Reviews

Spoilers.

This film was the basis for Fassbinder's superb The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant, it also must have had an effect on David Lynch‘s Mullholland Drive. We are presented with scheming women situated in a world that thrives on deception and illusion. Likewise all the relationships between the characters are illusory. What seems to be love or devotion is in fact hidden cruelty, and desperation. Everyone is exploiting everyone else.

Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter) forges an unlikely relationship with Margo Channing (Bette Davis). Eve has enormous ambitions in the cutthroat, and deceptive world of the theater, and hopes to study her idol with the eventual result of taking the place that she held in the theater world. Margo is smart enough that she probably knows this from the start, but she is aging, and her theater career, is consequently on the verge of decaying, and as a result she allows the flattery and sycophantic behavior of Eve as a way to ease the pain that is destroying her ego, and relive some of the adulation that existed in her earlier years.

The other players include Lloyd Richards (Hugh Marlowe), as America's most commercially successful playwright and Bill Sampson (Gary Merrill) as a brilliant director. It's Bill that delivers a sparkling monologue defending the position that the theater exists in many incarnations, thus explicitly linking the movie's portrayal of the Broadway way of life, to the way of life of Hollywood. Finally, there's George Sanders as Addison DeWitt, a theater critic, and power-hungry social climber, who's the only character who is not a self-deceiving hypocrite and hence the only character who understands Eve.

The name of the main character alone is enough to communicate to us that this is not just a film about theater, however, but also about women, the compromises they have to make and the poses they have to strike to get by in the world. Both Eve and Margo are aware of how low and cruel they are, but justify themselves by the very fact that the world is equally cruel and unfair to them. Except for DeWitt, all of the men in the film exhibit a selective blindness to the real nature of Margo and her student Eve, not out of kindness though. The movie is about the way women, to succeed, must provide men with illusions, and how the men look the other way when any sign is made manifest that those illusions might be false. This kind of game playing is almost universal between the sexes, and it's of vital importance to the film's world view that it's the effeminate DeWitt who sees through this heterosexual game playing, and exploits it as an outsider.

In a magnificent stroke of irony, this film also features an early performance by Marilyn Monroe, the high queen of illusion of the American cinema, as an ambitious and none too bright young starlet. The movie is revolutionary because it marks a rare time that Hollywood decided to be honest about what it was doing, to it's stars and audiences alike. All About Eve also has a script by Joseph Mankiewicz that features some of the most razor sharp and cynical dialogue ever to crackle from the screen. If you haven't seen it, then see it, by all means.

10/10

Spoilers ahead.

An unusual film and a definite change of pace from the rapid-fire filmmaking that Americans are used to. This film follows a year in the life of rural Italian peasants living at the turn of the century. There is a central plotline, a family who wants their son to know a better life then they have tries to send him to school. However the clogs that carry him on the long and hard journey to school are broken, making the path impossible. The central message of the film is that God will provide. It is a sermon on the virtues of simple faith.

However, this central plot, very similar to a fairy tale is only a device to allow the film to devote three and a half hours to showing in great detail the lives of the Italian peasantry during this period, the way they worked, loved and lived. It's a slice of life film like Fellini's Roma, or Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing, but it's much less frenzied and sensationalistic then those works. Like most Italian cinema that I have seen it is more focused around intense images then around plot of dialogue, I will never forget the shots of the landscape, or the scene of the peasants preparing a pig for eating. Central to the film is the beautiful sermon that we hear the village priest offer.

Interestingly, the film focuses on the lives of those people that Pasolini glorified in his films and novels. Pasolini died a few years before the film was released, during most of his life he considered the values of the peasants to be sacred, an antidote to the fierce and brutal ethic of the modern world. By the end of his life, he had given up hope in the peasants, believing that the mass media had exterminated their native culture and way of life. It would be economically and culturally impossible to revive in the modern world the system of living that the peasants shared.

The Tree of Wooden Clogs is a requiem for a dead way of life, released at precisely the time that that culture was drawing its last breath. Watching it is a beautiful and melancholy experience. It's a wonderful film, but one cannot escape a feeling of irrevocable loss.

Spoilers ahead.

The African Queen is splendid fun and a must for Bogart fanatics like myself. Bogart once again plays a rough around the edge everyman character, in this case Charlie Ulnet, a riverboat captain, who engages in an unlikely romance with Rose Sayer, an upper class missionary played by Katharine Hepburn. She left alone and helpless when German troops overrun a mission run by her brother, and he takes her aboard out of pity. She proves however to be far from helpless, devising a crazy scheme to get revenge on the Germans who are responsible, by sinking the Louisa a German warship that provides the primary German military presence in the area.

The character essentially recaps Bogey's role in Casablanca, he's a man who's a selfish and roguish outsider, on the surface, but he has the heart of a lion-hearted idealist. Like in Casablanca, it takes the love of a woman to crack his cynical shell and make him into a paladin. Of course in Casablanca, he was already in love with the woman who fills this role, and in fact her initial rejection of him was one of the things that turned him into a hardened cynic. In Casablanca, also, the two lovers have to sacrifice their connection for the greater good at the end. In the African Queen Bogey gets to cream the bad guys and get the girl, this makes the film less bittersweet, but also less complex. (In case anyone was wondering the characters that Bogey plays in this one and in Casablanca were obviously the basis for the character of Han Solo in Star Wars).

Most of the fun in the African Queen comes from the chemistry between Bogey and Hepburn. It's a relationship that crosses class lines and as a result changes them both. Like so many great movie relationships they begin as antagonists and a series of dangerous situations, survived by reluctant cooperation drive them together. The process changes them both. Sayer has a civilizing effect on Charlie, steering him away from his self destructive excesses, at the same time Charlie and the river itself drag Rose off her upper class pedestal, she is made tougher and earthier and infinitely more appealing by the ordeal. Nevertheless, they retain their essential natures, no matter how she smoothes his rough edges, he remains wild and undomesticated, and no matter how much she weathers the elements, she retains an aristocratic elegance (Hepburn always has this). The two have their lives redirected by their romance without loosing what makes them uniquely them.

Like Aguirre the Wrath of God, and Apocalypse Now this movie studies the effects of being isolated with the forces of nature through a long ride down a dangerous river. However this movie is almost the polar opposite of those films. Herzog and Coppola assume that the wildness of nature and the oppressive claustrophobia of a people in close proximity will spawn hatred distrust, decay, and eventually self-annihilation. John Huston takes a far more optimistic view of human nature, believing that shared hardship will unite and strengthen people. Which view is true? `The opposite of a small truth is false; the opposite of a great truth is also true.'. The African Queen, shows us one side of human nature, those later more cynical films, show us the other. Made after the Vietnam War, those later films are less crowd-pleasing, more uncompromising, bleaker and more artistic in their intent. Still the African Queen is both a triumph and great fun. It's scripted by the Pulitzer Prize winning novelist and movie fanatic James Agee. Based on a novel by C.S. Forester.

9/10

Spoilers ahead.

2001: a Space Odyssey is without a doubt the most challenging and successful film by the late Stanley Kubrick. This is not a film that you watch in order to be entertained or amused. Instead it provides you with a banquet of food for thought, images that linger in the mind's eye long after the movie itself is over. It is a film that you could meditate on.

The film intentionally offers us more questions then it can answer, it is made to puzzle and mystify, but leaves the viewer nevertheless with a sense of awe and reverence (that is allowing that he has engaged himself in the process of viewing it, enjoyment of this film requires some effort on the viewers part) the questions that it does pose are large and ominous, concerning the genesis and destiny of the human race, it's ultimate place in the cosmic design and the existence or lack of some creative intelligence behind the structure of the universe itself.

The first of the films Four Quartets gives us a distinct view of the species past. We see our distant ancestors, half-ape half human, in a state of near starvation. The climate has destroyed most of the plant life and the vegetarian beasts are near starvation. An extra-terestial object, a perfectly smooth and angular black monolith, appears and the animals are simultaneously inspired by it's presence to tool-making and violence. They are transformed overnight into carnevores, and when two tribes encounter each other near a water source, the tribe that has developed tool making capacity, as well as beligerence, soundly destroys the neighboring tribe. The new chief of the winning tribe, empowered by the first vestiges of technology triumphantly throws the bone that he used as a weapon in the air. We see the bone transformed into a floating satellite, which contains nuclear weapons. We soon learn that the world is torn apart by nuclear paranoia. The characteristics inspired by the monument's appearance that once helped us to survive now threaten our very existence.

Once again humanity is in crisis, once again the unearthly presence represented by the black monolith will step in to aid humanity in the next step in it's development. On an exploration of the Moon a monolith identical to the earlier one we have seen is discovered. The governments of the world, normally mortal enemies, have come together in secret to discuss the implications. A mission is arranged. the monument has been engaged in some kind of radio communication with Jupiter. A few men will travel to the destination of the transmission. Most of them will, for most of the time, be kept in a state of suspended animation. The pilot of the spacecraft will be HAL a super computer who has been programmed to imitate all of the traits of human beings.

The film has many outstanding sequences. As usual for Kubrick the use of classical music is outstanding. Most memorable are "Blue Danube" and "Also Spake Zarathustra" (particularly appropriate given the film's theme of transcending ordinary consciousness.) The cinematography is particularly excellent as well, after a single viewing the film's final 30 minutes will haunt you for the rest of your life.

The character of HAL is the most important from the view of the film's central thesis. In imitating all the characteristics of human beings he comes to have their negative traits as well. The paranoia he develops which almost leads to the mission' s ruin is an exact mirror of the paranoia that has allowed the political situation back on earth to reach a point of desperate crisis. The film suggests that these are the traits that we must leave behind if we are to proceed to the next phase in our evolution.

The architecture of the film is also meaningful. The designs of many of the spacecraft are intended to suggest reproductive organs and the process of birth and rebirth, the central motif of the movie. The ending of 2001 is the most spectacular and triumphant ever filmed.

This movie takes a view of life similar to that presented in the poetry of William Butler Yeats and James Joyce's novel Finnegan's Wake. It posits a pattern to history and human evolution that is cyclic, yet progressive, repeating the same events at large intervals, yet with the human race as developing according to the will of a being with a larger purpose in mind. Though we never learn what this purpose is, the film assures us that the human race is not meant for failure, it's destiny is grand beyond it's capacity to imagine. It continues to amaze me that in spite of this film many people continue to regard Kubrick as a misanthrope.

This is a religious film, not in the conventional sense of adhering to any specific creed, but because of it's invocation of wonder at the vast panorama of existence and it's involvement with the deepest and most vital questions of purpose and truth.

In the hands of any other director, this would all be perhaps a little too much. Hollywood's view of life is too puny, usually to encompass the grandeur and intensity of a vision such as this one. But Kubrick was a visionary, he directs with utter confidence, not only that he can handle material of this kind, but that he is the only one to do it. The process of making this film used all of his creative resources. The writing partnership with Arthur C Clarke is the most fruitful in cinematic history. Kubrick had to invent some of the special effects that were used in the movie's astounding climax. The resources to bring his vision to life did not exist at the time, so he brought them into existence.

2001 is a absolutely unique movie experience. Those who miss out on it do so at the detriment of their own intellectual and imaginative capacities.

Spoilers herein.

Andrei Rublyov is a meditation on the meaning and power of art in dark times. Ultimately does art have any power of it¡¯s own? Is it only a distraction for the powerful or does it have the power to create enduring transcendence?

The questions asked by the film also relate to the film¡¯s production. Tarkovsky, the enigmatic and ambitious Russian director wanted to create a film about the spiritual dimension of the creative process. The Russian government of the time only wanted Marxist propaganda. The parallel could not be clearer Andrei a Russian Icon painter wants to create art but is prevented by the political chaos of the fifteenth century. Tarkovsky wants to create authentic cinematic art but is prevented by the communist regime in power in the twentieth century. Both men are dedicated to living in harmony with values outside or the times that they live in.

The film is mostly in black and white, but switch to color at the end when we are treated to a splendid display of the paintings that Andrei went on to create despite his hardships. Up until then the film has been little more then a disconnected series of episodes, each with a precise but obscure meaning, the overall point being that Andrei cannot create in a world so full of suffering.

In the films final sequence, Andrei encounters a young boy who is trying to get a group of laborers to build a church bell. In this act he is trying to follow in his father¡¯s footsteps. After much bullying and cajoling they build the bell and it works perfectly. The boy breaks down in tears. He confesses that his father in fact did not teach him the secret of building the bell, he was merely ¡°winging it¡± out of a shear desperate desire to create.

This description, however only scratches the movie¡¯s surface. Lovingly photographed, each frame looks like it could be a painting by itself. There are cold barren Russian landscapes, ecstatic pagan orgies, and elaborate church interiors. This is a film unafraid to deal with big difficult themes. In intellectual content and shear artfulness Andrei Rublyov is unmatched. 10/10

***Spoilers***

Casablanca is certainly one of the most exciting and touching films ever made. We like it's main characters because of what they do, they are willing to sacrifice there most vital relationships for the sake of a greater cause. They represent the best within us.

The story is set in Casablanca a Moroccan seaport that is the last portal of escape for Europeans who are fleeing the spreading menace of fascism and the World War. Casablanca is full of intrigue and danger a city full of refugees from all over Europe as well as those ready to aid them (for a price) or prey on them.

Humphrey Bogart plays Rick Blaine, the tough cynical owner of a restaurant where expatriates congregate. He reveals himself at first to be a selfish and cold hearted man. As the story progresses we learn that despite his motto `I stick my neck out for no one' he in the past has placed his life in danger for many worthy causes. He is a romantic and idealist whose spirit has been crushed by the harshness of the world.

Soon we learn the exact circumstances of his disillusionment. Ilsa Laszlo, played by Ingrid Bergman, wanders into his restaurant, accompanied by Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid a hero of the anti-Nazi resistance. They need letters of transit to escape Casablanca, and continue to fight the good fight, and soon learn that Rick has got them. Rick however wants to retain his political neutrality, and we soon learn, is bitter that Ilsa walked out of him during a love affair that they had in Paris years ago.

At its heart, the film is about the need to sacrifice personal happiness for the greater good. It probably cannot be divorced from its historical context. It was released in America when the country had just plummeted into World War 2. In order to prevent the world from being annihilated or enslaved, ordinary people had to put aside their petty grievances and find within themselves that which is heroic. That's what this movie is about.

It's also enormously entertaining. The film boasts wonderful performances by Claude Rains as Captain Louis Renault, another idealist trying to pass himself off as a cynical profiteer. Peter Loore is delightfully slimy as Ugarte, a petty thief who tries to turn every situation to his advantage. As countless others have already said the dialogue is second to none, providing a plethora of instantly quotable lines.

Casablanca, is rousing, thrilling and deeply moving. It gives us the great themes within a framework small enough to feel personal. This is moviemaking at it's best.