AWAY FROM HER

Away From Her (2007) dir. Sarah Polley
Starring: Gordon Pinsent, Julie Christie

****

Sarah Polley’s feature film debut is a triumph. A sensitive and emotional film that turns out to be a real heartbreaker.

Grant (Gordon Pinsent) and Fiona (Julie Christie) are 40 years into a marriage, not an easy marriage, but one that has stuck together through some rough times. But Fiona has entered the initial phases of Alzheimer’s disease, a degenerative affliction of the brain that cause loses in short term and then long term memory. Eventually the afflicted will revert to a child-like state without any memories of the past. The opening scene is simple but so sad. Fiona and Grant are in the kitchen of their winter cottage after a lovely day of skiing. They come home for dinner, and as Fiona finishes the dishes she places the cleaned and dried frying pan in the freezer, then walks away. Gordon is left there stunned – the realization of what’s to come reads so well on his expressively sad face.

Thus begins the slow disintegration of Fiona’s memories and the disappearance of their relationship. Polley’s writing is smart and realistic, instead of using a cookie cutter formula which we would see in a Hollywood multiplex film (which Fiona, herself, trashes in a wonderfully humourous moment). Fiona and Grant, in anticipation of her eventual demise try to learn as much as they can about the disease. And when it comes to moving Fiona into the caregiver home, it’s Fiona who instigates the action. Although Grant despises the home Fiona’s about to go into, he knows he can’t make her better and let’s her go. For the first 30 days she must be alone in the home without visitors. This is painful for Grant, for when he eventually sees her again, she is a different person. She recognizes Grant, but it’s vacant, the 40 years of memories aren’t there, and he becomes just an acquaintance.

Meanwhile, the film uses a flash-forward device, a subplot between Grant and another woman, Marian (Olympia Dukakis), whose husband is also in the home. They are brought together for a reason I won’t reveal here, but one which makes the story that much more tragic and poignant for both Grant and the viewer. Grant’s history as a former philanderer comes back to haunt him and he’s forced to deal with the mistakes he’s made in the past.

Gordon Pinsent is a star in the film – a revelation. After almost 50 years of Canadian movies and television, he has scored the best role of his career. His grizzled face expresses so much sadness without resorting to customary waterworks or scenes or over-dramatized emotions. Julie Christie is also terrific, in what is so far a shoe-in for 2007’s Oscars (my fingers are crossed for Pinsent too). In the latter stages of her illness, when her former self is completely departed, in her close-ups we still can see a glint of her true love for Grant. And even as a silver-haired elder, Christie is still ravishing.

Jonathan Goldsmith’s organic music sets the perfect tone for the film. A simple melancholy mood piece created with guitars, drums and piano. In fact, I’m reminded of Daniel Lanois’ sumptuous score for “Sling Blade”. Luc Montpillier’s photography is pitch perfect and David Wharnsby’s editing creates a complex emotional patchwork using just enough subtle flashbacks, and visual foreshadowing, without pushing the film into melodrama. There are very brief flashbacks to Fiona and Grant as younger people, and Polley and Wharnsby admirably resist the temptation of using the customary device of showing the young people in love to create more sympathy in the present. Instead, Pinsent’s longing close-ups say everything that could be said in any lame flashback.

The ending is beautiful and sweet, and I’ve never been a K.D. Lang fan, but her rendition of Neil Young’s “Helpless” is the perfect ending to a near perfect film. Enjoy.

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) dir. Robert Alrdrich
Starring: Bette Davis, Joan Crawford

****

Guest Review by Pasukaru

Credited as the grand-mother, err, of the psycho-biddy sub-genre (old lady in peril, a.k.a. hagsloitation), “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?” features two remarkable performances by then over-the-hill screen legends Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. In fact, Davis’ work as Baby Jane Hudson essentially set the bar for all subsequent crazy-lady movies.

And crazy she is. The story goes like this: Baby Jane Hudson had been a former vaudeville child star but was eventually upstaged by her more talented sister, Blanche Hudson, in the ‘30s as she became a famous movie actress. Considering that Baby Jane was a spoiled ungrateful brat, it’s not surprising that she might be a tad jealous of her successful sister. Baby Jane even had life-size dolls produced in her image for her adoring public, but now rest as eerie reminder of past glory. This doll is highlighted in the stylish opening credit sequence when a mysterious accident leaves Blanche Hudson paralyzed from the waist down. Fast forward a few decades and we are introduced to the two sisters in their golden years reminiscing about the good old days. However, for the alcoholic and queen-bitch Baby Jane, Blanche’s television broadcasting of her old film triggers a series of events that drives Baby Jane over the edge.

Bette Davis is spectacular. Some critics have accused her of going over-the-top with the character but she infuses a manic energy that is mesmerizing. Campy? Maybe, but delicious. She oscillates from emotional extremes like a pendulum likely to thrust her into the dark abyss of her mad, mad psyche. She’s a grotesque caricature that makes the audience always feel uneasy. How far will this crazy bitch go? She endlessly tortures her sweet and crippled sister physically and psychologically like a malevolent child would jab an injured bird in a cage. Joan Crawford is also great. Her measured performance really steadies the stage. We truly feel sorry for her. Eventually, when things get out of hand, we’re right there with her.

One of the more memorable scenes has Baby Jane reenacting one of her “famous” numbers for a one-man audience. Her over-done make-up, rickety bones, and broken voice make for an uncomfortably chilling scene. Gave me nightmares.

It’s not without fault, however. The film is over long. The editing could have been tighter, and the score is at times intrusive. The denouement kills the tension and feels unsatisfying, somehow. Still, Robert Aldrich, a versatile and visual filmmaker (see “Kiss Me Deadly”, “The Dirty Dozen”) keeps the gothic horror honest and delivers some hair-raising sequences. This film would later set the template for other crazy-bitch movies like “Misery” and “Carrie”. It’s a genre that hasn’t been over-used in my opinion and I feel a revival is in the works. But I say this with reservation, because it takes guts to do a character like Baby Jane Hudson, and I feel that today’s top actresses are far too vain to take such risks. I hope I’m wrong. Check it out.

Buy it here: What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

WERCKMEISTER HARMONIES

Werckmeister Harmonies (2000) dir. Béla Tarr
Starring: Lars Rudolph

****

I have to thank two kind and informed readers who brought to my attention the cinema of Béla Tarr. Tarr is Hungary’s finest filmmaker, an art house director known for enigmatic metaphysical films which have only been accessible to theatre audiences through film festivals. Since his 1979 debut feature “Family Nest” Mr. Tarr has kept his output sparse – 8 films in 18 years, and only 3 films in the 90’s and 00’s. But next week Tarr will premiere his latest film (“The Man From London”) at the Cannes Film Festival.

Tarr was brought to my attention in the discussion this week of ‘The Greatest Long Tracking Shots in Cinema” – a lengthy and detailed commentary produced a breadth of films I need to discover including the films of Béla Tarr.

“Werckmeister Harmonies” is a masterful film and the highest achievement of artistic cinema. In a small secluded Hungarian town we are put in the shoes of a young man named Janos (Lars Rudolph), who delivers newspapers around the town. He’s probably never left the city limits, and so he has a youthful curiosity to him, like a sequestered genius trapped in a world too small for his ambitions – think Jim Carrey’s character in the “Truman Show”. In the 9mins long take opening shot Janos demonstrates to the local townsfolk the concept of the orbit of Earth in the solar system using the people as planets moving them around each other. It's a wonderful moment.

One night a traveling circus-type attraction arrives into town - a taxidermed display of a giant blue whale housed in a large truck. The added attraction is the arrival of an enigmatic “Prince” whom the townsfolk describe as revolutionary-type of motivational speaker (though we actually never see the Prince, he is just referred to in conversation). With the arrival of these visitors brings fear and paranoia into the village. Fear of the influential words of the Prince causes a split in the town between radicals and traditionalists. Janos is caught in the middle as he is roped into spying for a local police task force seeking to find village subverters. The Prince makes his speech and incites a village-wide riot.

Story and traditional narrative is secondary to Tarr’s magnificent visual design. Shot in stark, high contrast deep focus black & white, the film evokes a bleak, barren and depressing mood to the town. The film is likely a metaphor for the downfall of Communism in the previous decade. The revolutionary fervour and the xenophobic paranoia, I’m sure parallels the atmosphere of post-Communist Hungary. After watching this film I’m convinced Tarr is indeed the master of the long take, his slow steadycam and tracking moves are reminiscent of Andrei Tarkovsky and Stanley Kurbick. Each scene is crafted in a one or two shots, lasting 5-10mins each. The riot in the hospital which featured dozens of actors demolishing everything in site was captured in one magnificent steadycam move. The other magnificent scene is Janos’ tour around the Whale – the shot starts in the courtyard, follows Janos into the truck and around the gigantic beast. It’s wondrous and poignant ecological and biblical metaphor.

And so, I have to ask, Béla Tarr, where have you been all my life? Perhaps it’s because his films have rarely seen the light of day in North American. Béla Tarr as a cinema master is a word-of-mouth filmmaker, we’ll never see his films in multiplexes, at Blockbuster, or at the Oscars. But thanks to Chicago-based distributor Facets, his films are now available on DVD.

I put this film in the order of Fellini’s and Orson Welles’ best work. Every shot in the film is a work of art. It’s a slow meandering film, which is purposely oblique and excessive lengthy and requires much patience. Tarr lingers on shots to the point of uncomfortableness, which elevates the film from entertainment to pure art.

I HAVE to see the rest of Tarr’s work now. Tarr is the ‘crystal meth’ of filmmakers, one film and you’re hooked. I have 7 other films to watch of his, including his latest – “The Man From London” - which will premiere at this year’s Cannes Film Festival. Enjoy.

Buy it here: Werckmeister Harmonies

Here’s the brilliant opening:

MOUSEHUNT

Mousehunt (1997) dir. Gore Verbinsky
Starring Nathan Lane, Lee Evans

***1/2

A curious choice of film to review you may say – a generic kids flick about a cute animal chased by some bumbling adults? I have to admit I have a soft spot for this one. And it’s not unfounded; “Mousehunt” is actually a hidden gem that defies expectations. And if you recognize the director, indeed, it’s the helmer of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” films. So, for reasons I'll summarize below ”Mousehunt” got him that gig.

Ernie and Lars Schmuntz are brothers whose father has just died and bequeathed to them the family business of string manufacturers. They are also in receipt of an old run-down Mansion. Ernie (Nathan Lane), the responsible one, who is now a successful chef wants the house and business sold to claim his share of the money and Lars (Lee Evans), the childish one, has a soft spot of Dad, and wants to keep the house and run the family business.

Ernie and Lars move into the house together to determine whether to keep it or sell it. On their first night they discover a pesky mouse has made a home there as well. Ernie and Lars go through a multitude of scenarios to trap the mouse. As their frustration over the mouse’s resilience grows and grows, so does the grandness of their traps.

Meanwhile, a real estate speculator has discovered that the house is in fact a lost treasure from a Frank Lloyd Wright-type of architect named George La Rue. Instantly their money pit makes them almost-millionaires. They decide to auction off the house to the highest bidder, which fuels their desire to clean up the house and exterminate the mouse.

The bumbling duo eventually manage to excise the mouse only to have it miraculously return on the day of the auction. The finale is a madcap series of Rube Goldberg consequences that may or may not jeopardize their chances of selling the house and getting rich.

“Mousehunt” is a visual delight – a live-action equivalent of a Tom and Jerry cartoon mixed with the earnestness of a Tim Burton film mixed with the manic, madcapness of a Coen Bros film. The mash-up is very clever in the detailed mechanisms of the narrative. And the film mixes its grand scale action and comedy with quiet moments of genuine sentiment. The 'big' scenes go way over-the-top to satisfy the kids, but it's the quick gags in the dialogue and the reflective moments that make the film a little gem. And watch for the wicked cameo from Christopher Walken.

Lane and Evans , unfortunately, are the weakest link. They seem to try too hard to be funny, too concerned with channeling Abbott & Costello or Laurel & Hardy, instead of bringing their own comic personalities to the roles. And in that way, the humour feels forced.

It’s easy to see how this became Verbinski’s calling card film. His compositions, production design, and editing, and his natural skill for crafting exciting action sequences obviously caught the eye of Mr. Jerry Bruckheimer, who gave him the keys to the Pirates franchise. You should take a chance on this one too. Enjoy.



Buy it here: Mousehunt

DELIVER US FROM EVIL

Deliver Us From Evil (2006) dir. Amy Berg
Documentary

***

“Deliver Us From Evil” was nominated for an Oscar as Best Documentary last year. It ultimately lost out to the fan-favourite “An Inconvenient Truth”, but this film is a just-as-powerful indictment of an institution whose basis of moral authority failed those who trusted and believed in it the most.

The subject is an Irish Priest, Father O’Grady, who served under the Los Angeles Diocese during the 1970’s. He is introduced to us in an interview in present day. He's older now – late 60’s – unassuming, but conspicuously frockless. Off the top the interview asks him pointed questions about whether he is attracted to young boys and young girls. He frankly answers ‘yes’ to both. We are then introduced to 2 families who befriended and trusted the young priest to take care of their kids and sleep over in their house when needed. We then learn of the heinous acts of sexual molestation O’Grady subjected these kids to and what the long lasting effects were on the rest of their lives. As the father of one of victims states so succinctly – “they were raped – not molested”.

The revelatory information is about how the Los Angeles Diocese and ultimately the Vatican handled the complaints and covered up O’Grady's crimes to further their own political aspirations within the Church. As a result, instead of punishment, O’Grady was moved from city to city farther away from Los Angeles where he proceeded to molest more and more kids.

The fact that the Catholic Church has been covering up these types of cases for years should not come as a big surprise to most – people like Connie Chung and Stone Phillips have made careers from these stories. It’s the subjects that make the film compelling.

Father O’Grady is a quiet monster who’s disassociated himself from the emotional impact of his crimes. He admits he is sick and needs help and acknowledges all his crimes, but is so reticent about it he becomes something akin to Hannibal Lector. The filmmakers chose to feature 3 victims who are now in the older ages and reflect back on the horrors they suffered from O’Grady.

Ann Jyono, Nancy Sloan and Adam M put faces to his O’Grady’s crimes. They are courageous individuals who let us in on the most painful and shameful of memories. But it’s Jyono’s Japanese-American father, Bob, who begins the film with a stoic disposition, then cracks in a moment of uninhibited anger and rage, that brings chills to one’s spine.

The third act of the film delves into the fight to bring justice to the families and O’Grady’s pathetic attempt to reconcile with his victims. Allegations are made from the Cardinal Mahoney of the LA Diocese all the way up to Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) at the Vatican. But this plotline is background for the real heart of the film – Ann, Nancy and Adam’s individual stories.

“Deliver Us From Evil” is tough viewing, but is as important a film as “An Inconvenient Truth” Enjoy.

Buy it here: Deliver Us from Evil

INLAND EMPIRE

Inland Empire (2007) dir. David Lynch
Starring: Laura Dern, Jeremy Irons, Justin Theroux

***1/2

Seeing “Inland Empire” at Toronto’s Royal Cinema was a Grindhouse-like experience. A 3-hour independently produced and distributed experimental epic film from David Lynch – shot on crappy prosumer DV camera no less. And it’s a marvel and a showcase of what a talented artist can do with the simplest of tools accessible to any independent filmmaker.

David Lynch is the purveyor of some the most surreal, experimental and terrifying films ever to make it to multiplex cinemas. His films are visually arresting and use the palette of cinema to greater advantage than any other filmmaker. And so, when word got out David Lynch was going digital and making a film, shot off and on over the course a year many, including myself, were intrigued what he was up to. And the overwhelming consensus is that Lynch has succeeded in adding another artistic masterpiece to his already impressive oeuvre of great films.

Explaining the plot is a challenge, but I’ll try. The first third of the film is relatively straight-forward. Laura Dern (Nikki), a struggling actress, gets her big break with a feature film directed by Kingsley Stewart (Jeremy Irons). Her leading man is Bill Side (Justin Theroux) who has a reputation for hooking up with her female co-stars. Susan is married to a gangster heavy and so Bill's friends are worried he might succumb to his desires and court Susan. Then it’s revealed the film has a curse on it. In one of many creepy scenes, Jeremy Irons’ character describes to Nikki and Bill the first attempt to make the film in Poland. Before the film was finished the main actors were brutally murdered. When production starts Nikki and her character Susan seem to split into two separate people, reality morphs into dreams and so begins the roundabout journey of each of them to find their way out of the rabbit hole. The final 2 thirds of the film is one surreal scene after another, with the occasional breath of air of reality before plunging back in for more Lynch-craziness.

The film is needlessly three hours, but rarely was I bored. Admittedly I was tired and I actually did take a nap for 15 mins or so. But when I woke up it was as if I didn’t miss a beat. Most people will be turned off by the complete disregard of plot in the final 2 hours, but as with “Mulholland Drive” and “Lost Highway,” not matter how fucked up things get Lynch manages to provide closure to his audience. The ending of the film book-ends a scene in the beginning, and so, we are saved the sudden cut to black. Perhaps its contradictory, but in the end, the film doesn’t make any sense, but I was certainly more than satisfied.

Laura Dern exposes herself in ways reminiscent of Emily Watson in “Breaking the Waves.” Lynch frames her closeups with harsh macro lenses of his DV camera inches away from her face. Dern’s disregard for her “Hollywood” image is admirable, and the range of emotion she sustains for the three hours is also remarkable. Compare this performance to Helen Mirren’s and… well… its no contest. As a side note, David Lynch, himself, sat on a folding chair accompanied by a cow for 2 weeks at a busy Hollywood intersection, holding a “For Your Consideration” banner for Laura Dern.

Lynch uses his customary arsenal of scare tactics to creep us out. The camera creeps and crawls to examine the depths of the darkest corners of our imaginations. Ample amounts of doppelgangers, flickering light bulbs, monotonous music, dancing goddesses, and dead-pan absurdist humour are present. His sound design is top notch as usual, recycling the fear of dread from echoy and rumbling ambient soundscapes. His soundtrack choices include an eclectic mix of Beck, Etta James and Nina Simone. At one point, after a discussion about “tits” a group of large-breasted women perform a musical dance sequence to the song ‘Locomotion’. It had me in trance, that I was singing it in my head all the way home.

Do the results of his new-found technical freedom manifest itself on the audience? I don’t think so. The film certainly looks different that “Lost Highway” or “Mullholland Drive”, but it feels exactly the same. The fact is, after 20 minutes the digitalness disappears and soon you’re just watching a movie. All three films are of the same Lynchian universe and it’s evident that no matter what medium Lynch chooses, he will make it his own. Enjoy.

PS. As I said seeing the film in a theatre is a must-see experience. The final credits provide perhaps the most enjoyment of all. Not a single person left during the final credits. And it’s an experience unto itself.

SPIDER-MAN 3

Spider-Man 3 (2007) dir. Sam Raimi
Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirstin Dunst, James Franco, Topher Grace, Thomas Haden Church

**

We just heard today that the producers intend to make at least another three more Spider-Man films. I highly doubt if Sam Raimi and the team will return for another trilogy, or even a #4. The way “Spider-Man 3” is structured it closes out the subplots and character arcs of the first two films to be its own self-contained trilogy.

Unfortunately despite the closure, SP-3 suffers from the plague of “Star Wars”, “Matrix”, and “X-Men” of not being able to finish on a high. It was a tough act to follow as “Spider-Man 2”, was generally considered one of the best comic books films ever produced, and it appears not even Sam Raimi could live up to the hype.

Perhaps two signs of the times were the absence of Danny Elfman as the composer - he was replaced by Christopher Young, who is at least a couple notches down on composer most-call list - and the absence of the Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist and screenwriter Michael Chabon. Instead, Sam and his brother Ivan, with help from SP-2 alum Alvin Sargent wrote the script. (By the way, Alvin Sargent was writing television in the early 1960’s which makes him in his mid-70’s, couldn’t they hire someone with his/her thumb to the pulse of their audience?)

“Spider-Man 3” picks up right where “Spider-Man 2” ends. Peter Parker is on top of the world, he’s a big celebrity in NYC, his girlfriend, Mary Jane, is starring in her first big Broadway production, he’s doing well in school, making ends meet etc etc. Harry Osborn on the other hand is ready to take his revenge on Peter/Spidey for killing his father. During a scooter ride in Manhattan, Spiderman is intercepted by Harry as the Green Goblin (this time, a hipper version – he rides a flying snowboard). They fight each other through the streets and back alleys of NY until Spiderman almost kills Harry. Harry is unconscious but alive, and is brought to the hospital where he wakes up without memory of the last 2 movies (the lamest of comic book devices).

Meanwhile, Mary Jane (Kirstin Dunst) gets fired from her big role and doesn’t tell Peter. She experiences career envy and as a result they break up, only to take up with Harry again. Peter is wooed by his lab partner, platinum blonde Gwen Stacy (a yummy Bryce Dallas Howard), and they develop a relationship. In fact, this love quadrangle is the best part of the film.

The baddies turn out to be lamos. Thomas Haden Church is miscast (or underused) as Sandman, and Topher Grace actually overachieves as Parker’s photography rival at the Daily Bugle, Eddie Brock. Brock eventually turns into Venom – a sort of Bizarro-Spiderman. Spiderman, himself, explores his dark side in the form of the fan-favorite black suit, which possesses him and turns Peter into a goth/emo, for lack of a better word, ‘asshole’. Believe it or not there are actually 2 musical sequences in the film. One, a Fall Out Boy-coifed Parker strutting his stuff down the street Travolta-style and a Timberlake-esque showcase at a jazz bar. Both scenes are Raimi-quirky, but also take you out of the film for 2 lengthy moments and are unnecessary to the plot.

The action and fight scenes are poorly choreographed and over-produced. Raimi never gets the physics right during the action. Every scene has either Goblin and Spidey, Venom and Spidey, or Sandman and Spidey “falling and fighting”. The falling seems to take forever until, at the last minute, Spidey shoots his webjuice at a tall building and escapes. There’s no jeopardy to the action, we never feel Spiderman cannot get out of any of the situations he’s in, unlike, say, the train sequence in SP-2 which was a tense and thrilling chase rooted in some form of physical reality.

Most of the writing to tie the knots at the end, such as Osborn’s butler informing him that indeed, Parker didn’t kill his father (a little late buddy!), is frustratingly lazy, and no more complex than a high-school writing-class. The ending gives a terribly preachy life lesson, similar to that of the first film (remember, ‘with great power, comes great responsibility’). This time the “He-Man” moment is “Whatever battle is raging inside us, we always have a choice”, or is it, “You start by doing the hardest thing: you forgive yourself.” I can’t remember which it is, but it’s Sesame Street-time regardless.

After the promise of the great #2, sadly “Spider-Man 3” will likely satisfy kids only, but also make gobs and gobs of money.

RUSHMORE

Rushmore (1998) dir. Wes Anderson
Starring: Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Brian Cox, Olivia Williams

****

“Rushmore” was Wes Anderson’s brilliant sophomore film after 1996’s “Bottle Rocket”. Anderson affirmed himself as an American auteur, creating a uniquely personal and entertaining film about a young man whose dreams of grandeur are hopelessly stifled by the mere fact that he is only a 15 year old adolescent.

Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman), a young private schooled high school student from Rushmore Academy is one of the most original protagonists of recent years. He’s 35 year old man in a 15 year old body. He speaks with the eloquence of a university professor, and breathes the air like an upper-classman, but sadly disowns his father for leading an underachieving life of lowly barber. In fact, this theme of father-son alienation is the common theme with all of Anderson’s work.

In the brilliant portrait-style montage of Max’s varied extra-curricular endeavours, set to “Making Time” by Creation, Anderson establishes Max as the jacks of all trades and master of none. Max Fischer is the king of his own insular world, but unfortunately he doesn’t manage to fool the professors. As Dr. Guggenheim says, “he is one of the worst we have here at Rushmore”. Max falls in love one of the teachers, Rosemary (Olivia Williams) and uses his faux intellectual skills to court her. But Rosemary doesn’t give in and she’s forced to give Max the cold hard truth. At this low point, Max’s world totally crumbles when he’s expelled from his beloved Rushmore and forced to go to public school. But Max makes the best of it and goes about his extra-curricular activities at Grover Cleveland High with the same gusto as he did at Rushmore.

Meanwhile Rosemary has developed an attraction to Max’s mentor and best friend, Herman Bloom (a delightfully disheveled Bill Murray). Thus forms one of the oddest love triangles we've seen on film. Despite a 40-year age difference Max and Herman’s rivalry becomes a childish game of quid pro quo. Max dumps a hive of bees into Herman’s hotel room, then Herman runs over Max’s bike with his car, then Max cuts Herman’s brakes on his car. Max and Herman eventually make up and together they join forces to stage a hilariously-serious high school play based on “Apocalypse Now”, called “Heaven and Hell.”

The film lives in the world of Max’s plays. The melodramatic dialogue and staging of his plays spill over into the dramatization of the actual plot of the film. When Herman and Max bond over their loss of Rosemary, their exchange is a romantic-comedy-moment – Herman: “She was my Rushmore”; Max: “I know she was mine too”. Or Max’s declaration of revenge against his nemesis Magnus, “Tell that stupid Mick he just made my list of things to do today”.

Anderson uses the 60’s mod music of The Who, The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, Cat Stevens to wonderful effect. In fact, I’d argue Rushmore to be “The Graduate” of our generation with Max’s skewed point of view of the world similar to that of Ben Braddock’s. And in addition to the music they are both absurdist comedies told with dead-pan humour.

Visually “Rushmore” is told with the simplicity of a Whistler painting. He frames his images with vibrant colours and dynamic background and foreground activity. There’s so much life to the film, it takes a several viewings for it all to sink in.

I think “Rushmore” is still Anderson’s best film. “Royal Tenanbaums” and “A Life Aquatic” opened up the canvas for more characters and grander scope, but “Rushmore” is his most focused and most accessible. Enjoy.

Buy it here: Rushmore - Criterion Collection

BRANDO

Brando (2007) dir. Mimi Freedman, Leslie Greif
Documentary

Next week the three-hour documentary about the legendary actor, simply titled "Brando” will make its international premiere at the Cannes Film Festival. Though it’s a straight forward documentary it’s a worthy tribute to the man who changed the world of acting forever. Thanks to Turner Classic Movies I had a chance to watch it as a television special event over the course of two nights.

“Brando” comprehensively summarizes the life and a career of Marlon Brando in traditional fashion. It’s not much more glossy or original than an extended episode of biography, but they do manage to round up an esteemed line up of celebrities and personal friends who knew the man intimately (though Francis Coppola is conspicuously missing). The three-hour running time also gives the film a chance to examine in greater depth the personality of the man other than the film-by-film highlights of an A&E Biography. The key beats in the film are his mid-western childhood; his rise to fame on the New York stage in the 1940’s, his enormously string of successful films in the 1950’s, his shift toward activism in the 1960’s, his career comeback in the 70’s, his departure from Hollywood to Tahiti in the 1980’s and finally the personal tragedies that plagued the final years of his life.

The mystique of Marlon Brando is so compelling, he’s like the Great Gatsby – a man who entered and shook up the high profile restricted area of Hollywood and then shunned it immediately after his arrival. A man of such immense and natural talent, who for the most part didn’t have to work at it to be good, and who caused much frustration for those who worked with him because of his aloofness towards his art. And yet, very few ever knew the man. Starting in the 60’s, when his interest in acting waned, he would continually denigrate his accomplishments and put-down the roles which bought him so much acclaim and which many others envied him for. We never really knew if this public subversion of his own work was a way of distancing himself from Hollywood, or whether it was a conscious effort to further the enigma of “Brando” the character. He was quoted as saying at one point that his best movie was “Burn!”, the little-known 1969 Gillo Pontecorvo film about imperialism, and at many times he disparaged his greatest roles including “On the Waterfront” and “The Godfather”.

Brando is a fascinating psychology case as well. And many of the answers to the questions above lie with his tenuous relationship with his alcoholic mother and domineering father. Brando’s good friend, George Englund, says in the film that Brando hated his father, from childhood even up to his adult life. His father rarely showed support or gave praise to the young Marlon. The constant put-downs created the contempt for authority Marlon would develop in his adulthood. This contempt spilled over into his film work and famously into his onset antics and belligerent behaviour to the majority of his directors. In addition, his relationship with his father informs his move toward activism in the American Indian Movement (AIM) and the Civil Rights Movement. The effect of the Sacheen Littlefeather affair at the 1973 Oscars on the “Wounded Knee” Revolt and the advancement of AIM are wonderfully expressed by Russell Means and Littlefeather herself. Despite his contempt for his directors, producers and Hollywood execs Brando had profound compassion and congenial relationships with his crew. Not included in the documentary is a little-known tidbit of his continued relationship after the making of the film “The Island of Dr. Moreau” with Nelson de la Rosa, the little person who had a memorable role as Moreau’s pint-sized piano partner. This caring for the under-privileged and contempt for authority is the core of Brando, the person.

The documentary is a little shy about connecting the tragedy of the imprisonment of his son Christian and the suicide of his daughter Cheyenne to Brando’s shortcomings as a father. If his detachment as a father and his detachment from his career are congruent, then this last chapter of his life is a painful lesson that despite his talent, charisma, charm and wealth, Brando was not immune to Karmic lessons of life. Enjoy.

This isn’t from the film, but is the same anecdote about Brando’s casting in The Godfather:

BLUE VELVET

Blue Velvet (1986) dir. David Lynch
Starring: Kyle MacLachlan, Laura Dern, Dennis Hopper

****

With the Toronto release of “Inland Empire” it seems opportune to review another classic Lynchian nightmare. Three years after the disaster that was “Dune” arose the film that laid the foundation from which all his other films would be influenced - “Blue Velvet”.

The film opens with the opening credits superimposed over, appropriately, a beautiful piece of blue velvet hanging and swaying with the breeze. The Angelo Badlamenti’s music sting is melodramatic and ominous. Then a series of impossibly beautiful shots of the small town of lumbertown.

The town of Lumbertown is a make-believe fantasy world likely fashioned after Lynch’s hometown of Missoula Montana. It’s a template for the “Twin Peaks” world, a glossy middle-America world of good coffee and apple pie but with a dark underbelly seething underneath. This is a common subject for Lynch. Similarly his Hollywood of “Mullholland Drive” was ripped apart in the third act to reveal a murderous world of jealousy and greed.

Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachan) is our guide into this world, a young college grad who one day stumbles upon a human ear lying in the grass. Jeffrey Beaumont does the right thing and informs the police. But Jeffrey is still curious about the mystery, and so begins his own Hardy Boys-type exploration into the crime. After following a few clues he finds himself hiding in the closet of the sultry Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rossellini) a lounge singer and sexual slave for the vile gangster Frank Booth (a villainous Dennis Hopper). Jeffrey is found out, but instead develops a relationship with Vallens. When Booth finds Jeffrey out, all hell breaks loose.

Jeffrey’s night out with Booth and his cronies is a trip into the surreal world of David Lynch. Jeffrey is beat up as a warning to stay away. But it only fuels his anger and desire to right what is wrong. Complicating Jeffrey’s life is his real world girlfriend Sandy (Laura Dern) who will eventually learn of Jeffrey’s secret life.

The star of the show is Lynch’s nightmares put to screen. Hopper’s Booth is perhaps the scariest villain in the history of cinema. His violent rage brought on by his personal flask of compressed helium hidden in his pocket will give you goose bumps. And I don’t think anybody has ever used the word ‘fuck’ with greater intensity. Lynch mixes his violence and horror with sincere melodrama and soap opera dramatics. Sandy and Jeffrey’s slow dance at the house party could be out of a John Hughes movie or an episode of Degrassi, and Angelo Badlamenti’s swooning score lulls you into a dreamlike state.

I’ve always said, at will David Lynch could make the scariest film of all time. He uses all elements at his disposal, sound, music, lighting, camera angles, and movement first to create a foundation of utter creepiness, then he can make you jump with slightest of changes. For example, Laura Dern’s luminous introduction at night on the sidewalk outside her house. From the darkness she slowly emerges from under a streetlamp to introduce herself to Jeffrey. It’s a subtle but brilliant cinematic moment. And only Lynch could make Roy Orbison or Bobby Vinton scary. That’s talent.

The dichotomy of the mid-western saccharine life with the heinous villainy of the seedy underbelly is what Lynch has recycled ever since this film. The best metaphor for this is the shot of the camera slowly moves into the human ear, the closer it gets we hear the sounds of the bugs eating away at the flesh. It’s a typical Lynchian image and the hallmark of his body of work. Enjoy.

Buy it here: Blue Velvet (Special Edition)

THE LONG TAKE

The Greatest Long Tracking Shots in Cinema


PLEASE NOTE: YouTube has taken many of the clips off since this original post. I will keep checking for repostings. If you have links for me, please put them in the comments section. Thanks.

NOTE: As many of you know there's a fantastic 5 mins long take in "Atonement". Check it out.

In a director’s cinematic bag of tricks the long tracking shot is the boldest way of making a statement. It’s the flashiest and most attention-grabbing egotistical way of flexing one’s muscle. In most cases it's a narcissistic maneuver, “look-at-me” filming technique, but rare ones, the best ones, serve to reflect and further the story in a way that can’t be reflected with traditional editing.

Let’s examine specifically the long ‘tracking’ take which involves extensive and complicated movements of the camera. The fact is filmmakers have been doing long takes since the medium was invented. In fact the first films didn’t have any edits. Perhaps the first most notable film to use long unedited takes for storytelling purposes was Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rope” (1948) which was an entire film shot in real time created by seamless cutting together a series of long 8-10 mins shots made to look like one. In 1948 it was a bold and unprecedented experiment for Hitchcock. The film works because its takes place entirely in one room for 80 minutes, so there was limited movement and lighting changes.

The difficulty arises when the camera is forced to move which complicates the logistics ie. Focus changes, lighting changes and hiding production equipment. And so perhaps the first true, universally-accepted “long tracking shot” is Orson Welles’ opening shot in “Touch of Evil” (1958). This shot was a large step up from Hitchcock’s experiment because of the extensive movement of the camera. Let’s start the list with this masterful one:

Touch of Evil (1958) – The Opening Shot - dir. Orson Welles

This shot is perhaps the greatest, because it actually has a specific purpose to its length. The shot starts on a bomb being placed in the trunk of a car. The camera follows the car into the street. As the camera moves back we pickup Charlton Heston walking with his date. Though we’re concentrating on Heston, subliminally, as the audience, the bomb is still in our minds. The sheer length of the take heightens the tension for the payoff at the end. It’s important to note that on its first release Universal placed the opening credits over the shot, which severely retracted from its power and suspense. In a later re-release Welles original intention of the scene was re-instated.





Goodfellas (1990) – The Copacabana – dir. Martin Scorsese

The other granddaddy of the long tracking shot is Ray Liotta and Lorraine Bracco’s walk through the Copacabana in “Goodfellas”. This shot’s serves to put the audience in the point of view of Karen, who is about to be swept off her feet by the temptation of the gangster lifestyle. This introduction to Henry’s world will counterpoint their eventual downfall later in the film. The movement of the camera through the tight spaces and long corridors while maintaining constant dialogue makes this shot an impressive maneuver and a benchmark in cinema.




Boogie Nights (1997) – The Opening Shot in the Club – dir. Paul Thomas Anderson

All of PT Anderson’s films have a bit (sometimes a lot) of Martin Scorsese in them. Boogie Nights is no exception. The opening shot which starts on a marquee and moves down the street and into a 70’s disco serves to introduce to us the ensemble characters. The shot ends on Mark Wahlberg moving in slo-motion triumphantly introducing Anderson’s star character. As a side note, it was rumoured PT Anderson specifically started the shot on the marquee which reads the title of the movie, to make it impossible for the studio to re-title the movie, which was done with his first film – “Hard Eight” (aka “Sydney”).




Raging Bull (1980) – Pesci and De Niro Walking to the Fight – dir. Martin Scorsese

No youtube clips are online yet for this shot, so I’ll describe it. Starting on Jake La Motta and his brother exiting their dressing room the camera follows them down the hall to the arena, where La Motta is to face the Middleweight Champion for the first time. The shot starts in front the brothers as they make their way through the winding corridors and tunnels, then the camera moves in behind as they enter the arena. As they make their way through the cheering crowd and into the ring, the camera lifts in the air to capture the entire arena in a wide shot. In 1980 the steadycam was a new invention, but Scorsese obviously used it to its full potential as soon as he could get his hands on it. This great shot serves the story because it highlights the greatest moment for La Motta – the fight which won him the Middleweight belt.


Oldboy (2003) – The Fight with the Hammer – dir. Chan Wook Park

Perhaps not grandiose in its flare or style - the camera only moves back and forth on one axis - but the impact of the action on screen is awe-inspiring. Fight scenes are usually choreographed around the camera so the punches, kicks and falls appear real and violent. But in one majestic tracking shot Chan Wook Park puts to shame most other fight scenes. It’s a dozen baddies with just one guy, one shot… and one hammer.

BTW: The actual long shot doesn’t start until the 30 sec mark of this clip:



The Player (1992) – The Opening Shot – dir. Robert Altman

Another one of the greats. Altman was actually sending up, or paying homage to “Touch of Evil” and actually references it in the dialogue. The shot takes place entirely outside on the grounds of a Hollywood studio. The camera tracks, and picks up pieces of conversation from several characters, all setting up and providing the backstory for the film. Altman innovatively overlaps the conversations as he moves from one conversation to the next. He frames the star, Tim Robbins, in an awkward shot through an obscured window to his office. Robbins, as Griffin Mill, is taking a pitch from Buck Henry (writer of “The Graduate”) for “The Graduate 2”. Simply hilarious.




Magnolia (1999) – Entering the Studio – dir. Paul Thomas Anderson

This shot doesn’t quite have the dramatic impact of “Touch of Evil”, “Goodfellas,” or even “Boogie Nights”, but it’s still a marvel. Anderson combines the techniques of Scorsese and Altman to create a dizzying tour of the television studio where much of the drama will go down. It’s raining and Stanley Spector and his dad are late for their game show taping. It’s a tense sequence which moves at a quick pace with much help from Jon Brion’s hypnotic music cue.





I Am Cuba (1964) – The Rooftop – dir. Mikael Kalatozov

There are half a dozen shots in this film which would make this list. Youtube happens to have the magnificent rooftop shot, which introduces the decadent lifestyle of the Cuban upper class. This shot is important because it provides counterpoint up the plight of the poor farmers and working class Cubans whom we will see in the next scene. Not only is it beautiful but it’s so bold that the shot ends with the camera following a woman into the pool and under the water.

The other shot from the film I would have included is the parade sequence which actually covers a Cuban demonstration by moving up a building, crossing the street in midair, through the top floor of a cigar rolling manufacturer and out the window again moving through mid air. I’m tired just writing this.

Note: This clip has a different soundscape, but you can still see the shot:



Children of Men (2006) – The Car Chase – dir. Alfonso Cuaron

Please don’t watch this clip if you haven’t seen the film as it contains major spoilers. Good, now that we got that out of the way, let’s discuss the magnificent chase between Clive Owen and the bunch driving away from the vicious marauders. The shot spins around to show all the characters fighting off the assailants as they drive backwards, avoid bullets and spears etc. No effects were used to create the shot other than a specially rigged car which allowed the camera to hang suspended from the roof and spin and move to capture everyone's reactions. This shot is one of a series of long extended takes in the film – equally impressive is the rescue of the baby in the refugee camp at the end of the film.

Please note, the car scene has been removed since this original post. Therefore, I've included the long take gunfight scene - again spoilers ahead:



Hard Boiled (1992) – The Hospital Shootout – dir. John Woo

During the shooting of “Hard Boiled”, towards the end of a long series of days at the hospital, John Woo realized he was running out of time to shoot the remainder of the action sequences. He decided to ‘compromise’ and shoot the remainder of his scene in one shot, the result is the John Woo version of the long take. It’s almost unbelievable the carnage, gunshots, and explosions he creates with just one shot of the camera. You just have to see it to believe it.




The Protector aka Tom yum goong (2006) - Running Up the Staircase dir. Prachya Pinkaew

It’s no “Goodfellas” that’s for sure, in fact the scene is just ridiculous, but the sight of Tony Jaa leaping up the circular staircase, and throwing guys off the side and down the stairs is just so satisfying and audacious it’s worthy of inclusion on the same list as “Touch of Evil” or “Goodfellas”. Wow. Again, you have to see it to believe it.





Carlito’s Way (1993) – The Subway Chase - dir. Brian De Palma

Brian De Palma has used his trump card too many times (ie.“Bonfire of the Vanities”, “Mission to Mars”, “Snake Eyes”) and so I’m inclined to discount his entries. But “Carlito’s Way” is one of the great long take shots. The shot follows a chase between Al Pacino’s character in flight from a trio of mobsters in the NY Subway system. It’s magnificent choreography punctuated by Patrick’s Doyle grand score.



Russian Ark (2002) – The Whole Damn Movie – dir. Aleksandr Sokurov

Using a sophisticated High Definition camera, Sokurov was able to do what Hitchcock originally wanted to do - stage an entire movie in one shot. “The Russian Ark” is more an artistic experiment than a traditional narrative film, and technically, it’s an achievement, but only a few occasions in the 96-minute running time does the film actually achieve the grandeur the storyline implies. But when it does, it is magnificent – you just have to sit through the really boring parts.

Here's the ballroom scene:




The Passenger (1975) – Locke’s Death – dir. Michelangelo Antonioni
Warning this clip contains spoilers. A rare feat is a final long take shot. “The Passenger’s” final shot is a 7-min long opus which starts inside a hotel room, where we see Jack Nicholson’s character lying on a bed, the camera then pushes in to catch the action outside. It actually goes through the window and outside into the courtyard. By the end of the shot, the camera has turned itself around and is looking into the room where we discover Jack, while out of our sight, has just been murdered. It’s one of the more sly and devious long take shots of this list.





Of course dozens of other films have used long takes including Gasper Noe’s “Irreversible”, Godard’s “Weekend”, and many of Tarkovsky’s and Theo Angelopolis’s films. This is by no means comprehensive. Please chime in your favourites.

Thanks.

ADDITIONS AND AMENDMENTS:

Due to the overwhelming responses I've added some more clips. Please see below.

Satantango (1994) Walking to the Police Station dir. Bela Tarr

Bela Tarr is a master, and sadly I'm not familiar enough of the work to provide ample commentary, but this clip is a beautiful shot:





Weekend (1967) Tracking Across the Farm Dir. Jean-Luc Godard


Jean-Luc Godard's classic, "Weekend" features a series of long tracking shots, as a kind reader pointed out, 'before it was in vogue'. Check this one out.









Breaking News (2004) – The opening shootout - Dir. Johnny To

This highly stylized crime classic opens with a wild shoot out with the police, of course, all in one take. Shades of De Palma on this one.




Strange Days (1995) – The Opening POV Chase – Dir. Kathryn Bigelow

Kathryn’s Bigelow’s opening shot is taken from the POV of a robber escaping a robbery. It’s entirely handheld and therefore very jittery and nausea-induces. But it’s lengthy. Judge for yourself.





Nostalghia (1983) – Carrying the Candle – Dir. Andrei Tarkovsky

The Russians/Soviets seem to love their long takes. Here’s a head-turner from Tarkovsky’s “Nostalghia”, which features a man’s numerous attempts to carry a lit candle across a courtyard. It’s not technically amazing, but it’s fascinating how it draws you in. It’s a remarkable example of determination.






Elephant (2003) – John's Walk Through the Halls and Outside – Dir. Gus Van Sant

Elephant has about a dozen long steadycam shots. Here is a key shot, from the brilliant Harris Savides, which shows John walking through the halls and then outside the school. The movement and camera exposure from inside to outside is seemless. Potential SPOILERS here as well.






Kill Bill Vol 1 (2003) – The 5,6,7,8’s – Dir. Quentin Tarantino


Here’s another one of Tarantino’s De Palma homages – the famous 5,6,7,8’s shot. Robert Richardson is at the helm photographically on this one. Enjoy.






Serenity (2005) – The Opening Credits/Walk Though the Ship – Dir. Joss Whedon

By popular demand, here’s the opening of “Serenity”. Capt Mal starts out in the cockpit, then moves back through the rest of the ship introducing us to all the characters. A well-hidden cut occurs midway, but it’s two impressive long takes put together.



Snake Eyes (1998) - The Opening - Dir. Brian De Palma

Ok Ok Ok. I really dislike this film, but people wanted this shot up here. Here's 10 minutes of the opening of Snake Eyes, whose opening shot lasts 20mins or so - too long for a 1000 mag of film, so I think there's a cut in there.





Great Expectations (1999) Kissing in the Rain – Dir. Alfonso Cuaron

Alfonso loves his long takes. This one cleverly spliced a few shots together, but is a great moment nonetheless. Enjoy.





Nine Lives (2005) - William Fichtner Sequence – Dir. Rodrigo Garcia

Rodrigo Garcia’s “Nine Lives” is composed of nine different each showing a part of a woman's life. This one features the great character actor William Fichtner showcased like he should.






Irreversible (2002 ) – At the Club - Dir. Gaspar Noé


Gaspar Noé’s notorious film with Vincent Cassel and Monica Belluci. Here are a couple of segments mended together over a span of a full day and night. All segments are long tracking shots. Warning this clip contains some graphic material. Viewer discreti…. Ahh just watch it, it won’t kill you.






Werckmeister Harmonies (2000) - The Hospital Riot - Dir. Bela Tarr

Just watch your jaw drop with this climatic scene (shot) from "Werckmeister Harmonies". This may contain spoilers as it comes towards the end of the film. But there's no shocks or twist, just one amazing shot. Enjoy







Frenzy (1972) - Tracking out the apartment - Dir. Alfred Hitchcock

A reader wrote in about Hitchcock's fantastic offscreen murder which occurs while the camera tracks back from a woman's flat into the street. It's perhaps one of Hitchcock's greatest moments of suspense. Amazing:

SPIDER-MAN 2

Spider-Man 2 (2004) dir. Sam Raimi
Starring Tobey Maguire, Kirstin Dunst, James Franco, Alfred Molina

****

“Spider-Man 2” is one of the rare feats of a sequel that is better than the original – in fact much better than the original. The first Spider-Man seemed to suffer from a budget too small for Raimi’s creative vision. Most of the effects suffered from B-movie-style tricks – including overreaching poorly rendered CGI. Even the mechanics of the story were sloppy, cumbersome, and rudimentary and only slightly more interesting than “Daredevil”. Comic book adaptations nowadays have to be written for adults before kids and therefore they require more sophistication and polish. “Spider-Man 2” is not in the realm of the “Batman Begins” reboot, but it's still one of the best superhero films out there.

“Spider-Man 2” picks up right where the first installment left off; in fact Raimi cleverly summarizes the first film as graphic frames in the credit sequence. Peter Parker and Mary Jane are still in love, but cannot be together because of his burden of power and the responsibility that comes with it. With Parker’s alter-ego taking up too much of his time he finds himself late with his job, his classes and his relationship with MJ. To repair the damage in his life Parker decides to abandon Spiderman in favour of a civilian life. Raimi expresses Parker’s new found freedom in a montage using Burt Bacharach’s song “Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head”. It’s a lengthy sequence which could have been cut out, but it certainly helps retain the light, humourous tone of the film.

The dark side of the story involves the new baddie, Dr. Octopus (Alfred Molina) who has developed a form of ‘controllable fusion’ which would supply everyone with infinite renewable energy(no, there’s no activist subtext here). As usual his experiment goes awry and Ock is fused permanently with his mechanical arms which are attached to his back. His malevolent mechanical arms now control him - damn that flimsy machine intelligence inhibitor chip!

Meanwhile, Harry Osborn still harbours hatred for Spiderman for killing his father (the Green Goblin from numero 1). He employs Doc Ock to find Spiderman so he can kill him and exact his revenge. After a magnificent Spidey/Dr. Ock battle which moves from the Chrysler Building to the above-ground subway line, Spidey is captured. Spider-Man is forced to reveal his true identity to Harry Osborn, which somehow shocks him. Harry saves the battle for later and lets Parker/Spidey go to save MJ who has been kidnapped by Dr. Ock. Spider-Man saves the day and rescues Mary Jane, but not before he is forced to reveal his true identity to her as well.

“Spider-Man 2” sets up high expectations for number 3 by taking away Parker’s veil of anonymity. This is the plot device that all comic books of its kind use to make its human alter-ego 'complex'. The fact is it’s a tired device and lazy storytelling. I’m interested to see if the filmmakers have the skills to pull it off as a final act to the trilogy, or will it sag and wilt like “Matrix Revolutions” or “X-Men 3”.

“Spider-Man 2” is infinitely more interesting than the first because of the presence of Alfred Molina who is more interesting baddie. Wlliem Dafoe’s flying circus act was childish and more like the Krantz cartoon than new millennium filmmaking. Unfortunately we’ll have to endure more of him in part 3 as, apparently, Harry Osborn will continue his father’s legacy of villainy.

I sure hope Raimi and the bunch will be done with “Spider-Man”. I was reminded the other day of “A Simple Plan” – the movie, not the band - and forgot how great that film was. Sam, put down the toys and go back to making real movies – 3 Spider-Man movies is not a challenge for you.

Buy it here: Spider-Man 2.1

THE HUDSUCKER PROXY

The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) dir Joel Coen
Starring: Tim Robbins, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Paul Newman

****

If there were a support group for “Hudsucker Proxy” fans, I’d be the first to join. For the longest time, “Hudsucker” was considered the Coens’ official ‘failure’, a big budget Joel Silver-produced critical and commercial bomb. Though “Fargo” has the praise, prestige and Oscar win attached to it, on a personal level “The Hudsucker Proxy” is my all-time favourite Coens’ film, and I’ve been taking flack for it for years.

The story is of Norville Barnes (Tim Robbins), a down-on-his-luck college grad (Muncie College of Business Administration) who starts off in the mailroom of Hudsucker Industries then instantly gets promoted to CEO in an attempt by Chairman of the Board, Sidney J, Mussburger (Paul Newman) to reduce the stock price for personal gain. But Norville isn’t the imbecile Mussburger thinks he is, and he in fact, turns his simplistic idea of a round piece of plastic into the hula hoop phenomenon. Norville becomes the toast of the town, but then is brought down by a meddling newspaper reporter Amy Archer, played by Jennifer Jason Leigh by way of Katherine Hepburn. At the worst moment of his life, Norville attempts to commit suicide by jumping off the 44th floor (not counting the Mezzanine), until a moment of divine intervention brings him back to life.

It was generally agreed at the time that “Hudsucker” was the most visually stunning American film in years and arguably the claim holds up today. There’s never a dull moment. From the opening shot we're reminded of “Citizen Kane”, a long tracking shot into a large building, with lovely snow falling, a single light illuminated in the background. The city is clearly a model – like the opening push into the spinning globe in “Casablanca” - and so, right away, we’re given the rules of the film – it’s an homage to the past and a fantasy film.

The opening sequence which shows how Norville is hired by the company is tremendous. More than just a virtuoso technical exercise, it establishes the themes of the film - karma, the circle, the clock and many of the metaphors that will be repeated in the film. There are so many details to be discovered in subsequent viewings, including Mussberger’s cigar (note how the length changes throughout the film), contrasting devil and angel characters of Moses the Clock Man and Aloysius the Spy, as well as the half dozen other virtuoso moments in the film, including the mail room sequence, the Hula Hoop sequence, and the rousing finale.

Borrowing from the best Bogart, Hepburn, Grant, Bacall, Edward G. Robinson exchanges of the past, the dialogues zings along at a lightning pace – gags are disguised in between lines and over top of other lines (think “His Girl Friday” meets “Bringing Up Baby” meets “Mr. Deeds Goes to Town”). It’s impossible to catch it all in one sitting. Todd McCarthy (Variety) described the film as esoteric, which is a cop-out criticism. Sure, the idea and influence is esoteric, and buffs may enjoy it on another level, but the themes are universal and inspiring. The story is remarkably tight, not a scene, line of dialogue, character, or prop is wasted. With Norville hanging in mid-air during the fight between Moses and Aloysius in the gears of the clock is a perfectly constructed climax, and includes the most clever use of a man’s dentures. Adding ample support is Carter Burwell’s usually proficient score. It’s perhaps his best, a grand series of compositions - humorous, melancholy and epic all at once.

It may come as no surprise that the film was co-written by Sam Raimi who blends his unappreciated comic touch with the Coen's style seamlessly. Of course the Coens and the Raimis have a long history with each other and I wish there will be more collaborations in the future.

The reputation of “Hudsucker” is growing with encouragement from bloggers and fanboys like me. So I think my support group would have a lot of members, but the hit we all took as fans over the years still stings, and we all need more comfort. The best you can do is watch and, hopefully, enjoy the film.

Buy it here: The Hudsucker Proxy

The mailroom:


The Hula Hoop: