Hey, this one’s great too! Pasolini’s second film, in which Anna Magnani plays a former streetwalker who tries to create a new life for herself and her teenage son in Rome away from her former pimp and all of those who knew her before. As one can imagine, this doesn’t exactly work out.
Not exactly neorealist, but close enough to often get lumped in with it, it’s the first Pasolini I’ve seen that doesn’t at least skirt fantasy or myth.
You know when the cast was filming Star Wars this is what they thought the movie was going to look like.
Proof that Caroline Munro in a space bikini can make any movie watchable. Or really maybe not. It is a goofy incoherent discombobulated mess of a movie.
But it also has The Hoff and some great costumes.
ETA this is actually a good review.
I really had to think about this. And I came to the conclusion that Marjoe Gortner’s perm negates any positive aspects Munro brings to the movie.
Really though saying it’s an Italian knock off/cash in/exploitation of Star Wars tells you all you need to know about how ‘good’ it is going to be.
particularly Alec Guinness. he was notably unimpressed with the film, even after the good reception.
I’m pretty sure the spaceship controls are a video editing bay.
The perfect place for when the tentacle-faced judge needed to review all the video tapes.
So now every Ops center wants to look like NCIS but ends up smelling of solvent and fart. And the look never matters anyway.
A middling Christmas with Turner Classic Movies.
I lost access to TCM back in October, but I’m still in the habit of checking out their schedule and watching some of their offerings. Tis the season, so I finally got around to these Christmassy flicks:
Going My Way (1944)
Very few critics have kind words anymore for this beloved multiple Oscar winner, so I can’t say I wasn’t warned. The music is generally nice (although “Swing on a Star” is badly hobbled by having children recite, rather than sing, a good chunk of the lyric), but nothing really happens throughout the entire picture. Actually, the way director Leo McCarey so consistently endeavors to scuttle any sense of conflict, and hence drama, (and it does seem to be deliberate) does become interesting after awhile. Ok as a curiousity and/or period piece. Probably fascinating/scary as a look into the US psyche of the time.
The Man Who Came to Dinner (1942)
This one’s a bit better. The central character is an annoying asshole who we’re stuck with practically every moment of the picture, but the rest of the cast are more tolerable, sometimes even quite enjoyable. (I read the play some twenty years ago, and recall quite liking it. Don’t know if my present lesser enthusiasm is due to changes made for the movie or me.) Durante as Harpo, Reginald Gardner as Noel Coward, and Ann Sheridan (who may have tried to upstage everyone by going very obviously braless in one scene) as Gertrude Lawrence are good fun, and Bette Davis is quite good too, although in this context I had trouble caring about her character’s problems. Perhaps another one that’s too firmly fixed in its era to be fully appreciated now.
I like both those movies. “The Man Who Came to Dinner” a little more due to its acidity.
“Going My Way” certainly has its pluses and minuses. I think to truly love and/or hate that movie you need to be catholic, which Leo McCarey was and I am not.
I just saw Casablanca at the IFC Center. I haven’t seen the movie for about 10 years, so I decided it was time to see it again.
In fact, the last time I saw this was before the “refugee crisis.” So at that time I was able watch this movie about the exploitation of refugees fleeing a war zone with detachment. I has assumed humanity had learned a lesson and moved on to better things. I wonder how today’s so-called conservatives would react to a movie where the Nazis are the bad guys and the hero is working on behalf of refugee “under dogs.”
Another thing that stood-out to me this time was Major Strasser’s accusation that Victor Lazlo has printed “the most vicious lies” about the Nazis in his newspaper. Today he would have used the term “fake news” instead.
The cast of this movie is first-class from top to bottom. From the leads to supporting actors to the extras, all the best people were brought in. If you are familiar with movies from this period you will recognize pretty-much ever face.
I would like to point out the look on Dooley Wilson’s face when he sees Ingrid Bergman enter the café for the first time; it’s perfect. And this reaction is very important for the development of the story.
Humphrey Bogart won an Academy Award for his performance in The African Queen. I think his performance is much better in this movie. Although Rick Blaine is supposed to be an emotionless, detached person, the part is a very difficult one and Bogart carries it off perfectly.
I always thought this was one of the best movies ever made, but this time it really overpowered me.
Often the key to getting an Oscar seems to be to ham it up after a long career, a la John Wayne in True Grit. (Although it didn’t work for O’Toole in My Favorite Year come to think of it.)
Related:
I very highly recommend Mark Rappaport’s documentary I, Dalio about Marcel Dalio, one of the stars of Grand Illusion and Rules of the Game and a bit player, albeit an important one, in Casablanca. You can find it on Kanopy.
Casablanca is so entrenched, I’ve been aware of it seemingly my whole life. I was still in elementary school when I read a thing about the common misquotation “play it again, Sam,” myriad references to the airstrip scene on TV, and etcetera.
however, I had the benefit of studying black and white photography, studying film as art, had taken a filmmaking class, taken a video-making class at university, and had worked on a couple independent productions, and had acted in an independent production all before the first time I actually watched Casablanca.
for these reasons, the enormity of what I was watching was amplified greatly.
every single element, both technical and artistic, very seldom come together so powerfully.
(Obligatory mention the Bogart is my yoga teacher’s father in law)
Yes.
And this was the first tome I had seen it in a theater. I don’t know why, but that made a huge difference too. It was like I was meeting an old friend, but seeing totally new at the same time.
And Casablanca is funny too. It’s feels strange to say, but there is a lot of great comedy in it. I had forgotten. The audience, I am happy to report, laughed at all the correct moments.
Shortly before the movie started, a young, diverse couple came in. They must have been in their 20s. I would assume they were recent graduates or going for their master’s degree. Young, bright, happy, full of themselves. That type. They almost stepped on my feet as they were going finding a seat. I couldn’t help but wonder what they would think of Casablanca.
After the movie had finished, fate directed me to be standing in front of the theater fumbling with my phone. This couple passed right by me just as the woman, with a big smile on her face, said “I thought that movie was spectacular!” That made my day. So I guess they hadn’t seen it before.
it really is amazing how seeing a film on a big screen can make such a huge difference.
As I often watch more and more on my phone, I wonder how much I miss some days.
But, the quality of schlock I watch, is probably helped by the smaller format.
so, at the top of the even-numbered hours, I flip through the channels that show movies and I caught a pretty good one on Comet last night.
I missed the first few minutes so I had no idea what it was called. I wiki’d it afterwards and turns out I never heard of it because it went direct-to-video, and it was done by the guy who did Cube, another great “unknown” film.
so, Cypher is sort of like a Matrix-influenced version of The Manchurian Candidate, if I had to give it an elevator pitch. one scene actually turns into somewhat of a reference to a MC scene, but in a not-annoying way. it stars Lucy Liu and a gentleman I am otherwise unfamiliar with. Liu is young enough that I wasn’t sure it was her at first. the mis-en-scene reminds me of Jeunet’s City of Lost Children or his Alien: noirish and claustrophobic at times, but the colors – when used – really pop.
The great thing about the film is that you really can’t tell wtf is going on, not totally, yet it draws you in and is paced quickly. the plot is a huge puzzle and you don’t fully understand it until the last few minutes.
I was really pleased that I had caught it. greatly enjoyed it.
I just saw a rather annoying movie from 1928 called “Wild Orchids.”
The movie is about a prosperous couple from the US — Greta Garbo and Lewis Stone — who are traveling to Java on tea-related business. En route they meet Prince de Grace — Nils Asther.
Prince de Grace grew up on Java, and is apparently the Prince of something. I’m not sure if he is supposed to be Dutch or Javanese. Despite all visible evidence to the contrary, he considers himself to be quite seductive, and credits the tropical heat of the island for making him so “passionate.” “Icky” would be another way to describe him, or possibly “creep.” He would be well-qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.
The prince is quite sure Garbo is going to be hot for him once she is immersed in the tropical heat of Java — where women grow up naturally, like wild orchids. So he charms Garbo’s husband and invites the couple to stay at his palace while they are there. Curiously, the only person the prince is able to seduce is the business-obsessed husband.
The primary problem with this movie is Nils Asther. Although I am familiar with his name, this is the first time I have seen him. I have no way of knowing if his performance in this movie is representative of his overall acting career or not. His character is supposed to be a master of seduction, but instead he appears to be some absurd character played by Harvey Korman on the Carol Burnett Show. In fact his face is so smooth, his eyebrows are so perfectly plucked, his eye shadow so heavy and his lips so coyly pursed, that he appears to be an effeminate Joan Crawford.
Although I didn’t care for this movie it is not without its points that justify seeing it.
1 - Greta Garbo’s performance. This movie is the only time I have seen her play a normal human being. I never thought she had any interest in that type of acting. I’ve only ever seen her playing aloof sex-goddesses, and in one instance an aloof Soviet commissar. It was truly fascinating to watch her play a person who could be worried and unsure what to do. Her acting was so different that it was hard to take your eyes off of her. It was like watching Ingred Bergman.
2 - Lewis Stone’s performance. Normally I think of Lewis Stone playing Andy Hardy’s father, Judge Hardy, a part that requires a lot of self-assurance but little emotional range. In the past few months, however, I have seen him play a deadly French Marquis in “Scaramouche” and a bland US capitalist in this movie. He played both disparate parts very believably, without any great show. He captured the characters’ personalities by the way he stood and the expression on his face.
3 - It’s a silent movie that is not a silent movie. This is a transitional movie made in 1928 — it is a silent film, but with a synchronous soundtrack. So it has a musical score and occasional sound effects, such as knocking on doors or crowd noises. There is the only one fully-sound part of the movie — in the middle of the movie when they all settle down to view some traditional Javanese entertainment in the prince’s palace. This part is handled like the musical short subjects that were novelties at the time. I’m no expert on Javanese traditional dance, but I have a feeling the male dancers were actually Hawaiian.
So how does the movie end? There’s a tiger hunt, at night, where there’s blood and a single gunshot, but just who shot who? There is some personal growth, but not much, and then there is a ship back to the US.
Garbo is skeptical, and so am I.
After the recent death of Anna Karina, I realized I’ve never seen any films by Jean-Luc Godard. That surprised me. I rectified that today by seeing his multi-faceted film “Alphaville.”
Alphaville is either a work of genius or a confusing mess. I can’t decide. As I sit here mulling over the story, I frequently find myself wondering “did I really see that?” It is a satyrical dark comedy that combines elements of Brave New World, Nineteen Eighty-Four and Cold War spy fiction, filmed in the style of a film noir detective movie.
That the story is hard to follow is not too surprising as no one involved with the movie knew what it was about either. They largely made-up the story while they were making it. So it’s a bit like “Rat Pfink a Boo Boo,” but with more intelligence in-front of and behind the camera.
The action takes place in the eponymous city of Alphaville. Alphaville is apparently an enormous city. We have no idea how big it is, but in the north there is snow and in the south there is sun. Everyone in the city has been conditioned to experience no emotion. All thought and planning is carried out by the completely logical Alpha60 computer, which I believe is portrayed by an IBM 1401 and a telephone switching system.
The part of Alphaville is played by contemporary Paris. No sets or props were constructed for this movie. The use of modern Parisian architecture makes the movie feel very similar to “Playtime,” but with a lot more indiscriminate killing. Is this story happening in the future, or is it an alternative form of the present? Perhaps Godard is satirizing the conventions of science fiction films by not making any attempt at pretending? For whatever reason this was done, it makes the action — however absurd — feel more grounded and relatable than, say, something like “Logan’s Run.”
Outside the city of Alphaville are “the Outlands.” We’re not told too much about the Outlands, but apparently life goes on there without the control of an all-knowing super-computer. Citizens of Alphaville are forbidden to go to he Outlands or even think about them.
Beyond the Outlands are other galaxies. They might be referring to actual galaxies, or this might be the approved Alphaville word for other similar city-states scattered around the globe.
The movie begins as private investigator Lemmy Caution arrives in Alphaville undercover as a reporter. He’s from the Outlands and seems to be unfamiliar with the ways of the city, and is surprised to find that each hotel room comes compete with a dictionary of approved words called a “bible,” a supply of tranquilizers and a complimentary “Seductress third-class.”
He is there to investigate certain people for some mysterious reason. Such details don’t really matter — this is a detective film and he needs to investigate something. One of the people on his list is a Professor von Braun, who apparently set-up the Alpha60 computer. He first meets von Braun’s niece, Natacha, played by the late Miss Karina. She is his guide, and through her he learns about Alphaville. They begin to fall in love, which is made difficult because, as I mentioned above, citizens of Alphaville are conditioned to feel no emotions. She can’t even bring herself to say the words “Je vous aime.”
In the end, Lemmy Caution brings down the Alpha60 computer. His character is a crude outsider who — like in “Zardoz,” “Battlefield Earth” or “the Matrix” — brings about the demise of a restrictive civilization. Without guidance, the citizens of Alphaville begin stumbling around aimlessly. Lemmy and Natacha flee the city on one of the freeways, headed to the Outlands or perhaps another galaxy.
Some of the details of the story might be a bit off as I have only seen it once, and it all goes by as a fast jumble.
When I’ve read about this movie in the past — a combination of science fiction and film noir that takes place in a major city — I thought that it sounded similar to “Bladerunner.” Now after seeing the movie, I have no problem in saying that Bladerunner is composed of 50% “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” and 50% Alphaville. Bladerunner is like Alphaville if you squeezed all the parodical humor out of it.
So, if you liked Bladerunner but always wished it had more absurdity, a score that enjoys being bombastic, and was film in black and white with hand-held cameras, Alphaville might be for you.
When people ask me to tell a joke, I often borrow the one about the tough guy in the cafe. (Or the bit in John Ford’s My Darling Clementine where Doc Holliday first meets Wyatt Earp. Come to think of it, aren’t these the same joke?)
I liked Alphaville, but I don’t think it’s as great as many critics do. Maybe this is due to Godard’s half-hearted commitment, his playing with sci-fi tropes conflicts with his focus on what he really cares about. (It’s been long enough since I last saw it, I’m not certain what real things he addresses in the film. Love, no doubt, and then poetry probably.)
I suggest if one is starting with Godard to start at (more or less) the beginning, his first feature Breathless. It’s a great film without being as confusing as some of the later works. For more Godard sci-fi, I highly recommend “Anticipation,” a short from the compilation film The Oldest Profession in the World, in which a visitor to the Earth is provided with a girl by his hotelier. However, there is a bit of a mix-up, as she specializes in “sentimental love” rather than “physical love.”
My favorite Godard is probably the semi sci-fi King Lear. The Chernobyl disaster has caused most of the world’s great works of art to be lost. William Shakespeare Junior the Fifth tries to recover/recreate some of his illustrious ancestor’s lost plays. This one would be a very poor starting point as it is very, very obscure. I love it, but I certainly don’t understand it.
