THE BIG TRAIL

The Big Trail (1930) dir. Raoul Walsh
Starring: John Wayne, Marguerite Churchill, Tully Marshall, Tyrone Power Sr. Ian Keith

****

For those interested in the technical aspect of cinema one of the most interesting Hollywood stories is the 1930 Western, “The Big Trail”. It’s famous for being the leading man debut of John Wayne, who plays a frontiersman leading a group of pioneers into the West to settle new land. It’s also one of the first feature length 70mm films, shot in widescreen. The format was called ‘70mm Grandeur’, a big screen format established by Fox 20 years before Todd AO or traditional Cinemascope. It was an expensive and laborious process to shoot and so the format was abandoned before it even had a chance to become popular. But what resulted was one of the most amazing epic film experiences you’ve probably never seen before.

John Wayne plays Breck, a strapping young Frontiersman with a fearless sense of adventure. With his intimate knowledge of the land he agrees to lead a group of innocent and intrepid pioneers from Missouri to Oregon in search of new lands to settle. The convoy is massive, a hundred covered wagons, horses, and cattle. Their journey will be dangerous and over the course of a year, they will climb and descend treachorous mountains, suffer through blizzards and storms, and continually fight off the ‘hostile Indians’ who watch over them like predators on prey.

During the journey Breck is also covertly investigating the murder of a trapper by a trio of nefarious woodsmen. These woodsmen also serve as guides on the way, and there’s continual conflict among the rowdy men. Breck also falls in love with one of the ladies and so he constantly weighs his inner feelings for the lady Cameron with his needs of the convoy. Breck’s outdoor instincts, openness with the Indians and skills with a knife successfully moves the settlers to their new lands, safe and sound.

“The Big Trail” is a big film in every meaning of the word. In a time when talkies were cooped up in bullet-proof sound studios, Walsh shoots virtually every foot of film in the wilderness where the story takes place. Walsh crafts shot after shot of stunning epic grandeur. Every scene features hundreds of extras, horses, cattle and other real world production elements in the background. Some of the standout scenes include a treacherous crossing of a violent river and the circled wagon defense against the climatic Indian attack. Some of the staging of the action looks as dangerous off camera as on. At one point the entire convoy of wagons have to scale down a sheer drop cliff to a valley below. No CG, no miniatures. It’s all done for real.

Another amazing part of the story, is that the film was simultaneously shot in 1.33:1 full frame 35mm in addition to the 70mm version. Back in the day, since a different projector was needed to screen in 70mm not all theatres could play the Grandeur version of the film. This required shooting the scenes twice, or shooting with both a 35mm camera and a 70mm camera at the same time. Therefore two slightly different versions of the film exist. The new Fox DVD has both versions – which, compared to each other, are like night and day in terms of epic storytelling. Unfortunately because of the screening difficulties the Grandeur version was little seen in it’s day, and little seen until now.

For a film made in 1930, the Grandeur version of “The Big Trail” is akin to discovering a lost David Lean epic. Walsh’s final scene, the reuniting of Cameron and Breck played among the massive redwood trees is as breathtaking as the best of David Lean’s epic work. You can find this film in the new boxset, “The John Wayne Fox Westerns”. Enjoy.

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN

The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) dir. Jack Arnold
Starring: Grant Williams, Randy Stuart, April Kent, Raymond Bailey

****

I feel no shame in giving a four-star review to a b-movie which has recently been packaged in a 2-disc ten-movie box set of mostly forgettable sci-fi flicks like “Monster on Campus” and “The Leech Woman”. Jack Arnold's magnificent adventure film “The Incredible Shrinking Man” shines within this new DVD box set. Don’t be fooled by the schlocky title, "The Incredible Shrinking Man" is a well-produced sci-fi adventure film with stunning production values. You may not have heard of it, but it's one of the best early sci-fi films ever made.

The film begins introducing Scott Carey and his wife vacationing peacefully on a boat in the ocean. A freak storm quickly blows overhead exposing Scott to an unknown substance. It doesn’t affect him immediately and so he forgets about the incident. Six months later Scott starts noticing oddities. All of his clothes are slightly larger than he remembers, and he’s even slightly shorter. None of the doctors can figure him out, and so gradually over weeks, and months, Scott Carey literally shrinks.

Soon Scott is living in a doll house and still trying to hold together a relationship with his supportive wife. But Scott is doomed because there’s no reversing his mysterious ailment. After a tussle with the housecat, Scott is thought dead, and since he's too small to call for help, he's forced fend for himself against a new environment which is becoming increasingly hostile. Suddenly a small dripping waterheater and a piece of cheese in a mousetrap can provide sustenance, and an innocuous spider becomes a deadly threat. The film becomes an epic adventure of survival in a small space, but one which gets smaller and smaller and smaller, until….

The story was written by the great Richard Matheson who scripted it based on his own novel. Matheson is arguably the most influential writer on modern genre cinema. In addition to many of the best Twilight Zone episodes in the 60's, his novels and short stories begat the modern zombie genre and many of the twist-based supernatural thrillers which M. Night Shyamalan made profitable. He was the master of the high concept and in this film, he tells the story of a man, who, as the title says, literally shrinks continuously. The final moments of Scott Carey’s life put the film into a surprisingly philosophical context. It’s Matheson writing at it’s best. Carey's voiceover provides remarkably intelligent insight into the nature of man, the universe and life and death itself. All this from a schlocky b-movie?

Universal’s "Classic Sci-Fi Ultimate Collection" is a wonderful package put together at a great inexpensive price. It would be worth the $20 or so to pick up the package just for “The Incredible Shrinking Man”. It's a shame this great film is buried amongst other supremely lesser quality films. It's a title worthy of the Criterion treatment, unfortunately there are no extras to enlighten us into the innovative production of the film or Mathieson’s inspirations for the screenplay.

Search out this set and watch this film specifically, it's an adventure film which unfortunately begat the "Honey, I Shrunk the blah blah blah" films, but this original version is a masterpiece of adventure which provides more than just a few cheap thrills. Enjoy.

THE GREAT DEBATERS

The Great Debaters (2007) dir. Denzel Washington
Starring: Denzel Washington, Forest Whitaker

***

Poor Denzel Washington. “The Great Debaters”, which can be perceived as a failure is actually a pretty good flick. It’s a light, funny and serious-when-it-wants-to-be drama about a group of depression-era black college students who take on American racism through their high school debating team. 

This true story is set in 1935 rural Texas during the Great Depression. Denzel Washington plays Melvin Tolson, a charismatic teacher who heads the debating team at the all-black Wiley College. Henry Lowe (Nate Parker), Samantha Booke (Jurnee Smollett) and James Farmer Jr. (Denzel Whitaker – serious, that’s his name!) play three debaters who learn more than just debating from the inspirational Tolson.

Forest Whitaker plays Farmer’s father, a theology teacher who looks after his son’s activities with a stern hand. When it’s discovered Tolson is secretly a labour organizer that is uniting black and white farmers against their crop buyers Tolson’s reputation and credibility is questioned. Meanwhile the team is successful against all opponents and they get the rare opportunity to debate against big bad Harvard for the national championship.

Denzel casts himself as the lead role – the inspirational teacher – and Forest Whitaker as the disapproving and conservative father/preacher. It was the natural split of duties for the two actors – Denzel, the handsome movie-star with the plum role and Whitaker the quirky character-actor with the low-key role. Denzel performs with his usual mannerisms (ie his “Remember the Titan’s” character), and Whitaker looks typically uncool in his round-rimmed glasses. A more challenging choice for Denzel would have been to swap roles and play against type. Both are fine actors and would have tested their abilities and perhaps a more intriguing dynamic.

Though the film is out of the “Dead Poets Society” genre, the film doesn’t feel like a retread, like say, “Mona Lisa Smile” was. The three main adolescent characters are familiar, but distinct. James Jr. is the confident young genius, who’s constantly under the watch of his father. Though he’s cut from a familiar mould, there’s life to him. Henry Lowe represents the alphamale – handsome and talented. He could have been written as a n’er do well, who squanders his talent by indulging in other activities. This character is kept fresh. Samantha is probably the most underdeveloped. She’s ambitious – a woman trying to succeed in a racist man’s world. She’s beautiful and nervous, and never really represents the type-a qualities her character should have.

Denzel's direction is adequate, he relies on many Spielbergian techniques to draw emotion from the audience.  As the film goes along the do-good earnestness is ramped up to annoying levels. What starts off as a natural organic film turns heavy-handed, preachy and on the nose. This is when the film feels like "An Oprah Winfrey" film, which during her major hype machine last year turned many people off the film. She means well, but that doesn't always translate to great cinema

Where the film scores is when the students are actually debating. I was reminded how dreadful that other debating film, “Rocket Science”, was. That film was about debaters too, but strangely didn’t have any actual ‘debating’. Denzel’s film lives up to its title and has lots of good debating. Grand speeches are made about racism, education, politics, and civil rights in a series of dynamic battles of words. The speeches are naturally written perfectly and may not represent what a real college debate may sound like, but it’s the heightened reality of the movies and made really fun to watch.

The film won’t make you ‘stand up and cheer’ as the DVD box tells you it will, but it’s a fine piece of familiar storytelling, full of good old fashioned Hollywood inspiration. Don’t let Ms. Winfrey turn you off. It’s pretty good. Enjoy.

"The Great Debaters" is now available on DVD in Canada from Alliance Films

SON OF RAMBOW

Son of Rambow (2007) dir. Garth Jennings
Starring: Bill Milner, Will Poulter, Jessica Stevenson, Ed Westwick, Neil Dudgeon, Jules Sitruk

**1/2

“Son of Rambow” is the latest film in a recent trend of 80’s nostalgia films about that simple, uncomplicated indie filmmakers’ tool – the VHS Camera. This is the second film about those analog days after Michel Gondry’s “Be Kind Rewind”. This film actually takes place in the 80’s – 1982 to be exact – and tells the story of two British kids who find common ground in their attempt to film their own variation of “First Blood”. Unfortunately I have to play the wet blanket reviewer on this one, because despite some admirable cinema-exuberance and cuteness it’s a disappointing comedy.

The film takes place in an English country town in the 80’s. Lee Carter (Will Poulter) is the local troublemaker and is first seen illegally videotaping a theatre presentation of “First Blood” (the first Rambo film). Lee intends to make his own spinoff version of Stallone's film, but is in need of help. So he enlists the aid of the shy and impressionable Will (Bill Milner) to be his stuntman. Will is a talented artist who longs for a form of artistic expression beyond his notebook doodling. His amish-like  fundamentalist upbringing "the Brethren" won’t even allow him to watch television. But when he sees Lee’s videotape of “First Blood” it’s like crack, and he’s hooked.

The duo obsessively film their movie, called “Son of Rambow”, under the noses of the school authorities and Will’s disapproving mother. Through his work on the film Will becomes more popular at school, and soon all the kids want to be in it. But as the cast and crew expand it creates a rift between the two filmmakers. And when Will’s mother finds out about the project everything they’ve worked so hard for is threatened.

With “Be Kind Rewind” already come and gone and the “Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Adaptation” story already out in the zeitgeist “Son of Rambow” isn’t as original as it perhaps was when the film was first pitched or developed. Jennings, who based the film on real life experiences as a child and as a fan of Rambo, hangs the story on the premise of Will’s childhood rebellion against his fundamentalist upbringing. This subplot which pits the typical disapproving parents/culture against the peer pressure to be popular and socially accepted enters the film into some standard formula filmmaking.

The film works best as an absurdist comedy about kids trying to recreate a big scale action film, compensating limited resources, with boundless energy. Sadly the best moments which depict this are told in a quick early second act montage (featuring those hilarious clips we saw in the trailer). In the second half the subplots of Will’s conflict with his family, Lee’s fractured relationship with his brother and Will and Lee’s own conflicts unnecessarily dominate over the making of the film.

The lead characters ground the film well. Will Poulter’s snarling eyebrows alone instantly create his character. He looks like that loner problem child who was always up to no good. And Bill Milner’s scrawny physique and moptop hair is the ideal awkward hero. Jennings spends too much time with his French foreign exchange student character Didier, who represents a Fonzy-cool rebel-without-a-cause who makes a stir with the British kids. Didier is not funny at all, and takes away valuable space on screen from the likeable characters in the film.

The film’s other purpose is to muse nostalgically about the 80’s. Outrageous costumes, hairstyles, awkward high school dances and 80's music are fed to us again, making the film a parody (or homage) to those John Hughes movies which defined the high school genre.

I seem to be alone in my tepid enthusiasm. The film won over audiences at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival and even the screening I attended ended with spontaneous applause. Just be warned, that it may not be the ‘kids gone wild and make a sweded Rambo film’ you might expect. Enjoy.

Son of Rambow

L'INTERIEUR (INSIDE)

L’Interieur (Inside) (2008) dir. Alexandre Bustillo, Julien Maury
Starring: Beatrice Dalle, Alysson Paradis

***1/2

On DVD this week is a must-see for horror fans. A gory little French film that has already become a notorious cult hit fueled by its reputation as one of the goriest films ever made - "Inside" (or "L'Interieur"). The gore is indeed heavy and disgusting, but anyone can do gore; what makes the film good and the filmmakers people to watch out for is their ability to generate true skin-crawling suspense. Sometimes it's the graphic bloodletting, sometimes its those intangible cinema techniques of cinematography, editing, music, sound, acting etc etc. Bustillo and Maury are the real deal and so is “L’Interieur”.

The film opens with an audacious CG shot inside the womb of a woman. A fetus is floating happily in its amniotic fluid when a sudden shock occurs whiplashing the baby forward, knocking its head against the woman’s stomach. The woman is Sarah, and she has just been in a car accident. It’s a horrific scene, her husband is dead, but she is alive. Months later we discover her baby has survived as well. But without her husband she is alone and depressed.

On the night before she is to deliver, a mysterious woman appears at her door. A seemingly calm voice behind the door gives off strange signals to Sarah. The woman (dressed like Mrs. Baylock from "The Omen") turns out to be a serial killer of some sort and lays siege to the home. Who is she and what does she want with Sarah? Visitors to the house enter and exit the story and usually end up being slashed to pieces with uncompromising sadistic force. A game of bloody cat and mouse are played between the two women over the course of the evening with Sarah’s baby caught in between. By the end the entire house is stained with sprays of blood and littered with gruesome carcasses.

This directing duo know their horror films and have clearly been influenced by the great horror films of the late 70’s and early 80’s. “The Omen”, “Dressed to Kill”, some Argento films all creep into the film, but it’s John Carpenter who is omnipresent. The intense synth score by François Eudes pays homage to Carpenter's glorious scores from “Halloween”, “The Fog” and more.

The film begins creating tension by establishing a general tone of unease and creepiness. The film is jumpstarted with a bravura sequence when the mystery lady first appears at Sarah’s door. Each scene gets more and more intense climaxing with one of the most awesome shots in horror-cinema history. Great horror film moments are made by the technical framing of the shot, lighting and placement of the camera. For example Hitchcock’s overhead camera placement before Martin Balsam’s character is attacked in “Psycho” made that moment great. For Bustillo and Maury, near the beginning they frame a shot of Sarah sitting on her couch, in the most frightening manner. I don’t know if it was by design or by accident, but it's spellbinding.

The infamous gore effects occurs in the latter half of the film, when action reigns over scares. The two combatants make creative use of a pair of scissors and a knitting needle. The film is not perfect and does fall into some logical plot holes. For an assailant with such sadistic force, it’s a little convenient that she has trouble opening a locked door for most of the film.

The title has two literal meanings – the baby which Sarah protects insider her body, and her own entrapment inside the remote home she lives in – but the filmmakers unfortunately never quite nail the metaphorical meaning of the title. The finale wraps up some story questions, but certainly doesn’t water down the gruesomeness. The gore is taken to a whole other level in the climax which makes for great audience participation. Enjoy.

"L'Interieur" is now available on DVD in Canada from Alliance Films"

I'M NOT THERE - Take 2

I’m Not There (2007) dir. Todd Haynes
Starring: Cate Blanchett, Heath Ledger, Richard Gere, Christian Bale, Marcus Carl Franklin, Ben Wishaw

**

You may remember on first viewing I had an extremely bad reaction to this film (like a peanut allergy actually). I had much trouble penetrating the over-intellectualization of the man, which came off as just pretension. On second viewing I hoped to see the masterpiece which caused critics like Owen Gleiberman to call it the best movie of the year. I still see an esoteric mess, but I have come around slightly and can finally see its redeeming qualities.

As you probably know already, the film tries to encapsulate the many personalities or lives of Bob Dylan by intercutting 6 different actors playing him in various points of his career. The most engaging sub-story is Heath Ledger plot. Ledger’s Dylan, whose character name is Jack Rollins, is introduced via his wife Claire (Charlotte Gainsburg) as she discovers an affair Jack’s been having with the co-star of his recent film. Haynes then flashes back to the beginning of Claire and Jack’s love affair and charts the course of their destruction.

Though Cate Blanchett’s storyline were the showcase scenes (shot in glorious black and white, and featuring a Dylan-in-drag-Oscar-Nominated performance), the Ledger storyline works best because we get to see Dylan as a real person, suffering from the emotions of everyday life – but always under the pressure cooker stress of being a celebrity. Haynes is smart to begin the storyline knowing that their marriage will eventually fall apart, as this makes their wonderful courtship scenes seem so ironically tragic.

The Blanchett Dylan (aka Jude Quinn) for me is still an unnecessary piece of stunt-casting, and on second viewing her performance is still distracting from the character. The storyline is interesting. Quinn arrives in England for a tour and is chased around non-stop by the British paparazzi who see Quinn as the champion of the American 60’s protest scene. Quinn is aloof and unwilling to accept the crown and so the trip becomes a decent into a Fellini-esque hell of self-doubt fueled by drugs. The whole subplot plays out like “Fellini’s 8 ½” – the great Italian film which tells the story of a director put under a similar creative pressure to produce his next masterpiece. The dream sequences don’t flow as naturally with the material as Fellini’s film did, and so much of the action and events come across ‘art-house-pretentious’

Richard Gere’s and Marcus Carl Franklin’s storylines I could have done without, and Christian Bale’s scene were too small and short to make an impact. Ben Wishaw’s sporadic appearance talking directly to camera, has some wonderful moments, and only teases us with what he could have done in say, Cate Blanchett’s role???

Despite all my negativity I’m still glad Haynes pushed the film to the edges, instead of delivering another saccharine biopic like “Ray” or “Walk the Line”. It’s wild meandering film, which doesn’t provide a cohesive film experience, but at the very least the great career of Dylan is represented in a form which is as challenging as his music.

See my original review HERE:

A RAISIN IN THE SUN

A Raisin in the Sun (2007) dir. Kenny Leon
Starring: Sean Combs, Sanaa Lathan, Phylicia Rashad, Sean Patrick Thomas

**1/2

The latest version of “A Raisin in the Sun” teams the cast from the recent Broadway revival and moves them onto the small screen in this made-for-television adaptation. Added lustre comes from its inclusion at the Sundance Film Festival – rare occasion for an ‘MOW’. Unfortunately this version is a dull-edged sword with little added to bring the play into the new millennium and stands completely on the shoulders of the powerful 1959 play.

If you haven’t seen or read the play or seen the Sidney Poitier version, the story takes place in the 1950’s Chicago in a poor rented tenement apartment occupied by the Younger family. There’s Walter Younger (P Diddy) who feels ashamed for driving a limousine as a career; his wife Ruth (Audra McDonald) who is pregnant with their second child and works as a housemaid, the matriarch is Lena (Phylicia Rashad) who also works as a housemaid, but retains her pride in her work and family. His sister Beneatha (Sanaa Lathan) is close to her dream of going to university to be a doctor.

The story begins after Walter's father has died and the family receives a tidy sum of insurance money, which Lena holds close to her. Walter wants to make his own mark on the world and invest in a liquor store business. Lena disappoints Walter when she buys a house in a white neighbourhood. Their move to the suburbs is complicated when the family receives backlash by the racist neighbours. Walter feels emasculated until Lena reveals she has saved some money for Walter to do what he pleases. Will Walter do the right thing and use it wisely for the security of his family? Walter’s ego gets the better of him and he finds himself in a situation where he can save face, at the expense of his dignity.

The film feels like a Hallmark Sunday Movie. Kenny Leon’s adaptation does little to update or invigorate the 50 year old play. Though there wasn’t much Mr. Leon could have done with the multiple speeches the characters have to say – after all it’s Lorraine Hansbury’s words which has to be kept in tact. The film therefore remains short on subtly. The characters’ inner feelings are always expressed with spot on and lengthy speeches of emotional catharsis.

Hanbury’s characters are still manipulated archetypes brought to life to create simple conflict. Walter Younger is still as foolish as ever, naïvely handing over his fortune in his botched investment scheme. Beneatha Younger still has the same conundrum of which man she should choose – the right man or the wrong man. She still chooses the right man. And Lena is still the all-knowing wise matriarch. Saying all that, I still found myself rooting for them to succeed and overcome their hardships.

“A Raisin in the Sun” is essentially a story about pride, and how the temptation of money can easily compromise that. The film can be simplicistic and old fashioned, but its core values haven’t changed. They are still relevant and, with the right mindset, “A Raisin in the Sun” can be a surprisingly entertaining film. Enjoy.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE

Standard Operating Procedure (2008) dir. Errol Morris
Documentary

**1/2

Arguably, Errol Morris is the premier documentary filmmaker in the world, and we expect him to hit a home run every time at bat. “Fog of War” won him an Oscar in 2004, “Thin Blue Line” is often cited as one of the greatest documentaries ever made, and Roger Ebert considers “Gates of Heaven” one of his favourite films of all time – doc or drama. Along comes “Standard Operating Procedure” a film about those infamous photos from Abu Ghraib prison which helped unite many Americans against the war in Iraq. Though Morris is on his game stylistically, the film is surprisingly unfocused and unimpressive, and leaves too many questions unanswered.

It wasn’t that long ago (2004) when those egregious photos of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib prison found its way into the public. If you were under a rock during that time, they were photos of American prison guards stationed in Iraq humiliating Iraqi detainees by stripping them down and forcing them into inhumane acts. Through a series of interviews from the personnel involved Morris seeks to uncover and comprehensively document what happened during those few months and its investigative aftermath.

We get to see Lynndie England, that woman who was seen holding a prisoner attached to a dog leash. Her emotionally detached testimonial describes how the leader of the bunch Charles Graner, used his male-domination psychology to get her to appear in the photos. There’s Sabrina Harmon whose diary entries back home to her wife tell a story of someone who knows they’re doing wrong, but had no authority or courage to stop it. There’s the investigator who tells us how he pieced together the timeline of events with forensic precision and determined what, if any, criminal acts were perpetrated. We also meet the soldiers who did time for those acts, who now hold disdain for the military for using them as the scapegoats for a policy of maltreatment which went up the chain.

On paper, with Morris at the helm, with this political hot button topic, this film should be a score. Unfortunately Morris is all style, and reveals very little substance. The film is a beautiful film to behold. Robert Chappel and multi-Oscar winning DOP Robert Richardson make this doc look better than most feature films. Morris uses his patented point of view technique which allows the subject to answer Morris’ questions to his face, but appear to the audience as if they’re looking into the camera. As with his other films Morris shoots a series of abstract recreations with high-speed 35mm cameras. I assume they were shot by Mr. Richardson ASC as the images are glossed with his trademark look. The Roberts capture some of the most incredible images I’ve ever see put to film – specifically a super-slo mo shot of a guard dog snarling and chomping near the macro-lensed camera. It’s a phenomenal shot.

But the prettier the pictures overshadow what, for the most part, is a ‘surface’ documentary. Morris takes a long time before getting to his point. He passes time to giving us plenty of facts, and showing us CSI-style analysis with elaborate computer graphics. Morris is never clear whether his film is a character-analysis – a la “Mr. Death” or an investigative study, a la “Thin Blue Line”. Morris treads both points of view, and doesn’t find drama with either one.

The problem is the power of the images. Images which we have seen before and are still fresh in our memory. There is no smoking gun to be found. There is no shocking reveal of information. Morris does eventually find an intriguing contradiction toward the end of the film, when the investigator, one by one, tells us which photos constitute a ‘criminal act’ or ‘standard operating procedure’. It’s an eye-opening paradox of inconsistency, but by that point we’ve been numbed with facts and information which the audience probably inferred themselves back in 2004.

And Morris misses out by never getting to interview the ringleader in the entire affair, Charles Graner (who was disallowed by the military from participating) as well anyone up the chain of command who would be culpable to some of the accusations of policy and the ‘standard operating procedure’ these soldiers were told to uphold.

In the end, “Standard Operating Procedure” raises more questions than it answers. We get both horrific photos of abuse and humiliation intercut with stunningly beautiful cinematography. It’s never the cohesive focused film which expect from Errol Morris, consider this one a bloop single.

Standard Operating...

ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) dir. Sergio Leone
Starring: Charles Bronson, Claudia Cardinale, Henry Fonda, Jason Robards

****

In 1966 Sergio Leone filmed, arguably, the greatest western ever made, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” What could he possibly do to top it? The result was his even grander epic “Once Upon a Time in the West.” The title is legendary as it is now used by other filmmakers to title their own personal epics (ie. “Once Upon a Time in China,” “Once Upon a Time in Mexico,” “Once Upon a Time in India” etc.)

The title is appropriate because it refers to a type of timeless, yet stylized storytelling that contains universal themes of good & evil, romance, time-spanning arcs etc. Sergio Leone’s film has it all – though not all filmmakers adhere to these standards (maybe there should be a Dogme-95-type jury administering licenses for this title).

Much of what we think about what the “west” was like are impressions formed by myths created by Hollywood and it’s ironic that it was the Italians who expounded these myths into the spaghetti western. The creation of the film was a conscious effort of Leone and his partners (and great filmmakers in their own respect), Bernardo Bertolucci and Dario Argento, to combine elements of all Hollywood westerns into the ultimate western mythology.

“Once Upon a Time in the West” tells the story of three characters, Cheyenne (Jason Robards), a notorious outlaw and prison escapee on the run, Jill McBain (Claudia Cardinale), a beautiful newlywed moving out west to settle her family and a mysterious harmonica player (Charles Bronson) looking for revenge. In their way stands Frank, a ruthless assassin, dressed in bad-guy black, played against type by none other than Tom Joad himself, Henry Fonda. Each story begins mysteriously, and in the classic Leone style motivations and true identities of the characters reveal themselves slowly. Each character is a caricature of a Western archetype. Bronson’s harmonica man hardly speaks a word, but talks with his sharp shooting pistols. Jill is a beautiful bride, but later revealed to be a former prostitute. The evil land developer Morton is a cripple.

The film is style over plot, as it contains scene after scene of stand-alone cinematic power. The opening title sequence is legendary – 15 minutes played in virtual silence as three gunmen wait at the train for Bronson’s arrival. It sets up the style for the entire film – moments in time drawn out and lengthened for maximum dramatic effect. For those unfamiliar with Leone’s work, it can be off-putting, but it pays off beautifully and no other filmmaker (perhaps Hitchcock) has consistently done it better.

The film is elegance-personified, from the gorgeous figure of Claudia Cardinale shot with luminous godlike reverence to the majestically sweeping wide-lens camera moves to Ennio Morricone’s grand score. In fact, film is worth renting or buying just to listen the score alone.

The lengthy drawn-out moments of drama are punctuated and paid off by moments of startling violence. One of the greatest screen introductions is Frank’s shooting of Jill’s husband and children in the second scene. After a slow Hitchcockian build up, Leone unleashes Henry Fonda and his gunmen with some of loudest gunshots we’ve heard on film. Even when people get shot they die in a Leone-signature way – a violent spin and fall. It was a year before the “Wild Bunch” and “Peckinpah blood,” but it’s still shocking and arresting.

“Once Upon a Time in the West” is a must-see, though it might take a couple of viewings to appreciate it fully. The film runs 2 hours and 45 minutes so save up a couple of days in your lifetime, it will be worth it. Enjoy.

INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) dir. Steven Spielberg
Starring: Harrison Ford, Kate Capshaw, Ke Huy Quan, Amrish Puri, Philip Stone

***1/2

There was something about this second entry in the series that just didn’t sit right with audiences. Though it was a successful film commercially, it got a critical drubbing, and in most people eyes it is the lesser of the three Jones’ films. Topping the masterpiece of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was mission impossible, and “Temple of Doom” is certainly not Oscar-worthy, but it's still a hell of lot of fun and a worthy entry in the series.

The story begins before “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, 1935 in Shanghai. The Paramount logo fades into a giant metal gong which sounds the beginning of an elaborate Busby Berkeley style musical number featuring American singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw) singing “Anything Goes”. Our hero Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is also in the bar making a deal for the lost remains of Nurhaci – last emperor of the Ming Dynasty. Fighting and action ensues which finds Indy fleeing the scene with Willie Scott and Indy’s young protégé Short Round (Ke Huy Quan). Next thing you know, they’re on a flight across the Himalayas, then they’re forced to abandon the plane using only a yellow dingy for a parachute. After a rollercoaster ride down the mountain, off a cliff and through treacherous rapids they settle down and are found by a kindly old Indian man.

At the man’s village, Indy is tasked with finding a lost Sankara stone, a rock with magical powers which Indy thinks can bring him 'fortune and glory'. The trio travel to Pankot palace where they soon find themselves battling sword-wielding warriors, a shaman with the power to rip a man’s beating heart from his body and a young Maharaja who uses voodoo dolls to subdue his enemies. In addition to rescuing the magic stone, Indy frees the children from the village and wins the heart of the nation. Breathe.

If it’s even possible this second entry of the series moves at a pace more blistering than “Raiders”. In fact, the film is one long journey from one place and event to another with no time for thought or decision-making. It’s as if a supernatural force of nature is blowing Indy and his troops to the Indian village and compelling them into their mission.

Again, as with “Raiders”, Indy goes through a series of trials and unbelievable obstacles. There’s a greater undercurrent of evil through this journey. In “Raiders” it’s the physical and transparent threat of the Nazi’s, but in “Doom” the enemy isn’t revealed until the middle of the film, when Mola Rum (Amrish Puri) rips the heart from the shell-shocked slave. Throw in brainwashing elixirs, and enslaved children and you have a really dark and violent film.

Among the great set pieces is the fantastic opening musical number, which teased us at the thought of Spielberg revitalizing the classic Hollywood musical (it hasn’t happened yet). In fact, the next scene after, the exchange of the Emperor’s remains, is a wonderful sequence cleverly using the table’s ‘Lazy Susan’ for suspense (Hitchcock would have be proud). There’s a rollercoaster/theme park action scene which feels like just that – a theme park ride, and the glorious finale – the rope bridge confrontation, shot with David Lean-like perfection.

Spielberg, Lucas and the boys certainly didn’t set out to make a culturally responsible film. In fact, the film is a series of egregious racial and cultural clichés and stereotypes. Is there anything vaguely like “Chilled Monkey Brains” or “Snake Surprise” in the Indian cuisine? Have the Indian culture ever had a history of ritualistic human sacrifices. And voodoo dolls are not even in the right hemisphere. But really, who cares? The dinner scene is a now a classic scene from the series – completely ridiculous and hilarious in its excess.

How could “Temple of Doom” top “Raiders” – it couldn’t. Watch this film as pure fantasy - even more over-the-top and self-reverential than the first film - and rediscover a great adventure. Enjoy.

WOMAN IN THE DUNES

Woman in the Dunes (1964) dir Hiroshi Teshigahara
Starring: Eiji Okada, Kyôko Kishida

***1/2

“Woman in the Dunes” is the third film from Japanese provocateur Hiroshi Teshigahara. It’s an indefinable film for genre. It’s both a thriller, and meditative art film. Polanksi's "Knife in the Water" meets Antononioni's "L'Avventura". The film has the distinction of receiving a Best Director Oscar nomination – then a rare feat for a foreign language film. It’s a captivating two-hander about a man who is imprisoned in a sand dune with a woman with no means of escape.

The film begins with Niki Jumpei, an entomologist catching bugs in the desert. He misses his bus home, and he asks a group of labourers for a place to stay for the night. Niki is brought to a one shack home located a deep sandpit in the desert. A kind young lady is the housekeeper and she is polite and accommodating. But in the morning when it’s time to leave, Niki can’t escape, the ladder which brought him down is gone. The men are gone as well, and the inclined slopes of sand which surround him are impossible to climb. The woman reveals that she and, therefore, him are victims of an act of criminal torture and blackmail to sift and extricate sand from the pit to the labourers that kidnapped them in exchange for food and water and thus, their lives.

Niki has trouble believing such a ridiculous notion. A battle of attrition ensues between Niki and his captors. And as the days go by he realizes the gravity of his situation and accepts his dilemma. As the weeks and months go by, Niki starts looking at the woman differently. He gazes at her naked sleeping body and unexpectedly, a carnal attraction is born. Not out of love, but mutual desperation.

The film masterfully uses symbolism to convey the ideas of fate and destiny. In the opening scenes Teshigahara teases us with metaphorical close-ups of the bugs. Niki captures them, and pins them to his miniature diorama of cardboard and sand. Later when Niki is imprisoned in the dunes we realize the sad significance and irony of his predicament. Niki, himself, is imprisoned, exactly like his bugs, on display to his captors.

"Woman in the Dunes" is a modern parable of the Greek story of Sisyphus, the prisoner who was tasked with rolling a boulder up a steep hill only to have it continually roll down to the bottom. Or maybe it’s the guinea pig cage metaphor, which the animal runs and runs on the spinning wheel without going anywhere. Niki's task is a similar unconquerable act of frustration.

As much as the film is brilliant, its often a frustrating venture for the audience. Structurally “Woman in the Dunes” has its faults. At the 1hr 40mins mark, the film appears to rise to its climax, when Niki escapes his prison via a handmade rope. It's a masterful sequence of method and procedure. Niki escapes and after a lengthy chase he's caught again and lowered back down into the pit. At almost the 2-hour length it seemed like the natural point to end the film, but in fact, the film continues on for another 45mins which arguably is less intriguing than the beginning.

Teshigahara also leaves many essential plot elements unclear. In the myth, it was Zeus’ punishment for Sisyphus’ betrayal of him. What did Niki do to deserve such maddening servitude? Who are the villagers and why do they need the sand, when itseems so abundant around them? Do they torture Niki and the woman because they are sadistic? And who exactly is the woman in the dunes? Is she there voluntarily? I didn't require these questions answered to enjoy the film, but they were continually in my mind.

"Woman in the Dunes" is a film of texture, subtext, metaphors. Because of the parallel with Sisyphus, it should be viewed more as a fable – like Grimm Fairy tales - than a structurally coherent genre film. It’s visual storytelling at its best. Teshigahara’s images construct the conundrum with a multitude of closeups of moving sand, naked body parts and intercutting of all these elements creates a uniquely erotic and frightful experience. Enjoy.

THE NANNY

The Nanny (1965) dir. Seth Holt
Starring: Bette Davis, William Dix, Wendy Craig, Jill Bennett, James Villers

***1/2

“The Nanny” is a sharp yet little-known Hitchcockian thriller from the 60’s – the story of an obnoxious spoiled brat who returns home from boarding school and abrasively harasses his kindly old Nanny. It’s a slowly revealing creeper, that represents the best qualities of the 60's psycho-drama genre.

The film begins with the introduction of Joey Fane (William Dix), a spoiled British rich kid who is being ‘released’ from his boarding school back into the custody of his upper class parents. His father (James Villers) is the disciplinarian, but his mother (Wendy Craig) curiously dreads her child’s return with fear. In flashbacks we learn of Joey’s sister who died tragically (drowned in the bath tub) for which Joey took the blame. 

According to the school masters Joey’s rehabilitation failed, which makes him a continued threat in the house. Joey immediately targets the Nanny (Bette Davis) with all his aggression. Joey commits pranks and pulls suck attacks in a desperate attempt to get Nanny to leave, or get fired. But Nanny holds firm and refuses to give into Joey’s tactics. Over the course of the film we learn there’s more to our combatants than what’s on the surface. The film’s darker elements are revealed gradually climaxing in a life-threatening battle of wills.

Psychological movies like “The Nanny” got turned into slasher bloodletting films in the late 70’s. If the film were made in the 80’s (or even now), when the true colours of the conflicting characters are finally revealed in the third act, a modern version of the film would be turned into a bloody action film by the end. "The Nanny's" salacious story elements are never embellished beyond the established tone of the film. 

George Ratliff’s underrated 2007 creeper, “Joshua” is a close comparison. “Joshua” never turns into a bloodfest, nor an action film, and of course, the film sadly never became a hit. There’s never a big confrontation, fight, shouting match, or climatic killing. But like Ratliff’s film, “The Nanny” is left far more satisfying for being sparse and subdued and slightly oblique.

“The Nanny” has a lot in common with those great Roman Polanski thrillers from the 60’s and 70’s. The film takes place entirely in one apartment, with limited characters. Yet, like Polanski, Holt makes things very uncomfortable for the viewer and gradually changes direction in the film skillfully.

Holt keeps us guessing and on edge not with technical bravura but the direction of his actors. Bette Davis’ performance, of course, is fantastic. Despite Joey's efforts to break her, Bette Davis’ Nanny retains a strong and composed demeanor. She never flinches. William Dix plays Joey with similar emotional detachment. His superior manner of speech, honed through the influence of his stolid upper class father, and his snobby boarding school, never lets us into his true feelings and emotions. It’s not until the very end do we discover whether he is a monster, or just an innocent child.

“The Nanny”, which was made in 1965 – 30 years after her starlet hey day, shows us Bette Davis' great accomplished abilities. Sure Meryl Streep, Katherine Hepburn are fine actresses, but Bette Davis is officially my favourite. Enjoy.

“The Nanny” is part of the 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment “Bette Davis Collection”

YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH

Youth Without Youth (2007) dir. Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Tim Roth, Bruno Ganz, Alexandra Maria Lara, Andre M. Hennicke

**

Francis Coppola's return to cinema was perhaps the most disappointing film of the year 2007. Coppola produced his little art film under the noses of all press, bloggers and cine-spies. And so when it was announced last year he had a film completed, in the can, and that it would be released late in the year, near the other Oscar pictures, the buzz was palpable. It had been 10 years since we'd seen a new Coppola film (since 1997's "The Rainmaker"). We all knew Coppola's best days were behind him, and his film output in the 90's were less than stellar, but there's always a glimmer of hope that some of the old magic that produced a string of film masterpieces in the 70's would be re-sparked.

The story behind the making of the film teased us even more - a self-financed venture, shot in Bulgaria, with a small hands-on crew, the same manner of production Coppola's early films were made. Unfortunately it's a mess of a unrealized ideas and only a tease of the once great filmmaker.

The film tells the long epic story of a Romanian professor Dominic (Tim Roth) who in 1938 at age 70 is struck by lightning and finds himself near death in a hospital bed. After several days hidden under a cloth bandage he emerges 30 years younger. His doctors cannot explain the phenomenon, but somehow Dominic has tapped into a metaphysical fountain of youth which bewilders everybody. He not only has the ability to stay young, but he discovers other magical powers of mind control as well. The story gets circulated around the world, and attracts some unsavoury parties - including the Nazis and American Intelligence agents. Dominic uses his powers to evade his crafty pursurers and go into hiding.

Years later in 1955, the film picks up Dominic living a solemn lonely life in the country. One day he bumps into a doppleganger version of his lost love Laura - except this woman is named Veronica (Alexandra Maria Lara). Veronica has also been struck by lightning and like Dominic exudes weird metaphysical abilities. Veronica can now speak Sankrit and communicate with the dead thousands of years old. Dominic finds himself with the opportunity to finish his life's work in language-study and fall in love with his old flame again.

"Youth Without Youth" is one of those metaphysical experimental films, which suits the art-house sensabilities of a David Lynch or Peter Greenaway more than Mr. Coppola. To his credit Coppola manages to craft a stunningly beautiful film, but he sets such a slow and languid pace, it becomes an utterly tiring exercise to watch all 124 mins in one sitting. The first half is the most intriguing as Dominic learns of his new found abilities, including a dramatic confrontation with the Nazi Gestapo agent. Hell, Matt Damon even shows up, playing someone similar to his CIA character in "The Good Shepherd". The second half leaps from a suspenseful noir, into a period romance genre and peeters out to become virtually nothing.

The ideas get so big the film eventually becomes an unruly uncontainable mess of metaphors, pseudo-science, and anthropological mumbo-jumbo. Though Coppola took the 'keep it simple stupid' approach to the production, he chose to film a film too complex for his return.

Though it currently sits 28% rotten on the Rotten Tomatoes meter, it's not the anamimous critical trouncing you'd expect. The film is not all that bad either. The film possesses a poetic beauty complimentary to its ruminations on the meaning of life. Unfortunately while some may find it's existentialism profound, most others will shut the film off once Tim Roth starts speaking his voiceover in the artificial language invented by his character - seriously, that happens.

"Youth Without Youth" is available on DVD May 13 from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.

Youth Without Yout...

IRON MAN

Iron Man (2008) dir. Jon Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrence Howard

****

Blockbuster season is underway – a time when my eyes and ears will become beaten down sore from over stimulation of the $100million + gargantuan films which come at us week after week - the excitement is palpable. First up is Jon Favreau’s “Iron Man” – a monster of a film which is now a certifiable franchise behemoth. Wait, is that the same unassuming Jon Favreau who wrote that hilariously pathetic scene in “Swingers” for himself about his character leaving a dozen neurotic voicemails after meeting the girl of his dreams? Yes. Favreau, now a bonafide blockbuster director, has helmed one of the top-tier echelon comic book adaptations. “Iron Man” can sit proudly beside the best-ever comic book films – “Superman: The Movie”, Tim Burton’s “Batman”, “Batman Begins” and “Spider-Man 2”.

“Iron Man” begins with that scene we’ve all seen a dozen times in the trailer and TV spots – Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), a fast-talking playboy billionaire, is being transported in a humvee in Afghanistan. His convoy is attacked and he’s taken prisoner by a group of insurgents. The film then flashes back to establish who Tony Stark is and how he got to this point. We learn he’s the technologically-talented son of a military weapons manufacturer who has turned his father’s company into a giant publicly-traded conglomerate whose sole interests are on the bottom-line. Stark is taken prisoner after the humvee attack and forced to construct for them one of his new and deadly Jericho missiles. But with the help of fellow prisoner/scientist Yinsen, Stark surprises his captors with an unexpected escape plan.

Stark escapes and returns home with a new lease on life – for his company to make good for the world instead of the destruction and death his weapons have caused. Meanwhile Stark’s personal life does a 180 and his attention becomes fixated on his loyal assistant Pepper Pots (a lovely Gwyneth Paltrow) who has stood by him through all of his irresponsible playboy years. The new direction for the company doesn’t sit well with his partner Obadiah Stone (Jeff Bridges) who subverts Stark’s activities with his own nefarious plans. Stark’s new life becomes dedicated to creating a defensive suit of armour as a means of cleansing his soul for the wrongs he has been responsible for. The result is the newest superhero on the block – Iron Man.

The casting of Downey Jr. is an inspired choice of a comic book lead. When it was announced in the press last year who would play the lead role of playboy-tycoon turned ego-driven superhero, the film instantly was elevated a few notches on the must-watch list. It was clear “Iron Man” was going to be taken seriously, and the franchise wouldn’t fall in the superhero junk bin where “Daredevil”, and “The Punisher” now reside. I’m sure the mere presence of the gifted and unconventional lead man elevated everyone’s game to the highest quality of drama

And that’s what “Iron Man” has become, a top notch drama. The film is relatively sparse in action (compared with say, “Transformers” or even the average comic book film). In the first half, precious quality time is spent with Stark and his imprisoned companion Yinsen. This is the most important relationship in the film – the one which will cause Stark to change his life and pursue good in the world. His influence on Stark’s life is handled with more intelligence than Cliff Robertson’s equivalent Uncle Parker role in “Spider-man”. Yinsen’s scenes serve more than just to establish Stark’s goals, or incite the action, there’s genuine brotherly love between the two characters which is felt through out the rest of the film. Credit goes to actor Shaun Tobb who gives his character the honour and respectability Yinsen needs to have.

Cudos to Favreau for casting 30-something Gwyneth Paltrow, a role which, under other circumstances, would have gone to the latest 20-something celeb sensation. Jeff Bridges’ easy-going demeanor in the role of the baddie is a surprising success (btw. Mr. Bridges has one of the cooler personal websites out there. Check it out: www.jeffbrides.com) And Terrence Howard is even more easy-going, and fits into his Air Force jumpsuit just as well.

“Iron Man” works because everything in the film, from the technology, to the politics, to the relationships are taken seriously and never exploited for action’s sake. In fact, the best parts of the film are not the action scenes, but the set up and the groundwork of character which will make the series a lasting franchise. Enjoy.

PS. Don't forget to stay to the very end of the credits. A nice easter egg awaits...

Iron Man