goldfish in an IV bag strapped to a blind guy wandering into an intersection is just too goddam funny for me to let go. But seriously, guide dogs are really fascinating. The other fascinating common adaptation to blindness is tactile adaptation. These are things like Braille books and refreshable Braille computer displays. That's really neat! ...... Yep, all I have to say about that is "really neat".
So. We got any famous blind people? Yes, yes we do. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the majority of blind people of note are musicians. Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder spring immediately to mind, and there are several blues musicians listed as well. Jeff Healey, perhaps best known for his enormous role in the Swayze classic Road House, had his eyes removed due to cancer when he was 8 months old! One of the more interesting famous blind people is Dana Elcar, who played Peter Thornton on McGuyver. I thought I remembered a character going blind, but as a kid I figured it was part of the show. Turns out I was wrong! Apparently Elcar was going blind in real life and everyone decided it would be best to just make it part of the show. Elcar retired from acting in a stage performance of Waiting for Godot, which I have to believe is made more interesting when one of the guys is blind.
Sometimes people ask those "would you rather" questions, and a common question is "Would you rather be blind or deaf?" Personally, I would rather be deaf. Blindness would be a problem for me moreso than deafness because so much of what I enjoy in life is visual. Obviously film would be much harder to appreciate. A story is a story is a story and I'll never be so beholden to the image that I'll disregard the power of narrative, but one of the reasons film is my storytelling vehicle of choice is the visceral effect that visual storytelling has on people. You can tell me a child is crying, and I can hear the child's sobs, but to see the face of misery on that kid is what moves me most. I'm also quite fond of beautiful women. If I ever became rich and/or powerful, the easiest way to ensure my downfall would be a pretty face. I've been an idiot and made an utter ass of myself for the sake of a beautiful woman on at least a dozen occasions. So I guess being blind would help me in a way. Still, it's a weakness I enjoy, so screw that.
I guess that's all I have to say about Blind People. Tune in later this week for my first Blind People review: the 1967 suspense film Wait Until Dark. It stars Audrey Hepburn and Alan Arkin, which is exciting. And the back of the DVD case has me thinking that this might be one of those awesome slow-burn horror gems that I've just managed to overlook.*
*I almost published this blog post without realizing that I'd made a pun here. Yes, that's right, sometimes my wordplay is completely unintentional and I'm not nearly as clever as I'd have you believe.
If you check Wikipedia, there's a whole lot of information on "blindness". When I say "whole lot of information" I mean "more information than I feel like combing through on a Wednesday night when I could be reading A Storm of Swords, the third book of the Song of Ice & Fire series." I realize that this is an awfully long sentiment to have meant considering the brevity of the prior quoted sentiment, but that's the set up of the joke, stupid. Besides, who cares about facts or research?
In truth, I did look through the research a little bit. And holy shit, was that depressing! I don't recommend researching blindness. The causes are varied, but the most common is cataracts. Which are themselves caused by a host of factors. The terrible part is that cataracts are often caused by simple bacterial infections or treatable diseases, but the majority of the world goes largely untreated for these diseases and infections due to the cost of medical care. Yep, that's right, the number one reason that people go blind in the world is because they can't afford to NOT be blind.
As most people know, there are degrees of blindness. Legal blindness, partial blindness, color blindness (though I don't think that counts for the theme) and of course Hysterical Blindness, which is a condition wherein every woman you meet is both incredibly attractive and simultaneously odd-looking, like Juliette Lewis and Uma Thurman.
There are many ways to adapt to blindness, such as walking sticks and seeing-eye dogs. I find seeing-eye dogs fascinating. I love dogs, but the idea of trusting my health and well-being to an animal that hides from thunder doesn't instill much confidence. To be fair, thunder is scary. I've also always thought it would be interesting to see what other animals might serve this purpose. A seeing-eye lemur? Or how about a seeing-eye fish that you have to drag along with you in an IV bag? I know that wouldn't help at all, but the image of a goldfish in an IV bag strapped to a blind guy wandering into an intersection is just too goddam funny for me to let go. But seriously, guide dogs are really fascinating. The other fascinating common adaptation to blindness is tactile adaptation. These are things like Braille books and refreshable Braille computer displays. That's really neat! ...... Yep, all I have to say about that is "really neat".
So. We got any famous blind people? Yes, yes we do. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the majority of blind people of note are musicians. Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder spring immediately to mind, and there are several blues musicians listed as well. Jeff Healey, perhaps best known for his enormous role in the Swayze classic Road House, had his eyes removed due to cancer when he was 8 months old! One of the more interesting famous blind people is Dana Elcar, who played Peter Thornton on McGuyver. I thought I remembered a character going blind, but as a kid I figured it was part of the show. Turns out I was wrong! Apparently Elcar was going blind in real life and everyone decided it would be best to just make it part of the show. Elcar retired from acting in a stage performance of Waiting for Godot, which I have to believe is made more interesting when one of the guys is blind.
Sometimes people ask those "would you rather" questions, and a common question is "Would you rather be blind or deaf?" Personally, I would rather be deaf. Blindness would be a problem for me moreso than deafness because so much of what I enjoy in life is visual. Obviously film would be much harder to appreciate. A story is a story is a story and I'll never be so beholden to the image that I'll disregard the power of narrative, but one of the reasons film is my storytelling vehicle of choice is the visceral effect that visual storytelling has on people. You can tell me a child is crying, and I can hear the child's sobs, but to see the face of misery on that kid is what moves me most. I'm also quite fond of beautiful women. If I ever became rich and/or powerful, the easiest way to ensure my downfall would be a pretty face. I've been an idiot and made an utter ass of myself for the sake of a beautiful woman on at least a dozen occasions. So I guess being blind would help me in a way. Still, it's a weakness I enjoy, so screw that.
I guess that's all I have to say about Blind People. Tune in later this week for my first Blind People review: the 1967 suspense film Wait Until Dark. It stars Audrey Hepburn and Alan Arkin, which is exciting. And the back of the DVD case has me thinking that this might be one of those awesome slow-burn horror gems that I've just managed to overlook.*
*I almost published this blog post without realizing that I'd made a pun here. Yes, that's right, sometimes my wordplay is completely unintentional and I'm not nearly as clever as I'd have you believe.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
4th and Final Foreign Legion - March or Die
Hey again folks. This week marks the final viewing of the Foreign-Legion-themed films and after today's clunker, the 1977 British March or Die, that's a huge relief. I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised by the first two entries in this theme, but the latter two have been tough to slog through. I'm just happy to be done with the Foreign Legion general plot setup, frankly.
It's worth noting that this film is produced by two names of interest. The first is Jerry Bruckheimer. Yes, that's right, THAT Jerry Bruckheimer. Which is funny considering that the movie is largely sans 'splosions until the final 20 or so minutes, and then all fireball-y hell breaks loose. The second is Lew Grade, AKA Lord Grade AKA Low Grade. Lew was known primarily as a British TV producer, giving us some great TV from across the pond including the sci-fi marionette shows of Gerry Anderson and the Patrick McGoohan cult classic The Prisoner. But more personally relevant, and more disappointing given today's blech film, Lew was instrumental in bringing the Muppet Show to life. CBS was the only network willing to put the Muppets on the air and their requirement from Jim Henson was that he had to get someone else to cover production costs. Lew, having seen the Muppets in action on a TV special and already familiar with the entertainment potential of puppetry via the Anderson Marionation, graciously gave Jim and the gang a home at his production studios in England.
I say March or Die is blech, but it's more disappointing than bad. When Mr. X handed me the DVD I was baffled. Gene Hackman, Catherine Deneuve, and Max Von Sydow in a movie that I'd never heard of? The DVD case only added to the confusion. The packaging is cheap and frankly pretty crappola, produced by a company called WHAM! USA Still, I've seen great movies in cheap packaging produced by no-name companies, and given the cast I had faith. Maybe this was even a hidden gem! Whoo, was that not the case...
Here's the basic plot rundown: A credit scroll tells us that the Foreign Legion served as the French front line in WWI. Gene Hackman is Major Foster, an American legionnaire returning from the front lines of WWI. Foster's cynical and weary, having witnessed his troops dwindle from 8000 to 200. While Foster drinks, we meet gypsy thief Marco, who flees arrest on the docks by impromptu signing up with the Legion. We also meet Marco's soon-to-be buddies: musician Top Hat, would-be boy adventurer Hastings, and Russian ex-bodyguard Ivan. Foster is brought into Legion headquarters and told that he must dispatch a troop of Legionnaires to Morroco in hopes of shutting down Arab resistance to French rule as well as protecting Max Von Sydow's archaeology team as they dig up a potential queen's tomb. On the boat to Morroco, Marco charms widow Catherine Deneuve, much to Foster's bemused chagrin. Marco and Foster begin a father-son relationship that will last the entire movie. The legionnaires board a train for their outpost only to be stopped by Ian Holm's El Krim, leader of the Arabs who have kidnapped Deneuve's archaeologist father and interrupted the prior dig. El Krim and Foster know each other and even treat one another with grudging respect, but El Krim warns Foster: anyone desecrating Arab land must die. Foster is too much the soldier and continues on his way despite his better judgment. The men arrive at the fort and are trained with varying degrees of success. Deneuve has a tryst with Foster to keep Marco from loving her. Foster treats the men with equal measures of harshness and kindness. Major characters die for one reason or another. The troop travels to the dig site. Von Sydow finds the treasure he was seeking, which Foster offers to El Krim as a peace offering. El Krim, however, has used Foster and the French as an excuse to unite the Arab tribes and the dig site is overrun with Arabs. More major characters die. Despite an offer from Deneuve to travel back to France with her, Marco returns to the fort in Morroco to become a Legion trainer.
The plot sounds pretty similar to what we've seen before, yeah? So why did I vehemently dislike this movie?
First, this may have something to do with the DVD copy, but the movie looked awful. It looked like it was shot on the dirtiest film stock they could find and lit by a book light. A bar scene in the second act was so dimly lit I could barely make out who was who. This may have been done on purpose to recreate the low-light feel of a bar without electricity, but I'll sacrifice realism for being able to, ya know, SEE the characters any day. But I'll admit that it's hard to tell if this is the fault of the filmmakers or just a shitty DVD transfer. If this was the only visual weakness I'd be a lot more convinced of the transfer excuse. But there are also a number of really awful shots in the film. At least 50% of the close-ups in this movie are strangely framed, edited without much thought to context, and acted like the performer was just flashed in the face by several 1000-watt bulbs after downing a full bottle of Nyquil. These shots are so strange and off-putting! Several action scenes, particularly the fight on the boat, are executed in a way that makes me think they saved all of their fight choreography for the last 20 minutes. It's slow and over-choreographed and just looks awful. Visually, this movie did nothing for me.
Visuals aside, the story of March or Die is mediocre at best. You're never sure of the protagonist. Marco is an obvious contender, but then so is Foster. You could argue that there's a Heat-esque shifting pro/ant-agonist dynamic between Marco and Foster, but unlike that Michael Mann masterpiece neither character is given much of a compelling arch. Marco is a clever schemer and remains so pretty much the entire time. His romance with Deneuve might be interesting, but he doesn't really pursue it outside of a few fun early scenes. Foster just seems like he wants to get the hell out of Morocco and away from the dig site, but he's fighting the internal struggle of loyal soldiering. This internal struggle is fascinating stuff, but we only get a few choice moments before we're off to watch Marco and Deneuve or Marco's buddies struggling with training or freaking El Krim just kinda hanging out and watching for trouble. There are subplots going on in this movie that could have been developed into something fun and interesting but don't. I found myself especially aggravated by every scene involving Deneuve. What the hell is a romantic drama doing in the middle of this nihilistic military adventure movie? Von Sydow's scenes aren't much better. He's a better foil and a source of conflict for the film, but ultimately a distraction from the far greater potential of Marco's buddies and Foster's fall into depression. Beau Geste and Legionnaire did a VASTLY better job of creating subplots and relationships that you actually care about. The greatest story crime in this movie is perpetrated on Marco's buddies, who are given a minute or two of horribly bald expository backstory dialogue and then unceremoniously killed. Obvious non-soldier Top Hat, for instance, falls on the march from the train to the fort. Marco goes back and helps his friend (why are they friends? who knows? certainly not the screenwriter) get to the fort. Two or three scenes later Top Hat is impotent with a hooker and commits suicide. What the hell was the point of saving this character if he's going to have no redemption? Not only does he have no redemption, he kills himself for stupid reasons that make me wish Marco had left his stupid ass back in the stupid desert! At least with Legionnaire, Guido was allowed a heroic last act that justified the audience's investment and the protagonist's effort. Almost every story decision made in this movie left me scratching my head.
While Hackman does a damn good job of playing the burnt-out, soul-weary officer, and Von Sydow does his game best to imbue his archaeologist with the right amount of obsessed determination, the other performances suffer. Terence Hill's Marco is borderline dreadful. His line reads are wooden (perhaps like Van Damme he suffered from non-native-speaker issues). His expressions are repetitive when they aren't nearly blank, and he's got a bug-eyed look for most of the movie that is just kinda creepy. I really don't understand the appeal of this actor considering how vital he is to the story. None of the buddies fare better, but then again they're given about as much screen time as the faceless Arab hordes. Deneuve is adequate, which is a shame considering her legendary reputation. But I'll cop to the possibility that I was distracted from her performance by my utter loathing of her subplots.
Per usual, here are some random thoughts:
- Hackman looking good in a french moustache. Grim, but kinda handsome. Nice touch picking up the wounded returning soldier.
- Interesting. Meet the thief, who happens to be thieving at the train station where the Legion has arrived, which is how he gets roped in. I prefer this approach. It gets straight to the Legion, none of this prologue nonsense.
- Digging the Hackman "captain who regrets his job" thing. Like the Tom Hanks role in Pvt Ryan
- Drunk Russian is AWESOME!!! hahahaha
- hahaha... newspaper interstitial tells me all I need to know about the coming movie: ARABS ATTACK MOROCCO, LEGION COMPANY MASSACRED. This is going to be a grim-ass movie.
- Fantastic tension in the Von Sydow introduction. Hackman is being a total dick. But justified.
- This hooker's acting is fucking awful. And this scene with Hackman is bad raw exposition. Woof, terrible scene.
- The fight on the ship is fucking terrible. Bad sound, bad action directing, barely motivated if you could even hear the dialogue... just bad.
- Hackman's grimness is unintentionally hilarious. The dinner scene with Von Sydow and Deneuve is just one long douche-chill.
- So here are our guys: The Dandy, the Boy, the Russian, the Thief.
- The "drink the booze" scene is hilarious and very "Dad catches the kid smoking"
- Weird. None of the pre-Legion bullshit, yet this movie has the same pace issue. Half an hour in and there's no sign of the central conflict.
- Oh man, I LOVE the interplay between Holm and Hackman when they meet up by the train!!!
- Oh shit. Top Hat is mourning his hat and coat. He's totes dead.
- Are they implying PTSD for Hackman? It would be interesting to explore PTSD in a period piece.
- Uh oh. Marco hit the target for Hastings. Hastings is the next to be totes dead.
- Fucking pack of vultures! Deneuve's father gets shot in the head and all these guys swoop in to sleep with her!
- Wait, is Ian Holm's character name Sayid? LOST!!!! (poom)
- The scene with Von Sydow and Deneuve talking about her father felt like they were rushing through.
- Top Hat playing at the piano - it's a good potential redemption. (2 min later) Oh. Nope. Totes dead, like I figured.
- Ugh. I don't care about this Deneuve melodrama. Please get her off screen.
- There are so many shots in this movie of characters just.... looking. And I think they're trying to imply some kind of thoughtfulness, but it just plays weird and vacant.
- Hastings says he's on guns. Yep, totes dead next. (2 min later) Yep. I knew it.
- Thanks, movie, for that 2-second "scene" telling us the Russian's background. Who the fuck cares? We're a half hour from the end of the film. What was the point of giving us that info?
- Hackman trying to buy peace with the casket is really clever, interesting. More of that, please.
- Finally, an hour and a half into this Bruckheimer movie we get some splosions.
- Nice! It takes 6 or more Arabs to take down the Russian! Kinda wish the movie made me care about him more.
Does the movie fit the theme? Yeah, I think it does. Sure, you've got a lot of stupid subplot nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the Legion, but this movie definitely gives me the feeling of overwhelming odds and horrible constant death that I associate with the Legion from my research. This movie is grim. It's so grim that Anton Chigurh watched it and said, "Holy fuck, man, this movie is totes grim." And then he shot some guy in the face with a compressed-air steel bolt.
Despite a great performance from Hackman and a true-feeling grimness to the narrative, I would say stay away from March or Die. It looks terrible, the story's blech, and most of the remaining cast is wooden at best. I think I might prefer a Chigurh bolt to the face. (Just kidding! Or am I?)
Until next week! And keep an eye out for my post regarding the next theme!
It's worth noting that this film is produced by two names of interest. The first is Jerry Bruckheimer. Yes, that's right, THAT Jerry Bruckheimer. Which is funny considering that the movie is largely sans 'splosions until the final 20 or so minutes, and then all fireball-y hell breaks loose. The second is Lew Grade, AKA Lord Grade AKA Low Grade. Lew was known primarily as a British TV producer, giving us some great TV from across the pond including the sci-fi marionette shows of Gerry Anderson and the Patrick McGoohan cult classic The Prisoner. But more personally relevant, and more disappointing given today's blech film, Lew was instrumental in bringing the Muppet Show to life. CBS was the only network willing to put the Muppets on the air and their requirement from Jim Henson was that he had to get someone else to cover production costs. Lew, having seen the Muppets in action on a TV special and already familiar with the entertainment potential of puppetry via the Anderson Marionation, graciously gave Jim and the gang a home at his production studios in England.
I say March or Die is blech, but it's more disappointing than bad. When Mr. X handed me the DVD I was baffled. Gene Hackman, Catherine Deneuve, and Max Von Sydow in a movie that I'd never heard of? The DVD case only added to the confusion. The packaging is cheap and frankly pretty crappola, produced by a company called WHAM! USA Still, I've seen great movies in cheap packaging produced by no-name companies, and given the cast I had faith. Maybe this was even a hidden gem! Whoo, was that not the case...
Here's the basic plot rundown: A credit scroll tells us that the Foreign Legion served as the French front line in WWI. Gene Hackman is Major Foster, an American legionnaire returning from the front lines of WWI. Foster's cynical and weary, having witnessed his troops dwindle from 8000 to 200. While Foster drinks, we meet gypsy thief Marco, who flees arrest on the docks by impromptu signing up with the Legion. We also meet Marco's soon-to-be buddies: musician Top Hat, would-be boy adventurer Hastings, and Russian ex-bodyguard Ivan. Foster is brought into Legion headquarters and told that he must dispatch a troop of Legionnaires to Morroco in hopes of shutting down Arab resistance to French rule as well as protecting Max Von Sydow's archaeology team as they dig up a potential queen's tomb. On the boat to Morroco, Marco charms widow Catherine Deneuve, much to Foster's bemused chagrin. Marco and Foster begin a father-son relationship that will last the entire movie. The legionnaires board a train for their outpost only to be stopped by Ian Holm's El Krim, leader of the Arabs who have kidnapped Deneuve's archaeologist father and interrupted the prior dig. El Krim and Foster know each other and even treat one another with grudging respect, but El Krim warns Foster: anyone desecrating Arab land must die. Foster is too much the soldier and continues on his way despite his better judgment. The men arrive at the fort and are trained with varying degrees of success. Deneuve has a tryst with Foster to keep Marco from loving her. Foster treats the men with equal measures of harshness and kindness. Major characters die for one reason or another. The troop travels to the dig site. Von Sydow finds the treasure he was seeking, which Foster offers to El Krim as a peace offering. El Krim, however, has used Foster and the French as an excuse to unite the Arab tribes and the dig site is overrun with Arabs. More major characters die. Despite an offer from Deneuve to travel back to France with her, Marco returns to the fort in Morroco to become a Legion trainer.
The plot sounds pretty similar to what we've seen before, yeah? So why did I vehemently dislike this movie?
First, this may have something to do with the DVD copy, but the movie looked awful. It looked like it was shot on the dirtiest film stock they could find and lit by a book light. A bar scene in the second act was so dimly lit I could barely make out who was who. This may have been done on purpose to recreate the low-light feel of a bar without electricity, but I'll sacrifice realism for being able to, ya know, SEE the characters any day. But I'll admit that it's hard to tell if this is the fault of the filmmakers or just a shitty DVD transfer. If this was the only visual weakness I'd be a lot more convinced of the transfer excuse. But there are also a number of really awful shots in the film. At least 50% of the close-ups in this movie are strangely framed, edited without much thought to context, and acted like the performer was just flashed in the face by several 1000-watt bulbs after downing a full bottle of Nyquil. These shots are so strange and off-putting! Several action scenes, particularly the fight on the boat, are executed in a way that makes me think they saved all of their fight choreography for the last 20 minutes. It's slow and over-choreographed and just looks awful. Visually, this movie did nothing for me.
Visuals aside, the story of March or Die is mediocre at best. You're never sure of the protagonist. Marco is an obvious contender, but then so is Foster. You could argue that there's a Heat-esque shifting pro/ant-agonist dynamic between Marco and Foster, but unlike that Michael Mann masterpiece neither character is given much of a compelling arch. Marco is a clever schemer and remains so pretty much the entire time. His romance with Deneuve might be interesting, but he doesn't really pursue it outside of a few fun early scenes. Foster just seems like he wants to get the hell out of Morocco and away from the dig site, but he's fighting the internal struggle of loyal soldiering. This internal struggle is fascinating stuff, but we only get a few choice moments before we're off to watch Marco and Deneuve or Marco's buddies struggling with training or freaking El Krim just kinda hanging out and watching for trouble. There are subplots going on in this movie that could have been developed into something fun and interesting but don't. I found myself especially aggravated by every scene involving Deneuve. What the hell is a romantic drama doing in the middle of this nihilistic military adventure movie? Von Sydow's scenes aren't much better. He's a better foil and a source of conflict for the film, but ultimately a distraction from the far greater potential of Marco's buddies and Foster's fall into depression. Beau Geste and Legionnaire did a VASTLY better job of creating subplots and relationships that you actually care about. The greatest story crime in this movie is perpetrated on Marco's buddies, who are given a minute or two of horribly bald expository backstory dialogue and then unceremoniously killed. Obvious non-soldier Top Hat, for instance, falls on the march from the train to the fort. Marco goes back and helps his friend (why are they friends? who knows? certainly not the screenwriter) get to the fort. Two or three scenes later Top Hat is impotent with a hooker and commits suicide. What the hell was the point of saving this character if he's going to have no redemption? Not only does he have no redemption, he kills himself for stupid reasons that make me wish Marco had left his stupid ass back in the stupid desert! At least with Legionnaire, Guido was allowed a heroic last act that justified the audience's investment and the protagonist's effort. Almost every story decision made in this movie left me scratching my head.
While Hackman does a damn good job of playing the burnt-out, soul-weary officer, and Von Sydow does his game best to imbue his archaeologist with the right amount of obsessed determination, the other performances suffer. Terence Hill's Marco is borderline dreadful. His line reads are wooden (perhaps like Van Damme he suffered from non-native-speaker issues). His expressions are repetitive when they aren't nearly blank, and he's got a bug-eyed look for most of the movie that is just kinda creepy. I really don't understand the appeal of this actor considering how vital he is to the story. None of the buddies fare better, but then again they're given about as much screen time as the faceless Arab hordes. Deneuve is adequate, which is a shame considering her legendary reputation. But I'll cop to the possibility that I was distracted from her performance by my utter loathing of her subplots.
Per usual, here are some random thoughts:
- Hackman looking good in a french moustache. Grim, but kinda handsome. Nice touch picking up the wounded returning soldier.
- Interesting. Meet the thief, who happens to be thieving at the train station where the Legion has arrived, which is how he gets roped in. I prefer this approach. It gets straight to the Legion, none of this prologue nonsense.
- Digging the Hackman "captain who regrets his job" thing. Like the Tom Hanks role in Pvt Ryan
- Drunk Russian is AWESOME!!! hahahaha
- hahaha... newspaper interstitial tells me all I need to know about the coming movie: ARABS ATTACK MOROCCO, LEGION COMPANY MASSACRED. This is going to be a grim-ass movie.
- Fantastic tension in the Von Sydow introduction. Hackman is being a total dick. But justified.
- This hooker's acting is fucking awful. And this scene with Hackman is bad raw exposition. Woof, terrible scene.
- The fight on the ship is fucking terrible. Bad sound, bad action directing, barely motivated if you could even hear the dialogue... just bad.
- Hackman's grimness is unintentionally hilarious. The dinner scene with Von Sydow and Deneuve is just one long douche-chill.
- So here are our guys: The Dandy, the Boy, the Russian, the Thief.
- The "drink the booze" scene is hilarious and very "Dad catches the kid smoking"
- Weird. None of the pre-Legion bullshit, yet this movie has the same pace issue. Half an hour in and there's no sign of the central conflict.
- Oh man, I LOVE the interplay between Holm and Hackman when they meet up by the train!!!
- Oh shit. Top Hat is mourning his hat and coat. He's totes dead.
- Are they implying PTSD for Hackman? It would be interesting to explore PTSD in a period piece.
- Uh oh. Marco hit the target for Hastings. Hastings is the next to be totes dead.
- Fucking pack of vultures! Deneuve's father gets shot in the head and all these guys swoop in to sleep with her!
- Wait, is Ian Holm's character name Sayid? LOST!!!! (poom)
- The scene with Von Sydow and Deneuve talking about her father felt like they were rushing through.
- Top Hat playing at the piano - it's a good potential redemption. (2 min later) Oh. Nope. Totes dead, like I figured.
- Ugh. I don't care about this Deneuve melodrama. Please get her off screen.
- There are so many shots in this movie of characters just.... looking. And I think they're trying to imply some kind of thoughtfulness, but it just plays weird and vacant.
- Hastings says he's on guns. Yep, totes dead next. (2 min later) Yep. I knew it.
- Thanks, movie, for that 2-second "scene" telling us the Russian's background. Who the fuck cares? We're a half hour from the end of the film. What was the point of giving us that info?
- Hackman trying to buy peace with the casket is really clever, interesting. More of that, please.
- Finally, an hour and a half into this Bruckheimer movie we get some splosions.
- Nice! It takes 6 or more Arabs to take down the Russian! Kinda wish the movie made me care about him more.
Does the movie fit the theme? Yeah, I think it does. Sure, you've got a lot of stupid subplot nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the Legion, but this movie definitely gives me the feeling of overwhelming odds and horrible constant death that I associate with the Legion from my research. This movie is grim. It's so grim that Anton Chigurh watched it and said, "Holy fuck, man, this movie is totes grim." And then he shot some guy in the face with a compressed-air steel bolt.
Despite a great performance from Hackman and a true-feeling grimness to the narrative, I would say stay away from March or Die. It looks terrible, the story's blech, and most of the remaining cast is wooden at best. I think I might prefer a Chigurh bolt to the face. (Just kidding! Or am I?)
Until next week! And keep an eye out for my post regarding the next theme!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)