Geum.ru

Gsc films e-m the Eagle

Вид материалаДокументы

Содержание


In a Lonely Place
In America
In Which We Serve
Подобный материал:
1   ...   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   ...   33

In a Lonely Place 1950 Nicholas Ray (Columbia) 3.0 Humphrey Bogart as a mercurial, sometimes violent Hollywood writer who is suspected of murder and falls in love with Grahame; Gloria Grahame as girl-next-door, struggling would-be actress who wants to believe in Bogart; Frank Lovejoy as sympathetic police investigator; Art Smith as Bogart's long-suffering agent. Interesting psychological drama that takes place in credible Hollywood setting -- bars, apartment complex, a police station, on the road with unconvincing back screen projections. Bogart plays a conflicted character accused of a murder that he might have committed; the director gives us plenty of reason to think so as the camera looks into Bogart's tortured eyes (his eyes are spot lit in the creepy scene in which Bogart describes to Lovejoy and wife how he might have committed the murder if he had done it). The real drama is the development of his relationship with Grahame: they are both "lonely" people looking for a foothold in life; they seem to have found it, but the tension of the investigation brings out the anger and violence in Bogart (in one scene he beats up a motorist in a vicious bit of road rage), and in the end, Bogart is found not to be guilty, but his near-homicidal anger causes Grahame to walk out of the relationship. Some poetry in love lost, since both principals recite the following lines -- "I was born when you kissed me, I died when you left me, I lived a few weeks while you loved me." It is a small tragedy that they are not able to get together. A moving scene is in a restaurant men’s room when Bogart expresses his remorse to his agent after he hit him with no reason while seated at dinner. Excellent lower level A movie in the film noir period, although despite some dark shadows this is not a fully qualified film noir (the femme is a good girl, the film is not narrated, the characters do not seem doomed, but the audience keeps hoping that they will solve their problems and get together). The viewer experiences some skepticism about the supposed violence of Bogart's character -- we need a bit more background to make us understand how a bad temper could cause such failure.


In America 2003 Jim Sheridan (Ireland) 3.5 Paddy Considine, Samantha Morton, Emma and Emma Bolger, Djimon Honsou. Autobiographical film about Sheridan’s family going to NY for dad to look for acting job. Script written by Sheridan and his two daughters. Psychological/family drama as whole family tries to overcome the impact of the death of a young brother from cancer. Rather sentimental as film schemes to get us involved and to care. Outstanding acting from all characters, particularly SM as Sarah and the two girls, who have an unnatural genuineness and wisdom; Ariel fills screen with her joy of life; older sister moving when she finally speaks out at the end. Backdrop is struggling actors’ life in NY, and the tenement where they lived filled with drug addicts and transvestites. Humor on adaptation to life in USA, attending parochial school, trick or treating in the slums, etc. Noble struggle of family to make it and to deal with the past. Father finally learns to cry at end as he looks at moon (shades of ET), and then he is able to get an acting job because he can feel. A simplicity of style and genuineness of feeling that is rare. A peek at the nobility of which common people are capable.


In the Bedroom 2003 Todd Field and Andre Dubus 3.0 Tom Wilkinson, Sissy Spacek, Nick Stahl, Marisa Tomei. Very slow moving film about what lurks below the surface in middle class New England. Generally well acted, although I was a bit turned off by the fireworks syndrome when TW and SS reach their emotional meltdown. Movie focuses on the emotional impact of murder on the parents, and leads one to think we are seeing a movie about healing; and then what it becomes a movie about revenge with no resolution about its impact (will they be caught? does the murder have healing properties? did SS order her husband to do it? what kind of friend would help his friend to commit murder?). Way too many character and plot questions left unanswered. And the switch to the murder plot, while emotionally satisfying to the viewer, seems scarcely credible in view of the prior development of the parents. Sissy Spacek is very unlikable as a character – controlling, unforgiving, etc., and this makes it hard to get into the movie. Wonderful photography and evocation of atmosphere of Maine town.


In Bruges 2008 Martin McDonagh (Britain) 3.0 Colin Farrell a nervous young Irish hit man with a bad conscience; Brendan Gleeson as older equally Irish hit man who is more relaxed and avuncular; Ralph Fiennes appears in last part of film as their hyper intense, profane boss driven by a punctilious sense of honor; Clémence Poésy as pretty love interest smiling compulsively for Farrell. Interesting first feature by McDonagh replete with violence, the color red, and obsessive use of the ‘f’ word. Two men are sent from England to Bruges (Belgium) after a bungled hit job in a church – Farrell kills a priest, who is the intended victim, but he also kills a child by mistake. The acting is excellent: Farrell and Gleeson bicker but also develop a camaraderie that includes a lot of humor. Bruges, which Gleeson visits as an interested tourist but which Farrell consistently qualifies as a “shithole”, is the backdrop of the film – quaint, historical, medieval, provincial, dull: perhaps a statement about life, although it does not quite fit. Characters are quirky. All the gangsters have good traits more or less: Farrell, the dramatic center of the film, is consumed by remorse for the death of the child; Gleeson is easy-going, kind, polite, and he progressively develops a paternal affection for Farrell, whose life he tries to save in the last part of the film by throwing himself from the city bell tower; Fiennes is the only truly bad man of the three, but even he appears to love his wife and he has a deep affection for his own children and for all children (the murder of the child is what motivates him to order the execution of Farrell). Film specializes in improbability. Conversation is Tarantinesque in its apparent non sequiturs and surprising connections – e.g., the Amsterdam prostitute who says she came to Bruges in order to get a better price for her pussy. The narrative is full of twists, many of them improbable especially toward the end: Fiennes shoots Gleeson in the neck and yet he is able to crawl to the balcony of the tower and throw himself over as a warning to Farrell; driven by his sense of honor and his concern for an unborn child, Fiennes agrees not to shoot Farrell in the rooming house (the pretty pregnant owner refuses to get out of the way) but to have a chasing contest in the canal; Fiennes finally shoots Farrell several times through the body (always graphically portrayed), but he is carried to a hospital where he still hopes to survive (end of film). Good emotion evoked in the audience by Gleeson’s increasing identification with Farrell and his sacrifice of his life for him at the end; interesting although puzzling turn by Fiennes who pursues Farrell because he killed a child, and when at the end he thinks he has shot a child (it is actually the star dwarf of the film), he shoots himself in the mouth saying that you have to be true to your principles (!). Film is original and interesting; it is completely unpredictable; and it breaks many rules, including those of probable psychology and plotting. Several moments of feeling and humor.


In Cold Blood 1967 Richard Brooks (writer and Director) 3.0 Robert Blake as the complex and conflicted killer Perry, Scott Wilson as the more straightforwardly lowlife partner Dick Hickock, John Forsyth as the extremely straight arrow and rather dull KBI investigator pursuing the men. Sort of docudrama treatment of Truman Capote's famous reportage about the apparently senseless murder of the Clutter family in Holcomb Kansas (1959). Film traces the events leading up to the murder, and then blacks out as the two men enter the house; we don't learn what they did to the family of four until Perry tells his story to Forsyth in the car driving through the rain, thus preserving a semblance of suspense. Film has deadpan, documentary-seeming approach, as we watch the men walking through the streets of Kansas City before they pull off a bad check scheme, driving down endless Kansas and California desert roads, sitting in their jail cells not doing very much. Section depicting the murders well filmed and edited, avoiding blood and gore and giving us insight into the boys' personalities – after Perry's objections to the plan and his repeated exclamations of how "stupid" the whole job is, we are surprised that he is the one who commits all the murders. After the murder flashback is finished, the rest of the film is an anticlimax, as the Capote figure (played by Paul Stewart) badmouths the death penalty (the film's social conscience); it ends with the detailed although not graphic hanging of the two men. Film focuses on the psychological background and upbringing of Perry: he had an unhappy family life (mother was an adventurous slut), he was small and sexually inadequate, he had lied about killing a man in Las Vegas and we are led to believe that he generated enough rage to commit the Clutter murders to prove to his sidekick that he was a real man. He had also just watched his friend have sex with a Mexican girl while he daydreamed about his father beating up his mother when he caught her with another man having sex in front of the children. The idea is that Perry got up the nerve to commit the murders only in his relationship with Hickock. Film is fairly long and drags somewhat (just like real life). A worthy attempt to make a "realist" American film.


In the Company of Men 1996 Neil LaBute 3.5 Aaron Eckhart as Chad, an incredibly bitter, misogynistic young computer worker who is even worse than he seems, Matt Malloy as his boss and hanger on who goes along somewhat reluctantly with his scheme, Stacy Edwards as pretty brunette deaf secretary who is the vulnerable, almost defenseless butt of their plot. Very cynical, even nihilistic take on men-women relations and corporate politics in contemporary America. The film takes place in a faceless corporation, where everyone is competitive and ambitious and eager to please their bosses for promotion; they are willing to do almost anything for success. Chad, reportedly dumped by his girlfriend Suzanne, concocts plot with his follower Howard (Malloy) to team seduce a vulnerable young woman and then abandon her in revenge for all the ills and humiliations they have suffered at the hands of women (i.e., they draw back from relationships with them); their mark turns out to be Christine (Edwards) – since she is deaf Chad is even more pleased at the pain he can wreak on her. Chad is a veritable monster, but he is handsome and often likable, and he has a way with words (obviously reflecting the wordsmithness of the playwright) that keep our attention and amuse the viewers who appreciate language. He is at his best in describing contemptuously the mechanics of Christine's speaking (little bits of spittle forming at the corners of her mouth, watching the mechanics of her forming her words until finally a voice emerges something like Flipper's). As his seduction of Christine progresses, we are nearly seduced too by his sweet nothings, his gifts of flowers, and other acts of apparent thoughtfulness, and we wonder if perhaps he is softening and falling in love with her; but we are brought around brutally in the end when he dumps her and leaves her sobbing on the bed. Meanwhile, Howard also pursues her, but much less resolutely, and he actually falls for her (although since the viewer is unsure of what is going on, we wonder if his thoughtfulness might be part of his technique to set her up also for a brutal fall), and thus ironically becomes vulnerable himself. Chad turns out worse than we thought. He specializes in humiliating people; for him life is a struggle and success goes to the most ruthless; he intends to push people around just as he had been pushed around. He is a misanthrope and not just a misogynist. He picks on men too: he forces a young (black) executive trainee to "show me your balls" (literally) to demonstrate that he has the boldness to deserve a promotion; he intentionally sabotages Howard's relations with his bosses back East and he gets him demoted; in a startling revelation he reveals to Howard that Chad's girlfriend had never left him in the beginning, thus demonstrating that the plot they had hatched together was really a trick on Howard; when Howard reveals at the end that he is suffering because of his rejection by Christine, Chad gleefully rubs it in and asks him "how does it feel." In the end, Howard sees Christine in the bank and shouts to her "Listen to me!!" We cut to Christine's point of view, and we see Howard's contorted face and mouth "shouting" in front of her but in total silence – communication is impossible, and perhaps she is so traumatized that she will never again have a relationship. All is reduced to nothingness! What a ride.


In the Loop 2009 Armando Iannucci (Britain) 3.0 Peter Capaldi as stratospherically foul-mouthed communications secretary for the British prime minister (one wonders why he wields so much power?; Tom Hollander as mild-mannered, rather nerdy junior minister who seems over his head; James Gandolfini as blunt, combative Pentagon general who is opposed to the war being hatched by the British and American governments; Anna Chlumsky as sexy young aid to the under secretary of state; Mimi Kennedy as the Under Secretary who is leading the American charge against the war; David Rasche as the other Under-Secretary who is leading the charge for war; Chris Addison as often nonplussed junior aide to Hollander. Entertaining, sharp-tongued, highly satirical but ultimately sad comedy about the reactions of the middle ranks of British and American governments in their stampede toward war with an unnamed foreign power (obviously the lead-up to the war against Iraq). Capaldi and Rasche are partners in preparing public opinion for war and presenting the Anglo-American case to the United Nation; Hollander, Gandolfini, and Kennedy provide the main opposition; Chlumsky and Addison are the very young aides of the doves (very young-looking political aides in Washington is a running joke throughout the film) trying their best to keep abreast of events. Despite the humor, the environment is disturbing – almost all the principals are extremely foul-mouthed (Capaldi is the champion), aggressive (verbal donnybrooks between Gandolfini and Capaldi, vicious putdown of Capaldi by Rasche, etc.), and egotistical. There is very little sign of friendship or love or an idealistic concern for the well-being of the country (Hollander being perhaps an exception); everyone is busy promoting their own careers (the line is often repeated that ‘your career is over!’), struggling to survive in the rough and tumble of politics. The film ends in farce/tragedy: the war proponents resort to forgery and manipulation to convince the Security Council to vote in favor of war (the U.S. refrains from imposing a tariff on Chinese imports to secure Chinese abstention in the vote); of the three who have promised one another to resign, only Kennedy follows through – Gandolfini says that now the war is here, his duty is to stay in office, and before Hollander is able to resign, he is fired by the prime minister over a petty dispute between him and one of his Northamptonshire constituents; and the two nations march toward war. The viciousness and foul language in the first part of the film are entertaining, but the nihilistic nastiness gets a bit tiresome and repetitive as the film progresses. Based on British TV programs.


In Which We Serve 1942 Noel Coward; David Lean (Britain) 3.0 Noel Coward as stiff-upper-lip, impeccably accented captain of a British destroyer in World War II; Celia Johnson very pretty but reserved and rather starchy as his upper class wife, eternally taking tea with her children in front of a picture window looking out on the gentle fields of England; Bernard Miles as loyal, commonsensical, and understatedly courageous lower class petty officer on board; John Mills as a simple seaman, also lower class; Kay Walsh as his pretty wife. Patriotic, morale-raising World War II creation of Noel Coward that enjoyed huge success on both sides of the Atlantic. Starts with the sinking of the Torrin by enemy aircraft (exciting sequences) and then flashbacks by survivors hanging on to a life raft as German planes continue to strafe them: includes especially scenes with the womenfolk left home, their worries, their courage and loyalty to their men and their country; also some previous battle sequences in which the Torrin does not usually do very well (once almost sunk by a torpedo) and their mission to rescue subdued BEF soldiers from Dunkirk. Film is a period piece that shows the united resolve of all Englishman – whatever their class or background – to make all necessary sacrifices to emerge victorious over Germany (no reference in the film to the help of the Americans). Upper and lower class folk express their determination to do their duty but with the British sense of understatement minus any patriotic fanfare, boasting or beating of one’s chest. The film also unconsciously demonstrates the rigid class structure of the country and of the Royal Navy. Captain Coward is starchy and reserved giving impromptu pep talks to his men (“come a little closer”) and shaking the hands of all surviving crew members after the Torrin is sunk and they are given other assignments. He always seems to be stepping self-consciously out of his social and linguistic superiority – condescending and to cultivate a paternalistic closeness to his men (is his loyalty really to the king and the privileges that his class enjoys before the era of the Labor governments?). The scene in which Coward and Johnson meet Mills and Walsh in the railroad carriage is uncomfortable in its coded social distinctions. Nevertheless, one cannot help but admire the decency and dedication that got the British through.


An Inconvenient Truth 2006 Davis Guggenheim 3.0 A good, convincing documentary demonstrating that global warming is a reality and, slightly less obvious, that humans are playing a big role in causing it. Film is 80% a rehash of the slide show that Gore has been giving since 1989; the film was made to broaden the message he is preaching. Film is high quality -- Gore striding back and forth in front of lots of high-tech graphics that impart the scientific concepts pretty straightforwardly. Film does not add a lot of information and insight to someone who has been reading newspaper and magazine articles on the subject, but some parts are revealing to me -- the consequences of Greenland's icecap and the ice on Antarctica’s western shelf breaking off into the sea, the graphics about the populated coastal areas being flooded by the ensuing 20-foot water rise, the study that shows the scientific community is unanimous on supporting the concept (928 of 928 articles published in refereed journals), but that about half of the newspaper articles on the subject indicate that the jury is still out. Gore is a fairly engaging lecturer -- earnest, clear, well-spoken, with moments of low-key humor (rescuing the frog who is boiling in the beaker, introducing himself as the man "who used to be the next President of the United States"), although his style would not keep undergraduates rapt. Some of the film is devoted to Gore's own journey -- growing up on a tobacco farm, not being able to tell the difference between work and play, the death of his sister from lung cancer due to smoking, his generally futile attempt to raise the consciousness of the Senate in the 1980s, a rehashing of the electoral loss in 2000. We are urged at the end to make a moral choice and take personal steps to help save the planet, which we have to believe is in grave danger after seeing this movie. Gore also emphasizes that the world is in need of political vision and courage on the subject, something that we apparently do not have right now. Since the material is quite familiar for aware citizens, the movie has perhaps less emotional impact than it might.


The Incredibles 2004 Brad Bird (Pixar) 3.5 Voices of Craig Nelson, Holly Hunter, Samuel L. Jackson as retired superhero who makes ice as a weapon (!), even Brad Bird as the "Darling!" clothes designer. Superior family film about superheroes that has a lot of adult subtexts and references/homages to other films. Most obviously is a satire of superhero films, since the protagonist, Mr. Incredible, marries Elastigirl and settles in suburbia in a kind of Witness Protection Plan (à la 'Goodfellas'), since society has reacted against them – lots of lawsuits on their heels. But Mr. Incredible soon responds to the need to save civilization, serve the public good, and he is soon on the tracks of a sort of villain, who just wants to eliminate all true superheroes (who have super powers) and replace them with his highly inventive but not superpowered self as the hero of society; he just wants to be loved. Things get really exciting and thrilling when the whole family joins in clad in matching suits concocted for them by the clothes designer. Mother and Dad have gotten seriously out of shape living the suburban dream – he with a pot belly that he has to work off with intensive exercise and her with very round hips that don't seem to get in her way. The children are pretty priceless: the teenage girl has the power to disappear (and thus to hide in embarrassment from her peers until she finally finds herself); Dash, it turns out, has the power to run very fast (in order not to be discovered his parents urge him not to run too fast in basketball and track competitions); and in the climactic battle, the little baby suddenly reveals his capacity to turn into a devil-like creature that defeats the bad guy. The island getaway and the big band jazz score are obviously taken from the Bond movies. Computer animation is excellent – spare and precise and yet exciting and eyebrow-raising. Basic idea is that society is leveling and opposed to anyone that stands out; the only way to survive is to conform to uniformity and pretend mediocrity (Mr. Incredible's absurdly boring job evaluating claims for an insurance company; Elastigirl's preoccupation with the status of her non-conforming children in their public school, etc.); the extraordinary, shiningly physical characters of course assert themselves, but one wonders at the end whether it will continue. Could this be a recrudescence of Nietzsche is American films?