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.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
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!
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Foreign Legion Movie #3: Abbott & Costello in the Foreign Legion
Hey all. This week's offering is a black & white comedy from the respected duo of Abbott & Costello. In the interest of fairness, you should know that I've seen Meet Frankenstein and Meet The Invisible Man. Having seen those two classics, I had a strong suspicion that In the Foreign Legion wasn't gonna do much for me. And I was right. But first thing's first.
The basic plot of In the Foreign Legion is this: Bud and Lou are a couple of wrestling promoters staging a fixed fight. One of their wrestlers, Abdullah the Assassin, decides to return to his native Algiers rather than lose. Bud and Lou, desperate to avoid the local gambling fixer and get the money back that they gave Abdullah, follow their man to Algiers. What Bud and Lou don't know is that Abdullah is cousin to Sheik Hamud, an Arab who is menacing a local railroad construction site for protection money with the help of Legion Sergeant Axmann. In Algiers, one of the Sheik's men overhears Bud and Lou talking about Abdullah and mistakes them for American agents of the rail company. Hijinks ensue as Bud and Lou try to avoid assassination attempts only to end up seeking protection at the Foreign Legion (recruited by Axmann, who believes he's got them right where he wants them). Once in the Legion, Bud and Lou are roped into spying on Axmann by Nicole, a French spy posing as a slave girl. Nicole believes Axmann and the Sheik are going to blow up the rail station. Axmann catches them and sends them out into the desert, where they deal with hallucinations and an oasis occupied by a clever fish. Bud and Lou are captured by the Sheik's men (as is Nicole) and they are forced to wrestle for the Sheik's entertainment. Luckily one of their opponents is Abdullah, who is desperate to return to the U.S. Bud and Lou escape, then lead the Sheik's men on a merry chase to the rail station already rigged to explode by the Sheik's men. The station explodes and wins an unintentional victory for Bud and Lou. Our heroes are given honorable discharge from the Legion, and Lou rides out with a jeep full of harem girls.
Sadly, I found very little to like about In the Foreign Legion. The problem with Abbott and Costello is that they're very repetitive. I can only take Lou doing the "breathless babbling fear" thing so many times, and the over-the-top nature of that schtick worked for me in the Meet Universal Monster only because of the monstrous context. There's some of the "who's on first" wordplay stuff going on that's funny, but old hat. A few of the more standout gag sequences started out funny and enjoyable but went on for entirely too long. I found myself getting incredibly impatient with these routines, rolling my eyes when they hit the five minute mark. I couldn't remember if this was a problem with Laurel and Hardy, so I bent one of my rules for these reviews. I Googled "Laurel and Hardy vs Abbott and Costello". What I discovered, which only supports my reaction, was that many of the other vaudeville-style comedy teams felt Abbott and Costello were lazy with their movie work. Additionally, Universal was strangely strict about having Bud and Lou stick to the script, whereas they were free to ad-lib on their radio show. Many of the gags in this film felt like they were funny ideas dragged out to fill time, which makes sense given what I'd read.
Structurally, In the Foreign Legion suffers from the same Foreign Legion problem as the prior two films as well as problems stemming from the required "schtick, exposition, schtick" stucture inherent to vaudeville-style films. We get a half hour (out of 79 minutes) of setting up the circumstances to get Bud and Lou in the Legion, then we get a few gag scenes, then an enormous desert-hallucination-oasis gag sequence, then a few more gag scenes, then the end. It works okay, I suppose, but it feels lazy and rote. This isn't helped any by the fact that I'd seen many of the gags before in Looney Tunes cartoons. One might say that it isn't fair of me to compare the two given the disparate formats, but I'd counter that the Looney Tunes usage works BECAUSE the format is short. Again, I can't stress enough how boring these gags got too far out from the premise.
There isn't much character work to speak of given the fact that this is an Abbott and Costello picture. Like any vaudeville team movie, the characters here are the team. The names might be different, but Bud is Bud and Lou is Lou. In some ways this is actually kind of nice because you know what to expect. You don't have to waste time establishing characters, you can get right into the comedy. The problem? Yeah, not to get pedantic, but the problem is that the comedy didn't work for me.
In the interest of fairness again, I want to say something about comedy team bias. This phenomenon does exist and you can witness it with just about any fans of the form. In the battle royal that is vaudeville-style comedy-team film, I will always and forever side with the Marx Brothers. I enjoy Laurel and Hardy, I like the Abbott and Costello monster movies, and when I was a kid I was obsessed with Jerry Lewis in the Martin and Lewis movies (though I couldn't for the life of me tell you now which ones I watched). But for me, the pinnacle of vaudeville-style hilarity is Groucho Marx making a ridiculously mean joke at Margaret Dumont's expense while Chico flubs his english and Harpo pulls a dog out of his jacket pocket.
- As with the prior films, here's a list of random thoughts during the movie:
- Good gag with the wrestling audience on vinyl.
- I wonder if the notion of a fixed wrestling match was more scandalous back then.
- Abdullah is so freaking hairy! He's like George the Animal Steele! Is that common in men from Algiers?
- Bud's pants are up to his neck. hahaha.... olde tyme fashionne
- Good gag with the woman who has 3 kids. Bud: They don't do that (sex) here. Lou: They don't? Then that woman's in the wrong country.
- Holy shit, I can see the seams in the backdrops! And the lighting is awful. Did they even try?
- hahahahaha... some of these Arabs and Frenchmen sound awfully British. Like a Python sketch.
- This slave trader sounds like Jackie Mason.
- Jesus jumped up Christ. I know it's a comedy, but this is so damn stupid. Who in their right mind would give the fat, stupid American who barely made it out of the obstacle course access to the machine gun nest? This is the kind of forced "humorous" situation that makes me HATE comedy writers.
- The fish that steals the old guy's teeth? Batshit insane but incredibly funny!
- hahahahaha... OH SHIT!!! It's Tor Johnson as one of the Sheik's wrestlers! This is clearly the best scene of the whole film. Ridiculous.
I forgot to do this with Legionnaire, but as far as relating to the theme of "Foreign Legion" goes I'm afraid In the Foreign Legion is a gigantic FAIL. The Foreign Legion has nothing at all to do with this narrative. It's barely a backdrop since the boys go to Algiers to get back Abdullah, not to join the Legion. And once they're in the Legion, they get kicked out almost immediately. Crazy considering the title, yeah?
Okay, there you have it. I wouldn't recommend this movie to most people, though maybe if you're a fan of Abbott and Costello you should give it a chance. Personally, I'd say you're better off giving their monster movies a viewing. Or find one of their old radio shows where the banter is a bit more natural and the gags less drawn out.
Until next time, which I believe is the last for the Foreign Legion theme!
The basic plot of In the Foreign Legion is this: Bud and Lou are a couple of wrestling promoters staging a fixed fight. One of their wrestlers, Abdullah the Assassin, decides to return to his native Algiers rather than lose. Bud and Lou, desperate to avoid the local gambling fixer and get the money back that they gave Abdullah, follow their man to Algiers. What Bud and Lou don't know is that Abdullah is cousin to Sheik Hamud, an Arab who is menacing a local railroad construction site for protection money with the help of Legion Sergeant Axmann. In Algiers, one of the Sheik's men overhears Bud and Lou talking about Abdullah and mistakes them for American agents of the rail company. Hijinks ensue as Bud and Lou try to avoid assassination attempts only to end up seeking protection at the Foreign Legion (recruited by Axmann, who believes he's got them right where he wants them). Once in the Legion, Bud and Lou are roped into spying on Axmann by Nicole, a French spy posing as a slave girl. Nicole believes Axmann and the Sheik are going to blow up the rail station. Axmann catches them and sends them out into the desert, where they deal with hallucinations and an oasis occupied by a clever fish. Bud and Lou are captured by the Sheik's men (as is Nicole) and they are forced to wrestle for the Sheik's entertainment. Luckily one of their opponents is Abdullah, who is desperate to return to the U.S. Bud and Lou escape, then lead the Sheik's men on a merry chase to the rail station already rigged to explode by the Sheik's men. The station explodes and wins an unintentional victory for Bud and Lou. Our heroes are given honorable discharge from the Legion, and Lou rides out with a jeep full of harem girls.
Sadly, I found very little to like about In the Foreign Legion. The problem with Abbott and Costello is that they're very repetitive. I can only take Lou doing the "breathless babbling fear" thing so many times, and the over-the-top nature of that schtick worked for me in the Meet Universal Monster only because of the monstrous context. There's some of the "who's on first" wordplay stuff going on that's funny, but old hat. A few of the more standout gag sequences started out funny and enjoyable but went on for entirely too long. I found myself getting incredibly impatient with these routines, rolling my eyes when they hit the five minute mark. I couldn't remember if this was a problem with Laurel and Hardy, so I bent one of my rules for these reviews. I Googled "Laurel and Hardy vs Abbott and Costello". What I discovered, which only supports my reaction, was that many of the other vaudeville-style comedy teams felt Abbott and Costello were lazy with their movie work. Additionally, Universal was strangely strict about having Bud and Lou stick to the script, whereas they were free to ad-lib on their radio show. Many of the gags in this film felt like they were funny ideas dragged out to fill time, which makes sense given what I'd read.
Structurally, In the Foreign Legion suffers from the same Foreign Legion problem as the prior two films as well as problems stemming from the required "schtick, exposition, schtick" stucture inherent to vaudeville-style films. We get a half hour (out of 79 minutes) of setting up the circumstances to get Bud and Lou in the Legion, then we get a few gag scenes, then an enormous desert-hallucination-oasis gag sequence, then a few more gag scenes, then the end. It works okay, I suppose, but it feels lazy and rote. This isn't helped any by the fact that I'd seen many of the gags before in Looney Tunes cartoons. One might say that it isn't fair of me to compare the two given the disparate formats, but I'd counter that the Looney Tunes usage works BECAUSE the format is short. Again, I can't stress enough how boring these gags got too far out from the premise.
There isn't much character work to speak of given the fact that this is an Abbott and Costello picture. Like any vaudeville team movie, the characters here are the team. The names might be different, but Bud is Bud and Lou is Lou. In some ways this is actually kind of nice because you know what to expect. You don't have to waste time establishing characters, you can get right into the comedy. The problem? Yeah, not to get pedantic, but the problem is that the comedy didn't work for me.
In the interest of fairness again, I want to say something about comedy team bias. This phenomenon does exist and you can witness it with just about any fans of the form. In the battle royal that is vaudeville-style comedy-team film, I will always and forever side with the Marx Brothers. I enjoy Laurel and Hardy, I like the Abbott and Costello monster movies, and when I was a kid I was obsessed with Jerry Lewis in the Martin and Lewis movies (though I couldn't for the life of me tell you now which ones I watched). But for me, the pinnacle of vaudeville-style hilarity is Groucho Marx making a ridiculously mean joke at Margaret Dumont's expense while Chico flubs his english and Harpo pulls a dog out of his jacket pocket.
- As with the prior films, here's a list of random thoughts during the movie:
- Good gag with the wrestling audience on vinyl.
- I wonder if the notion of a fixed wrestling match was more scandalous back then.
- Abdullah is so freaking hairy! He's like George the Animal Steele! Is that common in men from Algiers?
- Bud's pants are up to his neck. hahaha.... olde tyme fashionne
- Good gag with the woman who has 3 kids. Bud: They don't do that (sex) here. Lou: They don't? Then that woman's in the wrong country.
- Holy shit, I can see the seams in the backdrops! And the lighting is awful. Did they even try?
- hahahahaha... some of these Arabs and Frenchmen sound awfully British. Like a Python sketch.
- This slave trader sounds like Jackie Mason.
- Jesus jumped up Christ. I know it's a comedy, but this is so damn stupid. Who in their right mind would give the fat, stupid American who barely made it out of the obstacle course access to the machine gun nest? This is the kind of forced "humorous" situation that makes me HATE comedy writers.
- The fish that steals the old guy's teeth? Batshit insane but incredibly funny!
- hahahahaha... OH SHIT!!! It's Tor Johnson as one of the Sheik's wrestlers! This is clearly the best scene of the whole film. Ridiculous.
I forgot to do this with Legionnaire, but as far as relating to the theme of "Foreign Legion" goes I'm afraid In the Foreign Legion is a gigantic FAIL. The Foreign Legion has nothing at all to do with this narrative. It's barely a backdrop since the boys go to Algiers to get back Abdullah, not to join the Legion. And once they're in the Legion, they get kicked out almost immediately. Crazy considering the title, yeah?
Okay, there you have it. I wouldn't recommend this movie to most people, though maybe if you're a fan of Abbott and Costello you should give it a chance. Personally, I'd say you're better off giving their monster movies a viewing. Or find one of their old radio shows where the banter is a bit more natural and the gags less drawn out.
Until next time, which I believe is the last for the Foreign Legion theme!
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Foreign Legion Movie #2: Legionnaire, starring JCVD!!!
Hey all. In case you missed my last post (and you likely did since I didn't link to it on my Facebook account, which is where most of you come from), this week's Foreign Legion movie is the DTV* Jean-Claude Van Damme movie Legionnaire!
*Dedicated To Violence
When I received the DVD from Mr. X, my first thought was, "Oh no. Really? Van Damme?" Don't get me wrong: when I was younger I loved Van Damme and I still have a soft spot for such early Van Dammage as Bloodsport (You! Are NEXT!), Lionheart (the match-ending single punch to the balls is HILARIOUS), Death Warrant (You can't kill me, Burke. I'm the Sandman!), et al. But Van Damme's later career, post-Universal Soldier, is pretty sad. It was only the recent, highly-meta JCVD that reminded me of Van Damme's latent talent. Well, I'm pleasantly surprised for a second week in a row as Legionnaire gives the Muscles from Brussels a chance to stretch his acting... um... muscles... and for the most part the man proves himself an actor worth watching. More on that in a moment.
My second thought on receiving the DVD was, "Hey, Mr. Ecko is in this! Maybe it won't be so bad!" And then I remembered that Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (to whom I will refer for the rest of this review as Mr. Ecko for obvious reasons) has done nothing else of note besides Lost. Well, I guess Oz, but since I haven't watched that show it doesn't count. Besides, most actors' body of work pales before Lost. And I have a Lost bias.
... Lost. (POOM)
Anyway, having now watched Legionnaire, I have to say I'm impressed. I actually would recommend this movie to people, particularly open-minded cinephiles as there's a nifty old-fashioned, 1950s/1960s feel to it. This is a result of a few factors: the story is set in the past, Van Damme has the look and manner of an old-school tough-guy actor, the Foreign Legion as a story setting feels anachronistic despite still existing, and the cinematography has a certain 50s/60s grainy Technicolor look to it. There are moments in the film where, if you didn't know any better, you might mistake it for a Lawrence of Arabia cash-in. Considering it's a Van Damme DTV from 1998, the cash-in comment is actually high praise. Is it perfect? No. But it's far, far better than you might expect. I might even go so far as to say it's one of the best DTV movies I've seen.
The bare bones of the plot are this: Van Damme is Alain, a poor 1920s French boxer who left his fiancee Katrina at the altar years ago. Katrina's current boyfriend, the abusive gambling "fixer" Lucienne, arranges for Alain to lose a fixed fight and cash in so that Alain and his brother can stop hustling. Alain, of course, bets on himself so that he can take Katrina away to America. Alain wins the fight, and in the ensuing chase Lucienne kills Alain's brother and Alain kills Lucienne's brother. Desperate to escape Lucienne and mourning his brother, Alain enters the Foreign Legion. In the Legion Alain meets his sidekicks: Italian comic relief Guido, American racism-escaping Luther, and British career-soldier Mackintosh. The Legionnaires are trained up and prepared for a defense of an Arab-besieged French fort. French newsmen take pictures of the soldiers, revealing Alain's whereabouts to Lucienne. Lucienne sends two of his goons to the Legion to find Alain and bring him back to France for retribution. Upon arrival at the fort, Alain discovers that Lucienne's goons have found him and are now in his unit! The Legionnaires are attacked multiple times, leading to several significant deaths. In the end, everyone pulls together to defend the fort despite personal differences. I won't give away the ending, but Van Damme co-produced the movie and received a Story By co-credit, so there's a pretty good chance that Alain, at least, survives.
The strength of this movie is, like Beau Geste, the very likeable characters. Van Damme's Alain is a champion of the underdog, a tough guy who stands up for the bullied. From the moment we see him, we know that Guido (really, you couldn't think of a better Italian name?) is going to get his ass handed to him on multiple occasions. But because he's friendly and shares Alain's abiding love for a far-off woman, Alain stands up for the poor comic relief. When Mr. Ecko's Luther takes guff for being black from a German (surely a proto-Nazi), again Alain is there to offer a helping hand. Or fist and foot as the case may be. The great thing is that this isn't an early Van Damme tough guy full of youthful vigor and cockiness. This is older, wiser Van Damme, whose attitude and look tell the viewer, "I've had my share of violence for stupid reasons. This is the RIGHT reason." Like Beau Geste, Legionnaire is peppered with scenes of the four principal "heroes" goofing around and developing their bond. It's funny and touching stuff, particularly if you're a guy's guy or you have brothers. I found myself really rooting for these guys, knowing full well (rules of drama AND knowledge of Legion history) that most if not all of them would bite the dust at some point.
This reminds me of one of the hilarious anachronistic struggles of this movie. The movie may "feel" like a 50s/60s adventure epic, but it contains one of the worst cliche's of modern action-movie cinema. Several characters in moments of pre-attack preparation hand Van Damme a treasured personal item or ask Van Damme to do them a favor if they don't "make it". Of course Van Damme takes the item/request but assures them, "You'll make it." And of course they don't. By the third time this happens I laughed my ass off. Look, we all know that if you hand the hero a treasured personal item or make a last-minute request, you're pretty much signing your own suicide note. Please, for the love of Riggs and Murtaugh, could future action/adventure writers keep this in mind? And as long as I'm bitching, what was the deal with Guido? He's a comic relief character, I get it. But he's pretty much an unrepentent load the entire time. Writers, if you're going to saddle your heroes with a comic relief, give him something to do besides provide humor. Realistically speaking, there's no reason for these guys to have gone out of their way to support Guido. At one point Alain even carries the load on his back while trekking across the desert! Why? I want my hero to care about his friends, but his friends should be worth the effort.
For the most part the dialogue is organic and conversational, though a couple of big expository stinkers stand out. I particularly enjoyed a scene where the guys are washing laundry and they each try to convince Alain that their method is the best. It's a well-written, fun scene that does a great job establishing the rapport. Counter this with the first time Guido meets Alain and bizarrely breaks into a monologe of backstory: a disgusting wad of exposition that just lies there on the screen. Thankfully Guido is the only one who suffers this and for a DTV adventure movie there was far less exposition than I expected. OH! I also want to point out this hilarious line. A character turns on Alain at some point in the movie but is interrupted by an Arab attack. During the subsequent attack on the fort, this traitor character warns everyone, "Don't underestimate them (the Arabs)." To which Alain replies, "Or anyone else." Van Damme takes some credit for the delivery of this line, but I laughed hard at this ridiculously passive-aggressive moment.
That last line may have been partly Van Damme's fault in delivery, but it's a rare misfire in an otherwise shockingly FANTASTIC performance. Van Damme has this great stillness when listening to other characters that makes every exchange feel genuine, like he's really listening. It's the vital difference between an actor watching another actor for their cue and an actor really taking in his/her partner. I was taken aback, actually, by how convincing Van Damme was with these moments. I really wish he would do more French-language films because some of the struggle with his acting is clearly centered on getting the English correct. He does deliver some clunker lines in this, but when he's quiet? The man can act the shit out of a scene. Witness a scene in the third act when a trusted friend is captured and dragged behind an Arab horseman. Alain knows that the merciful thing to do is sniper shoot his friend before the Arabs descend on him with swords and maul him to death. The turmoil in Van Damme's face as he struggles to line up the shot and kill his friend is incredibly moving. And in the aftermath of the pulled trigger, you watch Van Damme fight back tears, assure himself that it was the right thing to do, and gather his wits to continue the fight. I'm telling you, the guy can act. Some critics have accused him of being wooden, and maybe he wasn't that responsive as a young actor, but it would be unfairly narrow-minded and prejudicial to accuse him of that same fault here.
Structurally, Legionnaire suffers some of the same problems as Beau Geste. There's a distinct lack of cohesion between the first and second acts, with the third act bringing in tension established in the first act that largely goes missing in the second. I feel like maybe this is an issue with Foreign Legion films in general: you have to establish in the first act the event that caused the protagonist's flight, then you have to establish them in the Legion, then the first act event catches up to them in the third. This leaves the second act feeling awfully loose. Like Beau Geste, there is a strange shifting of antagonists from act to act, with the officers serving as villain in early Act II and then the rather generic "Arab horde" serving as villain in late Act II. It just feels strange. It's particularly strange in my opinion because of how little the first act events seem to matter in the long run. In Legionnaire we're given this story about Katrina and Alain and how he left her at the altar, but they never clearly explain why he did so. There's some tension in the third act when Lucienne's goons are trying to kidnap Alain from the Legion and return him to France but this plot point seems ridiculous in the extreme. It seems to me that these movies share an unnecessary preoccupation with the protagonist's prior life. Just get them to the Legion, for crying out loud. We want *some* backstory, but an entire first act?
Like the last review, here are some random thoughts I had during the movie:
- Oof. The opening exposition crawl is full of inaccuracies about the Legion. Damn it, dramatic license!
- So I guess 1920s France is just Moulin Rouge hookers and the Infernal Galop? (Note: I had to look up the name of the song.)
- Hooray, French accents! Lots of French accents!
- Van Damme enters the film with a boxing groupie on each arm. I guess if I had a co-Story By credit I'd give myeslf groupies, too.
- Maxim, the brother, is hilariously craven. Also, he looks like H. Jon Benjamin, which is weird.
- Lucienne doesn't want women at the table when he talks business. I guess he's in the Top Gun Volleyball Tournament business.
- Flashback to Alain and Katrina first meeting is bad for Van Damme. He does NOT do boyishly earnest well. Too French maybe?
- Ref in boxing match says, "Come out fighting, no dirty tricks." AKA: "Pull all the dirty tricks you can, Villainous Boxer."
- Oof. The Sargeant is telling them about the Arabs while the camera backs up behind him and you can tell from his jaw movements that the dubbing is WAAAAY off.
- Sargeant's line to Van Damme, "Do you comprehend my words? I can see that you don't. There is a fog in your eyes in which you can see only your own arrogance." Am I crazy or is this a wink at the audience about Van Damme?
- Awesome cheesecake man-ass shots in the "showered with a hose" scene! hahahaha! If you like Van Damme's butt or are curious about Mr. Ecko's hinder, here's your chance.
- Mr. Ecko's story about escaping racism in America by traveling to Africa with the Legion is really intriguing.
- The marching songs in this movie match up with what I've read about the Legion. Someone did research on this thing. Nice change from Beau Geste.
- Lucienne is the stupidest criminal mind ever. Seriously, your plan was to kidnap a Legionnaire from his unit and somehow get him back to France? Dude, runaway Legionnaires couldn't pull that off.
- The guys get hard labor for insubordination. What insubordination? I think the script was missing a few pages.
Crazy. I had more to say about Legionnaire than I did about Beau Geste. I think this is because Legionnaire surprised me far more and I really wanted to make a case for it. There are weak moments and not everything comes together the way it should, but overall this is a solid film that probably should've been given a theatrical run. You owe it to yourself to see this if you've ever been a Fan Damme, if you're interested in the history of the Foreign Legion, or if you generally enjoy adventure films. And I think old-school cinephiles would appreciate the look and feel of the film, too.
See you all next week!
*Dedicated To Violence
When I received the DVD from Mr. X, my first thought was, "Oh no. Really? Van Damme?" Don't get me wrong: when I was younger I loved Van Damme and I still have a soft spot for such early Van Dammage as Bloodsport (You! Are NEXT!), Lionheart (the match-ending single punch to the balls is HILARIOUS), Death Warrant (You can't kill me, Burke. I'm the Sandman!), et al. But Van Damme's later career, post-Universal Soldier, is pretty sad. It was only the recent, highly-meta JCVD that reminded me of Van Damme's latent talent. Well, I'm pleasantly surprised for a second week in a row as Legionnaire gives the Muscles from Brussels a chance to stretch his acting... um... muscles... and for the most part the man proves himself an actor worth watching. More on that in a moment.
My second thought on receiving the DVD was, "Hey, Mr. Ecko is in this! Maybe it won't be so bad!" And then I remembered that Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (to whom I will refer for the rest of this review as Mr. Ecko for obvious reasons) has done nothing else of note besides Lost. Well, I guess Oz, but since I haven't watched that show it doesn't count. Besides, most actors' body of work pales before Lost. And I have a Lost bias.
... Lost. (POOM)
Anyway, having now watched Legionnaire, I have to say I'm impressed. I actually would recommend this movie to people, particularly open-minded cinephiles as there's a nifty old-fashioned, 1950s/1960s feel to it. This is a result of a few factors: the story is set in the past, Van Damme has the look and manner of an old-school tough-guy actor, the Foreign Legion as a story setting feels anachronistic despite still existing, and the cinematography has a certain 50s/60s grainy Technicolor look to it. There are moments in the film where, if you didn't know any better, you might mistake it for a Lawrence of Arabia cash-in. Considering it's a Van Damme DTV from 1998, the cash-in comment is actually high praise. Is it perfect? No. But it's far, far better than you might expect. I might even go so far as to say it's one of the best DTV movies I've seen.
The bare bones of the plot are this: Van Damme is Alain, a poor 1920s French boxer who left his fiancee Katrina at the altar years ago. Katrina's current boyfriend, the abusive gambling "fixer" Lucienne, arranges for Alain to lose a fixed fight and cash in so that Alain and his brother can stop hustling. Alain, of course, bets on himself so that he can take Katrina away to America. Alain wins the fight, and in the ensuing chase Lucienne kills Alain's brother and Alain kills Lucienne's brother. Desperate to escape Lucienne and mourning his brother, Alain enters the Foreign Legion. In the Legion Alain meets his sidekicks: Italian comic relief Guido, American racism-escaping Luther, and British career-soldier Mackintosh. The Legionnaires are trained up and prepared for a defense of an Arab-besieged French fort. French newsmen take pictures of the soldiers, revealing Alain's whereabouts to Lucienne. Lucienne sends two of his goons to the Legion to find Alain and bring him back to France for retribution. Upon arrival at the fort, Alain discovers that Lucienne's goons have found him and are now in his unit! The Legionnaires are attacked multiple times, leading to several significant deaths. In the end, everyone pulls together to defend the fort despite personal differences. I won't give away the ending, but Van Damme co-produced the movie and received a Story By co-credit, so there's a pretty good chance that Alain, at least, survives.
The strength of this movie is, like Beau Geste, the very likeable characters. Van Damme's Alain is a champion of the underdog, a tough guy who stands up for the bullied. From the moment we see him, we know that Guido (really, you couldn't think of a better Italian name?) is going to get his ass handed to him on multiple occasions. But because he's friendly and shares Alain's abiding love for a far-off woman, Alain stands up for the poor comic relief. When Mr. Ecko's Luther takes guff for being black from a German (surely a proto-Nazi), again Alain is there to offer a helping hand. Or fist and foot as the case may be. The great thing is that this isn't an early Van Damme tough guy full of youthful vigor and cockiness. This is older, wiser Van Damme, whose attitude and look tell the viewer, "I've had my share of violence for stupid reasons. This is the RIGHT reason." Like Beau Geste, Legionnaire is peppered with scenes of the four principal "heroes" goofing around and developing their bond. It's funny and touching stuff, particularly if you're a guy's guy or you have brothers. I found myself really rooting for these guys, knowing full well (rules of drama AND knowledge of Legion history) that most if not all of them would bite the dust at some point.
This reminds me of one of the hilarious anachronistic struggles of this movie. The movie may "feel" like a 50s/60s adventure epic, but it contains one of the worst cliche's of modern action-movie cinema. Several characters in moments of pre-attack preparation hand Van Damme a treasured personal item or ask Van Damme to do them a favor if they don't "make it". Of course Van Damme takes the item/request but assures them, "You'll make it." And of course they don't. By the third time this happens I laughed my ass off. Look, we all know that if you hand the hero a treasured personal item or make a last-minute request, you're pretty much signing your own suicide note. Please, for the love of Riggs and Murtaugh, could future action/adventure writers keep this in mind? And as long as I'm bitching, what was the deal with Guido? He's a comic relief character, I get it. But he's pretty much an unrepentent load the entire time. Writers, if you're going to saddle your heroes with a comic relief, give him something to do besides provide humor. Realistically speaking, there's no reason for these guys to have gone out of their way to support Guido. At one point Alain even carries the load on his back while trekking across the desert! Why? I want my hero to care about his friends, but his friends should be worth the effort.
For the most part the dialogue is organic and conversational, though a couple of big expository stinkers stand out. I particularly enjoyed a scene where the guys are washing laundry and they each try to convince Alain that their method is the best. It's a well-written, fun scene that does a great job establishing the rapport. Counter this with the first time Guido meets Alain and bizarrely breaks into a monologe of backstory: a disgusting wad of exposition that just lies there on the screen. Thankfully Guido is the only one who suffers this and for a DTV adventure movie there was far less exposition than I expected. OH! I also want to point out this hilarious line. A character turns on Alain at some point in the movie but is interrupted by an Arab attack. During the subsequent attack on the fort, this traitor character warns everyone, "Don't underestimate them (the Arabs)." To which Alain replies, "Or anyone else." Van Damme takes some credit for the delivery of this line, but I laughed hard at this ridiculously passive-aggressive moment.
That last line may have been partly Van Damme's fault in delivery, but it's a rare misfire in an otherwise shockingly FANTASTIC performance. Van Damme has this great stillness when listening to other characters that makes every exchange feel genuine, like he's really listening. It's the vital difference between an actor watching another actor for their cue and an actor really taking in his/her partner. I was taken aback, actually, by how convincing Van Damme was with these moments. I really wish he would do more French-language films because some of the struggle with his acting is clearly centered on getting the English correct. He does deliver some clunker lines in this, but when he's quiet? The man can act the shit out of a scene. Witness a scene in the third act when a trusted friend is captured and dragged behind an Arab horseman. Alain knows that the merciful thing to do is sniper shoot his friend before the Arabs descend on him with swords and maul him to death. The turmoil in Van Damme's face as he struggles to line up the shot and kill his friend is incredibly moving. And in the aftermath of the pulled trigger, you watch Van Damme fight back tears, assure himself that it was the right thing to do, and gather his wits to continue the fight. I'm telling you, the guy can act. Some critics have accused him of being wooden, and maybe he wasn't that responsive as a young actor, but it would be unfairly narrow-minded and prejudicial to accuse him of that same fault here.
Structurally, Legionnaire suffers some of the same problems as Beau Geste. There's a distinct lack of cohesion between the first and second acts, with the third act bringing in tension established in the first act that largely goes missing in the second. I feel like maybe this is an issue with Foreign Legion films in general: you have to establish in the first act the event that caused the protagonist's flight, then you have to establish them in the Legion, then the first act event catches up to them in the third. This leaves the second act feeling awfully loose. Like Beau Geste, there is a strange shifting of antagonists from act to act, with the officers serving as villain in early Act II and then the rather generic "Arab horde" serving as villain in late Act II. It just feels strange. It's particularly strange in my opinion because of how little the first act events seem to matter in the long run. In Legionnaire we're given this story about Katrina and Alain and how he left her at the altar, but they never clearly explain why he did so. There's some tension in the third act when Lucienne's goons are trying to kidnap Alain from the Legion and return him to France but this plot point seems ridiculous in the extreme. It seems to me that these movies share an unnecessary preoccupation with the protagonist's prior life. Just get them to the Legion, for crying out loud. We want *some* backstory, but an entire first act?
Like the last review, here are some random thoughts I had during the movie:
- Oof. The opening exposition crawl is full of inaccuracies about the Legion. Damn it, dramatic license!
- So I guess 1920s France is just Moulin Rouge hookers and the Infernal Galop? (Note: I had to look up the name of the song.)
- Hooray, French accents! Lots of French accents!
- Van Damme enters the film with a boxing groupie on each arm. I guess if I had a co-Story By credit I'd give myeslf groupies, too.
- Maxim, the brother, is hilariously craven. Also, he looks like H. Jon Benjamin, which is weird.
- Lucienne doesn't want women at the table when he talks business. I guess he's in the Top Gun Volleyball Tournament business.
- Flashback to Alain and Katrina first meeting is bad for Van Damme. He does NOT do boyishly earnest well. Too French maybe?
- Ref in boxing match says, "Come out fighting, no dirty tricks." AKA: "Pull all the dirty tricks you can, Villainous Boxer."
- Oof. The Sargeant is telling them about the Arabs while the camera backs up behind him and you can tell from his jaw movements that the dubbing is WAAAAY off.
- Sargeant's line to Van Damme, "Do you comprehend my words? I can see that you don't. There is a fog in your eyes in which you can see only your own arrogance." Am I crazy or is this a wink at the audience about Van Damme?
- Awesome cheesecake man-ass shots in the "showered with a hose" scene! hahahaha! If you like Van Damme's butt or are curious about Mr. Ecko's hinder, here's your chance.
- Mr. Ecko's story about escaping racism in America by traveling to Africa with the Legion is really intriguing.
- The marching songs in this movie match up with what I've read about the Legion. Someone did research on this thing. Nice change from Beau Geste.
- Lucienne is the stupidest criminal mind ever. Seriously, your plan was to kidnap a Legionnaire from his unit and somehow get him back to France? Dude, runaway Legionnaires couldn't pull that off.
- The guys get hard labor for insubordination. What insubordination? I think the script was missing a few pages.
Crazy. I had more to say about Legionnaire than I did about Beau Geste. I think this is because Legionnaire surprised me far more and I really wanted to make a case for it. There are weak moments and not everything comes together the way it should, but overall this is a solid film that probably should've been given a theatrical run. You owe it to yourself to see this if you've ever been a Fan Damme, if you're interested in the history of the Foreign Legion, or if you generally enjoy adventure films. And I think old-school cinephiles would appreciate the look and feel of the film, too.
See you all next week!
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
The Next Movie and a Word About Technical Credits
So I got my next movie and I'm delighted (and terrified) to share it with you: 1998's Van Damme vehicle Legionnaire. I debated posting the trailer for it off of Youtube, but I don't want to see the trailer as even that might sway my review. It's bad enough that I'm already dealing with anti-Van Damme bias, I don't need a crappily edited trailer to further bias me.
I also wanted to briefly talk about technical credits in my reviews. Nobody has mentioned it, but I thought it would be helpful for readers to know that I'm a story guy, through and through. Any technical element of a film has to affect its ability to tell a story for me to mention it. When speaking of Beau Geste, for instance, the cinematography was adequate, the costume design was adequate, the sound editing was adequate, etc. Nothing detracted or added, in my opinion. So if you're more production-inclined than story-inclined, you may find my reviews lacking. Certainly if I were watching Rear Window for the first time I would mention the BRILLIANT interior framing. But generally don't expect me to talk about that stuff at length.
I also wanted to briefly talk about technical credits in my reviews. Nobody has mentioned it, but I thought it would be helpful for readers to know that I'm a story guy, through and through. Any technical element of a film has to affect its ability to tell a story for me to mention it. When speaking of Beau Geste, for instance, the cinematography was adequate, the costume design was adequate, the sound editing was adequate, etc. Nothing detracted or added, in my opinion. So if you're more production-inclined than story-inclined, you may find my reviews lacking. Certainly if I were watching Rear Window for the first time I would mention the BRILLIANT interior framing. But generally don't expect me to talk about that stuff at length.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
It's here! My first Film Themantics review! Beau Geste
"Oh god, it's just the opening credits and already there's so much sand I'm getting Lawrence of Arabia flashbacks!" - my first thoughts on the film
I'll admit, this review took longer than I intended. I could say that it was because I had to work hard on reading and giving detailed notes on my roommate's script. I could say that it was because my day job of working in a mailroom is physically tiring and spiritually exhausting. I could say that it was because I kept getting distracted by other stuff I wanted to watch. Those are all true statements, but really what kept me from Beau Geste is the fact that it's a black-and-white adventure movie.
I know. It's a terrible prejudice to have in a would-be movie critic and a film student. But for some genres I just have a hard time dealing with black and white. Action/adventure is one of the hardest because I grew up with 80s action movies, which are loud, colorful, often bloody, and fast-paced. I knew I'd be challenged by the 1939 pace and style of Beau Geste. However, I overcame my trepidation for the sake of the blog and here we are.
Overall I enjoyed Beau Geste but, assuming that the Academy knew what it was doing, I agree with the decision to deny it an Oscar. It's one of those films that is great when it's good and kinda awful when it's not. If you're someone who appreciates film history and/or male character dynamics, it's worth a watch. If you just want an old-fashioned adventure movie, I humbly suggest Raiders of the Lost Ark, which contains nearly as much sand and bemusing racism with far fewer structure problems and pointless characters.
In what turned out to be a pleasant surprise, the character work in the film is excellent. I don't know why, but I don't expect solid character work from adventure stories. Particularly the early cinema variety, with their reliance on the strong, silent type of tough guy actor (a type I tend to vehemently dislike, by the way). But Gary Cooper shows a touching fraternal goofiness and sense of responsibility, rendering Beau a hero more by his interactions with other characters than by some martial deeds. His level-headed refusal to engage in the mutiny but unwillingness to execute the mutineers is a wonderfully complex inner conflict, again emphasizing that he's heroic because of who he is, not what he does. Ray Milland and Robert Preston as John and Digby, though not blessed with nearly as much narrative focus, work well as the younger brothers in awe of their older sibling, fiercely loyal to each other and Beau. Milland's romance with the boys' adopted sister Isabel is a bit of a throw-away and Digby literally disappears from the narrative for almost the entire last half of the film, but these are minor complaints when compared to the charm and nobility of the Geste boys. It's worth pointing out that there's an early scene, before the Gestes have left for the Foreign Legion, involving Digby and Beau flushing out and preparing to kill a mouse upstairs. Ultimately they decide that the poor thing is so tiny and harmless, and probably has a family, that it would be cruel to kill it. Beau even suggests bringing cheese up later. This is an AMAZING scene and probably my favorite moment of the entire film. It's a small moment, but it says so much...
Beau Geste is an adaptation, and like many film adaptations it suffers from trying to squeeze in too much from the source material. There are interstitials (a term I'm probably misusing but oh well) that give us an idea of time passing and some background info relevant to the following scenes, and these feel like the film is rushing us past potentially important moments from the novel. It's a strange acknowledgement, as if the film is saying to us, "Yeah, I know, but there's a lot of ground to cover." As well, the film opens with a rather long sequence establishing the Gestes as children and young adults. The sequence is actually great fun and does a good job of establishing character traits and a bit of exposition that will be important for the narrative later. But it's awfully long. And this sequence introduces the 100% pointless character of Augustus. I've never read the novel, but I have to believe that Augustus serves more of a narrative purpose than he does in the film. He's an over-the-top caricature of a snotty kid who ultimately has no influence on any of the events in the film. This sequence also introduces Isabel, who serves slightly more purpose as a motivation for lovestruck John to survive the Arab attacks. But Isabel doesn't write and John never talks about her in the barracks, so she's almost a non-entity for the majority of the film. (Having said that, John and Isabel's "goodbye" scene at the end of the first Act is very well-written and actually moved me). I think the first act generally could have used some judicious trimming, particularly in favor of greater focus on the Geste boys in the Legion.
The character work, though solid for the protagonists, wasn't so great for the antagonists. In the first act Augustus has to play the part of villain and he's so broad he might as well be the side of a barn. It's unintentionally hilarious how much he's just this shitty little kid for no discernible reason. Markoff is a better-written villain, but he's equal parts fascinating and frustrating. Beau's line that Markoff is "a trifle uncouth, but the best soldier we'll ever see" describes the man well. His fervor in the heat of battle and tactical cunning make him the kind of villain you admire. But there's a decidedly Augustus-like moustache-twirling "plain-dealing villain" aspect to the character that I just can't get behind. He relishes the death of his commanding officer because it leaves him in charge. It isn't enough to let the audience infer this, Brian Donlevy actually has to sneer maniacally in the dead officer's face the MOMENT AFTER DEATH. Not two feet away the next morning. No, the guy exhales his last breath, Donlevy puts his ear to the guy's chest, then when Donlevy doesn't hear an inhale he raises his face to the officer's face like he's about to plant a wet kiss on him, and grins like a cartoon cat. It's just sloppy and unsubtle and a shame when one considers the great work done with the Gestes.
I know the times were what they were, but I have to view this movie with a modern sensibility and the ridiculous jingoism in this movie bothered the hell out of me. First of all, this is the French Foreign Legion we're talking about. According to history, the vast majority of the Legion was commanded by French officers. You know how many French accents I heard in this film? None. According to this film, the French Foreign Legion was 99% white American. There are two overtly "foreign" main characters in the film: one is mad, cruel Russian Markoff and the other is ugly, thieving Russian Rasinoff. So we've got villainous Russians and Arabs battling heroic Yanks (the Gestes are technically British, but c'mon, you never hear an accent in any of their lines). Again, I know this is more a reflection of society and availability of casting talent, but it still really bothered me.
There are moments that I want to point out as being especially good but I don't have much to say about them. The opening sequence of the fort full of dead Legionnaires was a particularly effective hook, even if the bodies were a bit hokey. Lieutenant Martin's deathbed speech about there being too many soldiers and too few battles was intriguing and proven out by Markoff's talent for warfare. The scene wherein Markoff demands that the survivors laugh loudly to confuse the Arabs made Markoff that much more interesting and was a great pairing of an external conflict (Arabs must not realize the fort is almost dead) with an internal (the survivors are mentally exhausted and losing self-control). The "viking funeral" scene was really effective and had me tearing up, which was great when the darkly comical counterpoint of the dog at the foot of the bed was added.
As far as Beau Geste's relation to the theme goes, I'm calling this a failure. Look, the Foreign Legion gets mentioned and is a backdrop to the story, but there's more French in a McDonald's croissanwich than in this entire movie. The Geste boys don't go through any rigorous on-screen training to emphasize the military aspect of the Legion. If it weren't for uniforms and guns, you'd never even know these guys were soldiers. Decent movie, not really a great example of the theme.
So there you go. Recommended? Yes, with my aforementioned caveats.
Tune in next week when my new film will be..... well, I don't know. I didn't get the next DVD yet.
I'll admit, this review took longer than I intended. I could say that it was because I had to work hard on reading and giving detailed notes on my roommate's script. I could say that it was because my day job of working in a mailroom is physically tiring and spiritually exhausting. I could say that it was because I kept getting distracted by other stuff I wanted to watch. Those are all true statements, but really what kept me from Beau Geste is the fact that it's a black-and-white adventure movie.
I know. It's a terrible prejudice to have in a would-be movie critic and a film student. But for some genres I just have a hard time dealing with black and white. Action/adventure is one of the hardest because I grew up with 80s action movies, which are loud, colorful, often bloody, and fast-paced. I knew I'd be challenged by the 1939 pace and style of Beau Geste. However, I overcame my trepidation for the sake of the blog and here we are.
Overall I enjoyed Beau Geste but, assuming that the Academy knew what it was doing, I agree with the decision to deny it an Oscar. It's one of those films that is great when it's good and kinda awful when it's not. If you're someone who appreciates film history and/or male character dynamics, it's worth a watch. If you just want an old-fashioned adventure movie, I humbly suggest Raiders of the Lost Ark, which contains nearly as much sand and bemusing racism with far fewer structure problems and pointless characters.
In what turned out to be a pleasant surprise, the character work in the film is excellent. I don't know why, but I don't expect solid character work from adventure stories. Particularly the early cinema variety, with their reliance on the strong, silent type of tough guy actor (a type I tend to vehemently dislike, by the way). But Gary Cooper shows a touching fraternal goofiness and sense of responsibility, rendering Beau a hero more by his interactions with other characters than by some martial deeds. His level-headed refusal to engage in the mutiny but unwillingness to execute the mutineers is a wonderfully complex inner conflict, again emphasizing that he's heroic because of who he is, not what he does. Ray Milland and Robert Preston as John and Digby, though not blessed with nearly as much narrative focus, work well as the younger brothers in awe of their older sibling, fiercely loyal to each other and Beau. Milland's romance with the boys' adopted sister Isabel is a bit of a throw-away and Digby literally disappears from the narrative for almost the entire last half of the film, but these are minor complaints when compared to the charm and nobility of the Geste boys. It's worth pointing out that there's an early scene, before the Gestes have left for the Foreign Legion, involving Digby and Beau flushing out and preparing to kill a mouse upstairs. Ultimately they decide that the poor thing is so tiny and harmless, and probably has a family, that it would be cruel to kill it. Beau even suggests bringing cheese up later. This is an AMAZING scene and probably my favorite moment of the entire film. It's a small moment, but it says so much...
Beau Geste is an adaptation, and like many film adaptations it suffers from trying to squeeze in too much from the source material. There are interstitials (a term I'm probably misusing but oh well) that give us an idea of time passing and some background info relevant to the following scenes, and these feel like the film is rushing us past potentially important moments from the novel. It's a strange acknowledgement, as if the film is saying to us, "Yeah, I know, but there's a lot of ground to cover." As well, the film opens with a rather long sequence establishing the Gestes as children and young adults. The sequence is actually great fun and does a good job of establishing character traits and a bit of exposition that will be important for the narrative later. But it's awfully long. And this sequence introduces the 100% pointless character of Augustus. I've never read the novel, but I have to believe that Augustus serves more of a narrative purpose than he does in the film. He's an over-the-top caricature of a snotty kid who ultimately has no influence on any of the events in the film. This sequence also introduces Isabel, who serves slightly more purpose as a motivation for lovestruck John to survive the Arab attacks. But Isabel doesn't write and John never talks about her in the barracks, so she's almost a non-entity for the majority of the film. (Having said that, John and Isabel's "goodbye" scene at the end of the first Act is very well-written and actually moved me). I think the first act generally could have used some judicious trimming, particularly in favor of greater focus on the Geste boys in the Legion.
The character work, though solid for the protagonists, wasn't so great for the antagonists. In the first act Augustus has to play the part of villain and he's so broad he might as well be the side of a barn. It's unintentionally hilarious how much he's just this shitty little kid for no discernible reason. Markoff is a better-written villain, but he's equal parts fascinating and frustrating. Beau's line that Markoff is "a trifle uncouth, but the best soldier we'll ever see" describes the man well. His fervor in the heat of battle and tactical cunning make him the kind of villain you admire. But there's a decidedly Augustus-like moustache-twirling "plain-dealing villain" aspect to the character that I just can't get behind. He relishes the death of his commanding officer because it leaves him in charge. It isn't enough to let the audience infer this, Brian Donlevy actually has to sneer maniacally in the dead officer's face the MOMENT AFTER DEATH. Not two feet away the next morning. No, the guy exhales his last breath, Donlevy puts his ear to the guy's chest, then when Donlevy doesn't hear an inhale he raises his face to the officer's face like he's about to plant a wet kiss on him, and grins like a cartoon cat. It's just sloppy and unsubtle and a shame when one considers the great work done with the Gestes.
I know the times were what they were, but I have to view this movie with a modern sensibility and the ridiculous jingoism in this movie bothered the hell out of me. First of all, this is the French Foreign Legion we're talking about. According to history, the vast majority of the Legion was commanded by French officers. You know how many French accents I heard in this film? None. According to this film, the French Foreign Legion was 99% white American. There are two overtly "foreign" main characters in the film: one is mad, cruel Russian Markoff and the other is ugly, thieving Russian Rasinoff. So we've got villainous Russians and Arabs battling heroic Yanks (the Gestes are technically British, but c'mon, you never hear an accent in any of their lines). Again, I know this is more a reflection of society and availability of casting talent, but it still really bothered me.
There are moments that I want to point out as being especially good but I don't have much to say about them. The opening sequence of the fort full of dead Legionnaires was a particularly effective hook, even if the bodies were a bit hokey. Lieutenant Martin's deathbed speech about there being too many soldiers and too few battles was intriguing and proven out by Markoff's talent for warfare. The scene wherein Markoff demands that the survivors laugh loudly to confuse the Arabs made Markoff that much more interesting and was a great pairing of an external conflict (Arabs must not realize the fort is almost dead) with an internal (the survivors are mentally exhausted and losing self-control). The "viking funeral" scene was really effective and had me tearing up, which was great when the darkly comical counterpoint of the dog at the foot of the bed was added.
As far as Beau Geste's relation to the theme goes, I'm calling this a failure. Look, the Foreign Legion gets mentioned and is a backdrop to the story, but there's more French in a McDonald's croissanwich than in this entire movie. The Geste boys don't go through any rigorous on-screen training to emphasize the military aspect of the Legion. If it weren't for uniforms and guns, you'd never even know these guys were soldiers. Decent movie, not really a great example of the theme.
So there you go. Recommended? Yes, with my aforementioned caveats.
Tune in next week when my new film will be..... well, I don't know. I didn't get the next DVD yet.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Theme the First: Foreign Legion!!!
I've decided that when I have a theme to work with I'm going to write a post sharing my thoughts and any relevant (or irrelevant, as the mood strikes) research/background info.
Well, folks, the first theme has been hat-picked and has come up Foreign Legion! Thanks again to Mr. X for providing the themes and the hat into which they are placed. Thanks to my fingers for alighting upon the paper that read "Foreign Legion". And thanks to you, reader/s, for.... um.... your literacy? Unless someone is reading this aloud to you, in which case you're probably blind or mildly stupid, either of which would be a reasonable cause of the shame that sent so many men to the Legion. (Allow me to clarify for those without a sense of humor: I'm kidding.) (To those with a sense of humor: I'm not kidding. I think illiterates should be forced to pit-fight seeing-eye dogs whose owners are lead into busy traffic.)
Before I did any research on this theme, I had a vague notion of the Foreign Legion. I knew, for instance, that Pepe Lepew had been a member in a few classic Warner cartoons. You might be surprised to know just how much history and classical music knowledge I've gleaned from cartoons over the years. When I say "gleaned", of course I mean "assumed without fact-checking". In any case, the Legion was good enough for Pepe, so it's good enough for me. I also vaguely remembered the Legion as a critical element of an old Marty Feldman spoof titled "The Last Remake of Beau Geste" that I enjoyed in a "poor man's Monty Python" sort of way. This prompted in my brain a recognition that undoubtedly one, if not more, of my movies would be an adaptation of the original Beau Geste novel, which I know by reputation as very British and adventure-y in the manner of Lawrence of Arabia. I really hope the similarities end there as (sorry, film historians/critics/professors) I find Lawrence dreadfully tedious.
I Wikipedia'd "Foreign Legion" (because library research is classified by the Geneva Convention as, and I quote, "Stupid and boring and stuff") and was surprised to discover that the term "Foreign Legion" actually applies to a division of several national militaries. Officially there are an Israeli, Russian, and Spanish Foreign Legion in addition to the original French. I thought I remembered from Pepe that the Foreign Legion was a predominantly French phenomenon, and further research into the subject confirmed that memory.
You can Wiki this for yourself and spare a few moments, but then you'll miss my amusing summary and why else have you started reading this blog if not for the thrill of my prose? Here's my basic breakdown of the French Foreign Legion:
1) It was created in 1831 by King Louis Phillippe because some powerful Frenchman before him (undoubtedly a man sans military pragmatism and avec too much esprit nationale) had decided that foreigners couldn't fight in the French army. I'm not going to make an obvious anti-France joke here because a) it's beneath me b) they were all made by jingoists 10 years ago and c) I love the romanticism of period French military culture. Cyrano? The Musketeers? Monte Cristo (the character, not the sandwich)? Sign me up.
2) For the majority of its history, la legion provided the front-line foot-soldiers in major skirmishes for colonization. See, nobody in provincial France actually wanted these foreigners to live near them, just to die for them so that France could expand its borders. The first major skirmish involving la legion was in Algeria, which eventually became the Legion's adopted home and is what most people picture when they hear the term French Foreign Legion. Again, I have to believe that Pepe is partially responsible for this.
3) Because of the loose membership requirements of la legion's early years, it's viewed somewhat romantically as being a haven for criminals on the run and deeply troubled but noble men escaping from life's many woes. The difficult living conditions and years of fighting in foreign lands have only added to this romanticism, leading many storytellers to create the manliest and bravest heroes alongside the most wicked, vile villains. Membership requirements throughout the years have tightened as the world has become more globally conscious, which may account for the rapid loss of its romantic appeal and relegation to fictional obsolescence.
So there you go. There's the French Foreign Legion in a nutshell.
And as I guessed, the first surprise film that I shall review next week is the 1939 Gary Cooper-starring Beau Geste. See you here again some time next week!
Well, folks, the first theme has been hat-picked and has come up Foreign Legion! Thanks again to Mr. X for providing the themes and the hat into which they are placed. Thanks to my fingers for alighting upon the paper that read "Foreign Legion". And thanks to you, reader/s, for.... um.... your literacy? Unless someone is reading this aloud to you, in which case you're probably blind or mildly stupid, either of which would be a reasonable cause of the shame that sent so many men to the Legion. (Allow me to clarify for those without a sense of humor: I'm kidding.) (To those with a sense of humor: I'm not kidding. I think illiterates should be forced to pit-fight seeing-eye dogs whose owners are lead into busy traffic.)
Before I did any research on this theme, I had a vague notion of the Foreign Legion. I knew, for instance, that Pepe Lepew had been a member in a few classic Warner cartoons. You might be surprised to know just how much history and classical music knowledge I've gleaned from cartoons over the years. When I say "gleaned", of course I mean "assumed without fact-checking". In any case, the Legion was good enough for Pepe, so it's good enough for me. I also vaguely remembered the Legion as a critical element of an old Marty Feldman spoof titled "The Last Remake of Beau Geste" that I enjoyed in a "poor man's Monty Python" sort of way. This prompted in my brain a recognition that undoubtedly one, if not more, of my movies would be an adaptation of the original Beau Geste novel, which I know by reputation as very British and adventure-y in the manner of Lawrence of Arabia. I really hope the similarities end there as (sorry, film historians/critics/professors) I find Lawrence dreadfully tedious.
I Wikipedia'd "Foreign Legion" (because library research is classified by the Geneva Convention as, and I quote, "Stupid and boring and stuff") and was surprised to discover that the term "Foreign Legion" actually applies to a division of several national militaries. Officially there are an Israeli, Russian, and Spanish Foreign Legion in addition to the original French. I thought I remembered from Pepe that the Foreign Legion was a predominantly French phenomenon, and further research into the subject confirmed that memory.
You can Wiki this for yourself and spare a few moments, but then you'll miss my amusing summary and why else have you started reading this blog if not for the thrill of my prose? Here's my basic breakdown of the French Foreign Legion:
1) It was created in 1831 by King Louis Phillippe because some powerful Frenchman before him (undoubtedly a man sans military pragmatism and avec too much esprit nationale) had decided that foreigners couldn't fight in the French army. I'm not going to make an obvious anti-France joke here because a) it's beneath me b) they were all made by jingoists 10 years ago and c) I love the romanticism of period French military culture. Cyrano? The Musketeers? Monte Cristo (the character, not the sandwich)? Sign me up.
2) For the majority of its history, la legion provided the front-line foot-soldiers in major skirmishes for colonization. See, nobody in provincial France actually wanted these foreigners to live near them, just to die for them so that France could expand its borders. The first major skirmish involving la legion was in Algeria, which eventually became the Legion's adopted home and is what most people picture when they hear the term French Foreign Legion. Again, I have to believe that Pepe is partially responsible for this.
3) Because of the loose membership requirements of la legion's early years, it's viewed somewhat romantically as being a haven for criminals on the run and deeply troubled but noble men escaping from life's many woes. The difficult living conditions and years of fighting in foreign lands have only added to this romanticism, leading many storytellers to create the manliest and bravest heroes alongside the most wicked, vile villains. Membership requirements throughout the years have tightened as the world has become more globally conscious, which may account for the rapid loss of its romantic appeal and relegation to fictional obsolescence.
So there you go. There's the French Foreign Legion in a nutshell.
And as I guessed, the first surprise film that I shall review next week is the 1939 Gary Cooper-starring Beau Geste. See you here again some time next week!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)