glamour (n). alluring beauty and charm

Get Thee to Matrimony - the Single, Working Women's Films of the 1940s

2011-03-13T16:57:00.008+11:00

I've been watching some films lately that centre around women and their opportunities in the 1940s. There was quite an influx in this decade (and in the 30s and 50s) of films about working women whose aim is, not for a promotion or a pay rise, but to marry and surrender to family life. Because let's face it, in those days equal pay was not happening, but marriage was always in the market. On the one hand, it endorses women in the workforce, but it does that so long as they are single. Once marriage comes along it's bye bye labour and hello bubs. Of course there are probably variations, but it's just interesting to see how these heroines are often both liberated and confined in what society allows of them.

Kitty Foyle (1940) ~ Here you have a toned down, stripped to brown hair color and ultimately Oscar-winning Ginger Rogers in what was arguably her first serious role. It was all about RKO giving her an actress-y vehicle, equipped with notable director Sam Wood (Goodbye Mr. Chips), nice set, costume and hair, and good supporting cast. The film itself is about a gal from a working-class Irish background who falls in love with a rich-bred man (Dennis Morgan) in whose world she ultimately can't fit.

The film begins with a pre-1940s context of what women had to deal with - it shows a woman whose goal in life is to marry well and then shows her in a lavish setting in which her husband works while she's at home. Yet she becomes discontent, sets off for work and joins the women's suffragette.

The plight of Ginger Rogers' Kitty Foyle, and of several working gals of the 30s and 40s, is the somewhat reverse. She starts off as the worker, as the independent gal earning her own income (she herself says "...nobody owes a thing to Kitty Foyle, except Kitty Foyle") for whom marriage is the end of her efforts. Indeed, after reaching the position of manager (or thereabouts) of a perfumerie in Philadelphia, she resigns and marries a doctor. The important thing for her is that she married a man who fits her terms, a man who worked his way up the ranks just as she did (unlike Morgan's character who was born into privilege) and, perhaps, a man through whom she can live out her ideals. It's not quite the feminism of the 70s, indeed it's a bit contradictory and roundabout, but it's a step in that general direction.

Tom, Dick and Harry (1941) ~ Where Kitty Foyle was a drama, here is a comedy about a twenty-something middle-American girl on the quest for Mr. Right. What sets this one apart is that it's quite a fun ride. Ginger plays Janie, a gal who's ready to settle down, but has trouble deciding between three would-be suitors including wealthy Dick (Alan Marshal), ambitious Tom (George Murphy) and humble Harry (Burgess Meredith. Through the film she accepts the engagement of all three and embarks in wild fantasies of what it would be like to be either Mrs. Tom, Dick or Harry. These fantasies are incredibly exaggerated and pretty funny as a result.

The film swims along at a good regular pace, with peppy dialogue that seems to come out naturally, and has good support from Phil Silvers as an icecream vendor and Lenore Lonergan as Janie's rather prying sister 'Butch.' The ending is quite interesting in how it allows Janie to choose romantic love over a marriage that will get her ahead in life. Perhaps one can argue that because her ultimate partner is not the richest fellow in the world, she too will need to work allowing for greater equality between the sexes. Though how long that would last once the babies come along is harder to decipher.

Every Girl Should Be Married (1948) ~ Yet another comedy that shares some notes with the earlier films. Aside from the film's title being a more aggressive indication of what the first two films were ultimately about, you have the twenty-something gal (Betsy Drake) looking for, who was that, why it's Mr. Right. There's a slight deviation however. The first two films are essentially set during the war (there's even a scene in Tom, Dick and Harry where Janie and Tom walk out of the cinema just as a Hitler news reel comes on).

On the other hand, Every Girl Should Be Married is a postwar product. In a way there's a more desperate tone to it perhaps echoing the importance of the nuclear family. Notably, Grant's character Madison is a 'baby doctor (his deprecating words),' who is a staunch bachelor without any intentions of having his own family. The film's goal then is to convert Grant into a reformed family man and for Drake's persistent (and kind of stalkerish) Anabel to conduct the operation.

Otherwise it's an entertaining enough film. To keep it off the beaten track of being tedious too quickly, it's coloured with other characters - you have Franchot Tone as a wealthy guy who Anabel utilises to make Madison jealous, Diana Lynn all grown up (that wise beyond her years youngster from The Major and the Minor and The Miracle of Morgan's Creek) and a cameo from Eddie Albert at the end. Just like Kitty Foyle, Annabel gets the doctor in the end.

The Director and the Muse

2011-02-26T19:43:00.000+11:00

I haven't quite seen every necessary film of these collaborators to really merit this list, but nevertheless I bring to this plate my impressions thus far of these partnerships.

Jean-Luc Godard and Anna Karina - Married at the time of their film collaborations, Karina was key to the most fruitful period of Godard's career - the early to mid 60s. She was the lead in many of Godard's films during this period and she proved to adapt well to the different themes and atmospheres, without forsaking their shared interest in whimsy. She could play the philosophical hooker yearning for fulfillment in her most harrowing role as Nana in Vivre sa vie, but then be joie-de-vivre as the clucky singer in the technicolored Une femme est une femme. One film that showcases her ability to switch the nature of her character is Pierrot le fou, where her seeming childlikeness and sense of adventure mask darker, femme-fatale motives.

Woody Allen and Mia Farrow - The whole scandal aside, Allen and Farrow were quite the creative collaborators during the 80s period in which she was his muse. Woody gave Mia showcases for her sometimes underused talents and she in return is part of the reason why Allen's 80s period has so much breadth and is arguably his most consistent as a filmmaker. I think Allen distinctly understood Farrow's talents and her versatility, and so she pretty much never plays the same role twice in a film of his - whether it be as the Italian broad Tina Vitale in Broadway Danny Rose, the fragile Cecilia in The Purple Rose of Cairo, the surface-happy title character in Hannah and Her Sisters or the likeable ditz who becomes a star in Radio Days.

Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro - Is it a coincidence that (arguably) De Niro's film roles haven't been quite as good as his glory days with Scorsese in the 70s-early 90s? There's is a partnership of an actor perfectly projecting the director's intentions onto film. The faith towards each other's works (which is crucial to the perfect partnership) can be seen in such films as Taxi Driver, The King of Comedy and De Niro's Oscar winning Raging Bull among others. Many of De Niro's characters under Scorsese are troubled, tumulting into some sort of madness, but always compelling and rendered with sensitivity.

Frank Capra and Jean Arthur - I could have gone with Capra and Stewart, but I really like the dynamics moreso between Capra and Arthur. Arthur fans would know of the often-told story that she was a bundle of nerves on set with more than a fair share of insecurities. According to Capra's son on the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington dvd commentary, Capra didn't mind the challenge that was Arthur's nerves. Indeed getting Arthur to deliver stellar performances was something of an accomplishment. Thus, a trusting director with confidence in an actor's ability can sometimes have the final say between a mediocre and good performance. I wouldn't say that Arthur didn't perform as well with other directors (she certainly delivered well for Stevens and Leisen), but that some of her performances for Capra - especially Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington - are at another level of maturity, assuredness and strength, with classic Arthur vulnerability thrown in.

Romantic Comedies (of Sorts) That I Unabashedly Adore

2011-01-04T22:12:00.009+11:00

It is Valentine's Day, so what better way to celebrate than by revisiting the romcom.

Today the genre 'romantic comedy' carries a bit of a bad rep. It is invariably referred to as the 'chick flick.' Most of the time it's mind-absent entertainment, something to see when you don't want to think. The plot is usually formulaic, the laughter is barely there and usually the set and clothing designs matter more than anything else. So it makes me, who's sort of an obnoxiously exclusive filmbuff of sorts, a bit reluctant to admit I have a fair share of rom-com favourites. Or romantic-drama-com. Here is a post-60s list.

A Touch of Class (1973) ~ I saw this one recently, so how well it holds up on multiple viewings is something I can't comment on. It's not really a classic, and is perhaps more known for its blunders than its positives. In particular there's the maligned Glenda Jackson performance - maligned because she won an Oscar for it. And if you ever get a chance to watch a clip of the 1974 Oscars, you'll see the shocked reactions of Ellen Burstyn and Joanne Woodward when the absent Jackson's name is called. So yeah, people won't happy about it even then. '

Another complaint I've heard is that the film can't make up its mind whether to be a comedy or a drama, so it settles for one half of each [hence the new coined term, romantic-drama-com]. Then there are those who disapprove of the film's lack of morality, since it concerns an affair and sort of brushes over the respective families of either lead. Maybe I'm too easily pleased, but I didn't find any of those factors bothering me.

I think the most essential part of a romantic comedy is how well the leads gel. If the spark isn't there, then there's no way the film can take flight. And it was primarily the interesting dynamic between Glenda Jackson's stiff, feminist Englishwoman and George Segal's mildmannered native New Yorker that made me keep watching. It's a clear 'opposites shouldn't attract but somehow do' dynamic. But another factor I think is primary for this genre is the situations. This film had a nice island-esque backdrop during the second-third which was prime for some funny and revelatory situations. Yes there's a drop in the fire-cracking comedy in the second half, but Jackson and Segal make it work.

The Owl and the Pussycat (1970) ~ Segal again, this time with Barbra Streisand. This one's an early 7os film that exploits the most it can out of the liberal decade that was. It's a sex farce comedy that was risque for its time, and yet still somehow came out charming. Again I think it's the leads. Segal and Streisand make a great contrast, with her as the kooky screwball-type and him as the stiff-shirt type that learns to relax a little. It's definitely a bit of a 'updated' throwback to the screwball comedy of the 30s and 40s, similar to another Streisand comedy What's Up, Doc?

Irma La Douce ~ This film is a tad overlong for its genre, but other than that I don't have complaints. As far as Wilder-Lemmon-MacLaine combinations go, it's unfair to compare it to The Apartment. If there were such a thing as bar fights between films, certainly the earlier pairing would win. But I have soft spot for Irma La Douce. Sure, it's during Wilder's risque 'I'm trying to keep up with the times' period of filmmaking, which was sort of an inferior time in the director's career, but it's a sweet film. I think it's MacLaine's film all the way with her hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold-turn, but of course Lemmon matches her well.

Georgy Girl (1966) ~ Lynn Redgrave and the mod British ambience around her makes this film well above predictable territory. You think you've pegged her during the film, that what she wants is to be like her roommate Meredith (Charlotte Rampling). That she wants to be as thin, as beautfiul as her, and to have her boyfriend Jos (Alan Bates). Only she realises that these things aren't as fulfilling as she thought looking from the outside in. It's an interesting rom-com-drama that works well chiefly because of Redgrave's vivacious, spirited, self-depecrating performance. Alan Bates as her would-be lover is the clowning-around, yet sweet when he's earnest, kind of a guy you could entertain having for a fleeting while, just as Georgy did. One thing that sets Georgy Girl away from other romantic-dramatic-comedies is that it's a bit bittersweet. It's not completely sad nor completely fulfilling, so it hangs there in the middle.

Bridget Jones' Diary ~ I see Bridget Jones as being similar to Georgy, just as free-spirited and unconventional. Only Bridget gets her ideal man in a very Pride and Prejudice wish-fulfillment way (after all, it's a sort of modern adaptation of Austen's novel). I've had a bit of an on-again off-again relationship with this film. I spent a long while avoiding seeing it, then when I finally did I loved it, then the second time around I didn't, and now I like it again. It's a standard well-made romantic comedy heralded by a sublime Renee Zellweger performance. Oh and I love Colin Firth. Especially in this. Avoid the sequel like the plague.

God Save the King

2011-01-04T21:22:00.006+11:00

Sometimes you want a film to be really good, but when expectations are so inflated, the outcome can turn out to be less than its estimated value. That sort of thing happened to me back in early 2009 when I went to see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I don't think I'd ever before been so ready to embrace a film, to immediately rank it upon my favourite films of all time, only to be disappointed. I felt the film was too prestigious for its own good. It was over-long, too drawn out. All style, luscious cinematography, visually capturing its different time periods, but not really having much heart. To me it cried out 'Oscar-bait'.

So I awaited the release of 2010's The King Speech with some caution. Generally I'm a fan of period dramas, but lavish costumes and art designs can't save a weak story. But it has it turned out, the film was engaging, depicting a moment in history and giving it the royal treatment, so to speak.

The film follows the ascension to the throne by King George VI (played notably by Colin Firth). It isn't the most notable ascension, as George himself notes. After his father passed away, his brother Edward was meant to be the next monarch, but an ill-fitting marriage to twice-divorced Wallis Simpson makes it improper for him to keep his position. So younger brother George, plagued with a speech impediment, gets the throne by default. A little earlier in the film, his wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) had already sent for the eccentric Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), but it is when George becomes king that Logue really becomes of service.

Such a short summary doesn't really get to the heart of the film. It really is somewhat of a parallel journey between two men (Firth and Rush) who forge an unexpected and moving friendship. King George is a man with a self-confidence crisis fuelled by his stammering. I think Firth's performance becomes amazing when you really examine what he does with it. King George shouldn't be the most exciting character, not with his awkward introversion and his temper. Yet Firth, supported by the story arc, taps deeply into George's insecurities and invites us to empathise with them. Here is a man who wants to succeed, with a sense of duty and integrity so lacking in his brother. That added quirk of his character is his self-deprecating dry humor which reveal an insightful, perceptive, sensitive man. Firth's is a performance which adds layers with every scene, and so by the end of a film you feel the enrichment of a complete, whole character with whom you have developed an acquaintance.

Rush is equally effective in his characterisation of Lionel. On the outside he's a peculiar man with non-orthodox techniques of speech therapy that are incredibly effective. Deeper inside he's a man who didn't fufill his full ambitions, and who, as the film progresses, settles his energies on helping the king become the fulfilled man he is capable of being. There's a slight case of living vicariously through another that registers in Rush's performance. But Lionel pushes any subtle hint of this aside, and his unrelenting belief in Firth is inspiring. He holds King George's emotions, just as any good therapist would, and there's one scene in particular where Firth is describing some of his childhood, where a shot of Rush's face shows complete sympathy. It too is a layered performance, and perfectly balanced by the pro that Rush is.

Helena Bonham Carter doesn't have quite as much to work with as Firth or Rush, but still it is nice to see her outside of a Tim Burton film once in a while. Her major asset to the film is the constant support she shows to Firth's King George. She's almost Myrna-Loy-esque wife and mother of the year calibre. There's a genuine classiness, sweetness and assuredness to her role that makes her an ideal balance to her stammering husband.

If I have any qualms about the film, it is with the score than with anything else. While Alexandre Desplat's score is lovely and moving, I couldn't help but feel it was overused and too obvious a ploy for sentiment. I felt some of the scenes had enough strength within the story and performances and didn't need the score overhead. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a minority opinion, but I just felt the score sometimes went against the film. But hey, maybe it wouldn't have been such an emotional experience without it?

As period dramas go, I felt the film was very evocative of its 1930s setting, with the costume and art design being very good. There was a nice piece of cinematography during the king's important wartime speech near the end, in which the king waits for the red buzzer to stop flashing for him to start his speech. Well, rather than turning to the buzzer, the camera stays on Firth's face as the red flashes on and off upon it. I thought that was a pretty effective little touch to the scene.

Overall I really enjoyed this one. The story and performances in particular elevate it from standard period drama to something more inspiring.

Merry Christmas!

2010-12-25T09:51:00.002+11:00

An Autobiographical Notice

2010-12-20T12:15:00.004+11:00

I haven't been active here since August, except for the occasional lurking [which sounds spooky]. I guess I put it down to writer's block. I've tried a few times to type out something only to resign after a few sentences.

One thing I've been getting hooked on lately is autobiographies. I'd been meaning to start this habit about two or three years ago, but my local library never really had what I wanted to read and I wasn't willing to make blind buys either. So in comes university, and the realisation that I can borrow from other libraries, and well the access to star autobiographies begins.

Self Portrait: Gene Tierney - This was a very interesting read. It solidifies Gene Tierney's intelligence, that she was certainly more than a pretty face. Gene's book has its share of heartbreak, notably being let down by her father, the birth of her first child, marriage failure and then her subsequent breakdowns. I guess such a summary makes it sound like a potboiler of a book, but in truth Gene's story is frank and open, not sensationalised. I find the book is more about her depression than her film career, which isn't a bad thing, because it reaches out to all those out there with mental illnesses. Gene doesn't sound ashamed at what she went through, and her book endorses \better nurture towards mental illness.

Still Gene does explore other elements of her life, including her relationships with Howard Hughes, Prince Aly Kahn and JFK. Out of the actors she worked with, you get the vibe that she found Henry Fonda and Richard Widmark as the most easy to work with. Of her films, she of course mentions Laura in some detail. She had nice things to say about Leave Her to Heaven - I figure it might be the one she's most proud of - and she says words to the liking that Edmond Goulding, the director's confidence in her helped along her performance. I was a tad disappointed to find she didn't think much of The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, as I'd rank that among her finest films and performances. It's a minor disappointment as ultimately, the book is compelling and presents an extra domension of Gene outside of her onscreen characters.

The Moon's a Balloon: David Niven - I heard that Gregory Peck couldn't write his autobiography after realising that he could never top Niven's writing skills. Fair enough, after all Niven is indeed one talented writer. His autobiography (first of two memoirs) is thoroughly full of comical anecdotes, all of which are seamlessly put together. There's a bit of sadness though. After the death of his first wife Primmie, there feels a shift in tone and even though Niven finds Hjordis, you can't help but feel the earlier tragedy has marred the rest of his life. Still, Niven got by, probably with more than a little help from friends. He appeared to be one of the most likeable men in Hollywood, and his list of celebrity friends is enviable: Laurence Olivier, Vivien Leigh, Ronald Colman, the Astaires to name a few.

As for Niven's acting career, you get the sense that it had a few bumps along the way. He signed with Samuel Goldwyn in the late 30s, a relationship which built up some friction near the end of it. Some of his films Niven doesn't appear too proud about [he doesn't really talk much at all of late forties and early fifties films, at a time when he was written off as being washed up]. But he seemed happy to have gotten the role of Phileas Fogg, although today Around the World in 80 Days is seen as one of the worst Best Picture winners. Of course the icing on the cake is his win for Separate Tables, but if I remember correctly he seemed modest about it and felt that the screenplay was actor-proof, that it was impossible to stuff it up.

It's a great read, very difficult to put down at times. I look forward to Bring on the Empty Horses.

Life's a Banquet: Rosalind Russell - A very good read, and Rosalind keeps it somewhat light, never going into detail about her battle with cancer. The book lives up to the title, and Roz seems like the kind of person who seizes the day. It's evident that she's a go-getter from the beginning of her story, detailing lengths she'd go to stand out, and then of her embarkment towards an acting career. She speaks of how after a string of 'Lady Mary' roles - where she momentarily stole Gable or Powell from Harlow or Loy - she graduated to dramatic leading ladies, and then stepped out as a comedienne. Her time spent with great directors like George Cukor and Howard Hawks is great to read for gaining insight into their working habits.

The book turns a leaf when Roz meets future husband Freddie Brisson, who on board a ship to America saw that Roz's Sylvia Fowler from The Women was playing almost everywhere, thinking in his head that he'd either murder or marry that woman. They turned out to have one of Hollywood's more successful marriages.

The book is full of little funny scenarios, similar to Niven's book, and it's interesting hearing Roz brush shoulders with several people through it. One of the highlight, if not my favourite moment, is when Freddie and Roz plan on having a 25th anniversary, but don't want to have too big a celebration, because somebody always gets left out. Well Frank Sinatra, one of their friends, takes it into his hands to organise the anniversary. It is settled that there will be 25 guests, including the Sinatras, the Dean Martins and the Cary Grants among others. Roz recalls it as one great night that nobody involved would ever likely forget.

Rochefort, Aspic and the Bourgeoisie

2010-08-22T15:48:00.012+10:00

Yet another segment of brief and fleeting film reviews.

Les demoiselles de Rochefort (1967) - This is my second Jacques Demy film after Les parapluies de Cherbourg. If two films by the same director could be any different from each other, this is it. In saying that, they're still both clearly Demy films. They're both colourful in their ways, they both star Catherine Deneuve, they both feature music by Michel Legrand - indeed both are musicals. The difference is one is melancholy (and set in winter), while the other has yards of joie-de-vivre, and definitely evokes late spring/early summertime. For its sheer mirth and optimism, I'll take Les demoiselles de Rochefort.

A Dandy in Aspic (1968) - I'll watch practically anything of Mia Farrow's early work, so I was quite happy to get a hold of this film. Needless to say, waif-like late 60s mod girl Farrow's acting is not really tested here, she'd have to wait till Rosemary's Baby - her next feature - for that. What is here is an interesting late entry into the 60s spy/espionage craze. It's directed by Anthony Mann (Winchester '73), except he unfortunately passed away during filming. This might explain the strange post-production choices such as fast zoom ins and loud, booming voice echoes that are supposed to reflect the protagonist's (Laurence Harvey) dishevelled consciousness. Though the techniques come off unsubtle - even unintentionally comedic - I guess they go a long way in shaping the film's often bizarre atmosphere. It's a confusing, at times hard to follow film, but it's most watchable.

Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie (1972) - I really like this film's title (among other things) because it sounds quite rhythmic. The film was written and directed by Luis Bunuel, which should be enough said. It's, in other words, often surreal. Similar to Belle de jour, it's hard to distinguish between what's meant to be 'real' about the narrative and what isn't. Pervading the film is the fears, desires and plain ennui of a small band of bourgeois friends during a series of dinner dates. It doesn't all make sense at all times, but I suspect Bunuel doesn't want the viewer to simply come away with a full understanding. That is to say, a little - or a lot - of uncertainty goes a way in keeping one interested in the film. Or frustrated with it. But certainly engaged with it.

it's heaven

2010-07-19T20:28:00.012+10:00

Back on blog duty...couldn't tell for how long though.
I thought I'd do some re-capping of film venturing and discovering.

Some news from real life before entering the reels: I'm currently volunteering at acmi, which hosts film exhibitions (currently a Tim Burton-themed one) and screenings, every Friday. It's more fun than work, I'll admit, and time flies while there. Volunteers mostly greet visitors and inform them of what acmi has to offer, and it's been unexpectedly enjoyable for me. It definitely takes me away from my comfortable, solitary zone.

Otherwise things have been fairly ordinary for me this winter break. Next week I return to university in the haven of film, television, literature and human rights. Hodge-podge of subjects - what can it be but an arts degree.

But for the moment I'll take a detour to distraction. I'll talk movies. Here's a summary of some that have chanced my way in the last two or so months:

Janet Gaynor and Charles Farrell in a Borzage World ~ actually the title - or titles - of the films are Seventh Heaven (1927), Street Angel (1928) and Lucky Star (1929). Before coming across Gaynor and Farrell, I thought I'd already seen the final word in screen couple chemistry with Fred and Ginger and Bill and Myrna. But no, before either of those couples, there was the romance, idealism and youth of Janet and Charles. Two beautiful looking late silent era stars who seemed ardently in love when paired opposite each other. With a drought in good modern day romances (well I think so), it's wise to take oneself back to the late 1920s and see Borzage give love its fervent due.

Belle de jour ~ an example of blending the real and surreal in a lavish, bourgeois world. Or something akin to that. Catherine Deneuve equals her neurotic ice blonde from Repulsion, only this time her character puts her demons to a test rather than recoils from them. The result is a strange, somewhat disturbing film wrapped in exquisite colour and set designs.

On the Road with Hope and Crosby ~ I've seen my first four 'Road' movies with Bing Crosby, Bob Hope and Dorothy Lamour. The first two - Singapore and Zanzibar - are really just warm-ups as the trio find their footing (still, the second one has that added bonus of Una Merkel), but with Morocco and Utopia, the laughs really start coming. Crosby and Hope have a great rapport and it's fun witnessing them trade good-natured insults to one another. Theirs might just be the ultimate 'buddy' films.

Time for a survey

2010-04-19T15:21:00.008+10:00

Millie and Kate have created a really cool survey: http://classicforever.blogspot.com/2010/04/kate-and-millies-brilliantly-insane.html.
So I thought I would take it instead of completing homework because its fun-factor is considerably higher.

Which actors do you always (or did you always) mix-up? (For example: Millie's tendency to confuse William Powell and Clark Gable when she was a thirteen, er, four year-old? Yes, I am talking in the third person.)

This is going to sound weird, but a few years ago when I was starting out with classic films, I'd get Rita Hayworth and Jean Harlow confused, because of their slightly similar sounding surnames. And also Hedy Lamarr and Gene Tierney because...?

Gidget or Beach Party?

I haven't seen either, but I'm growing more curious of each. I caught a little of Gidget on tv once though, so I'd lean more towards that one for the moment.

Favorite Movie Outfit?

Tough decision. I love this dress from Gigi:

But it could also have been the blue dress Grace Kelly wears in To Catch a Thief when she first kisses Cary Grant at her hotel door.
If you could be ANY character in ANY movie...who would you choose?

Any of the screwball heroines, like Susan Vance in Bringing Up Baby. Just to be so blissfully nuts.

If you could marry ANY character in ANY movie...who would you choose? (Excluding any Dana Andrews' characters. Seriously. ;-D)

William Powell in most any of his romantic comedies, but especially his films with Myrna Loy. He's witty, charming and just a touch wacky.

If you could live in ANY movie...which would you choose?

I wouldn't mind inhibiting those technicoloured Danny Kaye-Virginia Mayo film worlds like Wonder Man.

Black & White movies you wish were in Technicolor, or vice-versa?

It wasn't a good film to begin with, but maybe technicolour could have lifted up the musical West Point Story.

Favorite Movie Soundtrack?

I love the Ghost and Mrs Muir soundtrack. Very dreamy.

Favorite Movie Dance Sequence?

The hardest question I could ever be asked? What to choose? I love Fred and Ginger's Hard to Handle routine Roberta because it looks so spontaneous and candid. It's infectiously happy.

Coolest Movie Star? (Cough, cough, BOBBY DARIN, cough, cough)

Marcello Mastrioanni, the very definition in 8 1/2.

Sophia or Gina (Oh, how Kate enjoys replaying Gina's sad defeat OVER AND OVER!)

I used to not like Sophia, but she's growing on me so I'll pick her. But really, I need to see more films of both.

"Isn't It Romantic" in most Billy Wilder films, or "Red River" in most John Ford films?

I've seen more Billy Wilder films and 'Isn't it Romantic' makes me happy, if that's what the question means.

If you could re-cast ANY role in ANY movie, what would it be?

Why isn't an answer coming to me? I'm sure I've thought about this numerous of times, but I'll coming up blank right now.

When I was watching Designing Woman with Gregory Peck and Lauren Bacall, I did have the slight wish that Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn - if the film had been made when they were a bit younger - had been cast instead. It would have been kinda cool if they had been together in a Vincente Minelli-directed film...

One movie that should NEVER be remade? (under THE THREAT OF A SLOW, PAINFUL DEATH!)

It would be sacrilege to remake Casablanca.

Actor or Actress who you would love to be best friends with? Are you an Oscar or a Felix?

Probably leaning towards Felix.

Actor/Actress you originally hated and now love?
I didn't like Norma Shearer until a while ago. I thought she was bland, having only seen The Women (I need to get back to that film...). But then I saw The Barretts of Wimpole Street and everything changed.

Also, Leslie Howard. I thought he was the weak link in Gone With the Wind, and from there I held the belief he wasn't much of an actor. Then I saw Pygmalion and saw that in an interesting role, Leslie could rise to the occasion. Then came a succession of Leslie Howard films and my opinion did a 360.

Favorite performance that was looked over by Oscar? (Not to be confused with the aforementioned Oscar of Felix fame.)

I think Laurence Olivier should have been nominated for Carrie. One of those performances where the actor really sinks into the character. I think it's very underrated.

Bewitched or I Dream of Jeannie?

Probably Bewitched. Elizabeth Montgomery, Dick York and Agnes Moorehead equals a great formula. Though it does get a bit repetitive.

Favorite Style Icon: Fred Astaire or Cary Grant?

I love Fred and his scarf thing as belt look. And he's my favourite person in tails, so Fred by a little.

Single most favorite movie scene EVER?

In Stolen Kisses (1968), when Antoine (Jean-Pierre Leaud) proposes to Christine (Claude Jade) with a kitchen utensil. The simplicity of it just makes it moving.

Movie you really "should" see, but have subconsciously been avoiding for who knows what reason?

Lawrence of Arabia for one - its running time is intimdating though.
Really just mostly the epics - Ben Hur, Spartacus. Should get down to those.

50's Westerns or 60's Spies? (I can't even answer this myself...but you have to! MWAHAHAHA!)

60s spies are so mod, so I'll go with them. And yet all I can think of for 60s spy films is The Glass Bottom Boat. Does it even count?

Favorite splashy, colorful, obnoxious 50's musical?

I love lots of musicals, but favourite is An American in Paris - love all the songs and of course the ballet.

Favorite film setting (example: Rome, Paris, Seattle, Siberia, Chile, Sahara Desert, etc)

I like those faux European settings on the studio lot - like Top Hat's recreation of Venice. Quite a dreamland that only the films could conjure up.

If you could own the entire wardrobe of any film, which would it be?

Sabrina - that wardrobe's the epitome of chic.

Carol Burnette or Lucille Ball?

They're both funny ladies. Right now leaning towards Carol because I've been watching her skits on youtube. Plus, I loved her performance in A Wedding.

Favorite Voice. Ever. Period?

Right now it's Herbert Marshall. Love him.

Which actors would you want for relatives? (Mother, Father, Grandma, Crazy Aunt, annoying cousin, older brother, etc...)

Mother: Mary Astor in Meet Me in St. Louis. She's the only one coming to my head...Or Claudette Colbert in Since You Went Away.

Father: Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird.

Zany Older Sister: Shirley Maclaine

Grandpa: Lionel Barrymore in You Can't Take it With You

Favourite Uncle and Aunt: William Powell and Myrna Loy

A French Uncle: (well I can dream) Charles Boyer

March Highlights - film-wise

2010-04-05T12:11:00.009+10:00

Well March has well and truly gone and without a single entry on this blog. So to kind of make up for lost time, I bring forth mini-reviews of some interesting films I saw last month.

Coal Miner's Daughter (1980) - I've been on a mini Sissy Spacek spree lately and by that I mean this film and 3 Women. And I quite adore her. I mean, she has a bit of a spooky, misfit onscreen persona about her, and she looks eternally adolescent even past her 20s - I mean this all in an endearing way.

But onto this film, I thought Sissy Spacek deserved her Oscar. She certainly fleshed out her character of real country singer Loretta Lynn, from her small town upbringing to making the big time and all the pressures that mounted in between. Plus, she sang the songs herself and thus, really owned the character. As for Tommy Lee Jones as her husband, he was nothing short of swoon-worthy. But moving on from the aesthetics, he also put in great work, trying to drive his wife's career, but at the same time having a bit of resentment of it. All in all a nice, moving biopic.

A Wedding (1978) - Ah, the frenzy of being at a wedding. Something always goes wrong and the strangest of encounters can occur. The great thing about this film is the way that the ensemble casting just works. It can be hard I imagine to focus on multiple characters and get a good story from each, but Robert Altman seems to do it with ease. There are so many interesting actors on board, and for me it was three of the actresses in particular that stood out - Carol Burnett, who is just great as the sexually repressed mother of the bride; Geraldine Chaplin as the wedding planner who lives for weddings; and Mia Farrow as the muted sister of the bride with strange revelations of her own. Quite a funny and entertaining film.

The Shining (1980) - In addition to my Sissy Spacek kick, I've had a growing interest in Shelley Duvall. I thought her performance in 3 Women was so fascinating. There's something raw and untrained about her acting. And at the same time she's so quirky and offbeat. And so she was my prime reason for finally relenting to The Shining. Otherwise, a film that also includes Stanley Kubrick and Jack Nicholson gets my intrigue.

Well, the film wasn't exactly the typical slasher horror film. Yes there's blood, there's suspense and there's supernatural elements, but they don't exactly 'scare' you. But haunt you, the images and the music certainly does, and linger with you after the end credits. And personally that's a much more satisfying experience.

I've heard a bit of criticism and poking fun of Shelley's performance, and everyone has probably heard of the 100+ takes Kubrick required for one scene. But I just think that if Shelley didn't act the way she did - where she's simultaneously weary, scared and just stunned at what's happening - I can't see how else it would have been. I mean there's no 'perfect' way to react to these kinds of situations, the reactions themselves need to be flawed and bizarre, and that adds to the surrealism of the film.

February Finds [part 1]

2010-02-15T17:47:00.008+11:00

It's turning into an ace film February for me. Two weeks before university picks up again is ripe for some good viewing. I hand over the highlights thus far:

The Good Fairy (1935) --

I'm beginning to feel William Wyler could do no wrong (yes he could do silly caper fun like How to Steal a Million, but still no wrong). In this earlier fare, he directed wife at the time Margaret Sullavan in one of the cutest of comedies (penned by no less than Preston Sturges). The film is filled with sweet and tender moments - Margaret's raspy voice and sad eyes are at full disposal in her characterisation of the wonderfully named Luisa Ginglebuscher. In my first two encounters with Margaret (The Shop Around the Corner and The Shopworn Angel) I'll admit I didn't really like her because I felt she came across as too cold and inaccesible. But upon watching The Good Fairy I've done a switch around because she's delightful here.

Along for the ride is a wonderful cast. You have suave Herbert Marshall sporting a beard, Reginald Owen's waiter who tries to protect Luisa (he has facial expressions that are sort of reminescent of Eric Blore) and Frank Morgan as a hilarious rich man who wants Luisa to himself. You couldn't ask for much better.

I'll See You in My Dreams (1951)--

I kind of wasn't expecting this to be as wonderful as it was. I mean, as much as I am a Doris Day fan, I'm a bit wary of musical biopics. They have a general reputation of being dull and unrealistic. Well, I don't know how accurate I'll See You in My Dreams is, but dull it is certainly not.

The film chronicles the highs and lows of Gus Kahn (wonderfully portrayed by Danny Thomas), memorable lyricist of such songs as Pretty Baby, Makin' Whoopee, and the beautiful title song. It is also about the woman that helped him through it all--and tried to control his career too if you want to read it that way--his wife Grace Leboy (Doris Day).

I like the film for a few reasons. For one it runs through pretty smoothly and gives us a good insight into Gus' achievements and low moments; I believe a lot of that has to do with Danny Thomas. He injected into the character a right balance of humour, inspiration and self-loathing that makes him fascinating to watch. One of the other aspects that works is that Thomas and Day genuinely have a good chemistry and you can believe in their relationship. For the film's span, they are the characters and you can imagine that they are experiencing every moment as if it were real. The songs are also nice and beautifully sung - they contribute to the plot in their own way, giving further insight into our characters' feelings.

Trouble in Paradise (1932) --

Nobody does subtlety quite like Ernst Lubitsch. And I think this film best exemplifies that. While many a film today will show rather than hint, Lubitsch did the opposite in this early 30s pre-code.

Herbert Marshall's Gaston Monescu (God I love him) is a jewel thief who meets his match in fellow thief Lily (Miriam Hopkins). All goes well until the stock market crashes and they realise they're in financial trouble. Conveniently, opportunity strikes when Gaston somehow finds himself secretary to rich Mariette (Kay Francis). Trouble brews though when he falls for her.

Getting back to the art of subtlety, there are moments in this film where Lubitsch will ask of you to use your imagination and scenes become far sexier and classier (can you have the two together?) than they otherwise would have been. Case in point. Lubitsch's camera fixates on a clock, while Gaston and Mariette are heard talking in the background. Gaston is supposed to leave the office around five and get back to Lily. The clock dissolves into later hours, Gaston and Mariette have left. After the clock finally settles on one or so, you hear Gaston and Mariette coming back. You know he hasn't gone back to Lily. On paper it doesn't look like much, but on screen it's pure Lubitsch.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

The violence factor (which wasn't too bad in the end--ugly but bearable) sort of turned me away. I mean heads being skinned sounds bad enough on paper. But I finally gave in because Basterds has been receiving some rave attention. And well, it deserves it.

I think it's probably the film of 2009 (of what I've seen) that is quite unique, so part of its director Quentin Tarentino's vision, that you couldn't quite compare it to something else. Painted with delicious visual design, intriguing characters (yes Christoph Waltz survives the hype unscathed--his character's fate is another matter-woops spoiler alert) and a plot that is really unreal.

It's called a fantasy world war 2 picture and this is perhaps why: a band of troops who call themselves the Inglourious Basterds, led by Aldo Raine (great performance by Brad Pitt) go out on a Nazi killing spree. Simultaneously, Shosanna (Melanie Laurent--great too-actually everybody in the film puts on a great show), whose family was shot by a Nazi, is out for a revenge, plotting the death of Hitler in the cinema complex she now runs. The two forces collide in a spectacular showdown at the cinema. Basically, that's the plot, but the way it unfolds is the interesting bit. It's just too bad I didn't see this at the cinema because it just felt so grand--not in a pretentious, self-aware way. Just in a well-written and entertaining way that suspends you in your seat. My predictions are that this film will have quite a cemented following.

Oscar Noms Are Out...

2010-02-03T22:18:00.004+11:00

...and the goal is to watch every film from the Picture, Director and Acting categories. Daunting, shall have to see how it goes.

The complete list is on the Academy's site, but it's also neatly set out on imdb here.

Some thoughts thus far:

--Nice to see Up get Best Picture nomination, but as much as I love the film, it almost seems like a consolation for not nominating Wall-E in this category
--Didn't think Morgan Freeman deserved the nom for Best Actor. When I was watching the film, I felt he was concerned with mannerisms and appearing like Nelson Mandela rather than being him - though I partly blame the script for that. I couldn't sense much room for character development.
--Penelope Cruz - surprise nomination. While she does well with the time she has in Nine-and she's great at the beginning-she's practically nowhere at the end of the film and so you don't get much closure in her performance. Marion Cotillard was more deserving because I feel her character was more complete, but even then she leaves me cold. Again, I blame it a bit on the script/direction.
--A woman director winning the Oscar? It seems to be coming closer to the truth with all the buzz Kathryn Bigelow is receiving. Could be exciting.
--Harry Potter getting nommed for best cinematography? Didn't see it coming.
--So great that Fantastic Mr. Fox AND Sherlock Holmes have received noms for best score, quite deserving to me. Though I actually also think Invictus deserved one too.
--Where is Bright Star in, well, almost anything? No best director, no best actress, art design, cinematography? It gets best costume, but those snubs hurt.

Who'd I'd like to win for the moment:
--Vera Farmiga for Up in the Air - haven't seen Precious yet, so this could change soon, but Vera was great here. Seemingly so cool and laidback, but not quite so straightforward as all that. She had marvellous presence here.
--Haven't see The Hurt Locker, but hope Up gets best score
--Would like to see Fantastic Mr. Fox get best animated feature - as much as Up was warm-hearted and inspiring, Fantastic Mr. Fox was just something else. Wonderful dialogue and more subtly moving.

Need to see:

The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds**seen it
Precious**seen it
A Serious Man
Crazy Heart
A Single Man
The Last Station
Julie & Julia
The Messenger
The Lovely Bones

R.I.P Angel Face

2010-01-23T19:20:00.009+11:00

One of the loveliest and talented ladies of the silver screen, Jean Simmons, has passed away today. She starred in many a classic, including Laurence Olivier's Hamlet, in which her Ophelia is oh so enchanting and ethereal. At a similar point she was also quite recognisable as Kanchi in Powell & Pressburger's Black Narcissus.

The film that perhaps really made me sit up and pay attention to Jean was her comedic turn in The Grass is Greener. Amongst the likes of of Cary Grant, Deborah Kerr and Robert Mitchum, she ran away with the film. As Hattie Durant, Jean was deliciously kooky.

Her engaging presence and talent probably peaked in the 50s - one of my favourite performances is her femme fatale turn in Angel Face, where she comes off as both vulnerable and dangerous. She was also in Guys and Dolls and The Big Country. In 1960 she gave a truly haunting performance as Sister Falconer in Elmer Gantry. She received two Oscar nominations - one for Hamlet and the other for The Happy Ending, but I firmly believe she deserved more.

I hope Jean is forever remembered for all she has given to cinema. R.I.P dear lady.

Audrey, in a class of her own

2010-01-20T17:43:00.019+11:00

Harley of Dreaming in Black and White has posted some really lovely things about Audrey Hepburn on the anniversary of her passing. You can view it here. It's inspired me to put in some thoughts on Audrey and why she was and still is wonderful.

"A great lady. It's quite an achievement to spend that long in Hollywood and not become a Hollywood product. She always maneuvered around that -- and that takes intelligence. She was always her own person." {David Niven

One of the first things that drew me to Audrey Hepburn, some years before I was into classic films, was how she presented herself. With one glance at a photo of hers, you could see she was poised and well-mannered. When you see a few of her films, you also notice her smile and quirky sense of humour, all while maintaining class. She reflected who she was - from the way she conducted herself to her fashion sense - and didn't compromise that.

It's interesting because when Audrey made it big with the success of Roman Holiday, she wasn't like other Hollywood actresses of the time. When I think of Audrey, I don't usually think of her as side-by-side of her contemporaries, she stuck out among other upcoming starlets of the 50s and I think that's why she was able to have such a distinguished career with star vehicle after star vehicle.

But she wasn't only a lady with a delightful screen presence, she could stretch herself in her acting. It's easy to turn to her signature role in Breakfast at Tiffany's, but I really think it was a triumphant performance. She herself said - sorry, adlibbing here - that the part called for an extrovert when she was an introvert. Audrey was also in fine form as Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady. Even though Audrey didn't sing her own songs, she gave a convincing stretch as a cockney girl. Then there's the straight drama parts in The Nun's Story and Two For the Road where Audrey abandoned the Givenchy and exposed her deep sadness and vulnerability to the camera.

Perhaps, though, the most admirable quality of Audrey was her kindness. She gave back to UNICEF for their aid to her during world war 2 and travelled to Africa. Footage and images show the true caring nature of Audrey. She was that rarity, a sweetheart on screen and in reality.

R.I.P Audrey Hepburn.

If Only...

2010-01-11T07:51:00.011+11:00

I was thinking lately of things that could've/should've happened - film-wise - that didn't happen. Here is the list:

If only...

- Marilyn Monroe's last film Something's Gotta Give had been completed before her passing. I haven't seen the remaining footage that gets circulated around the web yet, but I've seen screencaps and stills for the film and Marilyn looks so refreshing and happy. I earnestly believe it would have been one of her best films, and with Dean Martin and Cyd Charisse on board, well that would have been delightful.

- Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers had danced to 'They Can't Take That Away From Me' in Shall We Dance. It just doesn't sit right that this poignant song was danced by Fred with Harriet Hoctor instead.

- The original, unbotched version of Orson Welles' The Magnificent Ambersons could be miraculously re-discovered. Because as much as the current version hints at a good film, it doesn't feel as whole as it may have been.

- Audrey Hepburn could've used her real voice - flawed as it may have been - in My Fair Lady (or else Julie Andrews should've been allowed to reprise her stage role). This might be contestable, but Marni Nixon's dub just doesn't sit right with me. Their voices don't match and so I can't suspend disbelief when Audrey's character sings. Otherwise, I did like Audrey's performance. Yet it would be interesting to see how Julie Andrews' Eliza Doolittle would have been.

And that is all I can think of know. I might make a part 2 if I come up with some more...

A Review: Remember the Night (1940)

2009-12-24T22:12:00.021+11:00

It being Christmas Eve, I thought a nice film to watch would be this seasonal treasure from 1940, Remember the Night. It recently came out on dvd thanks to the TCM archives, but unfortunately I couldn't purchase it. The next best thing was that someone had posted it on youtube. And now I can say that it was one of the best underacknowledged films I've seen of the year.

The film boasts the first onscreen pairing of Barbara Stanwyck and Fred MacMurray who would later star in the revered film noir Double Indemnity. Away from the bleakness of the latter film, Stanwyck and MacMurray sparkle in a romantic comedy that is nevertheless very moving.

The story - created by Preston Sturges so you can bet it's well done - is basically this: Lee Leander (Barbara Stanwyck) is caught shoplifting near Christmas time. Her prosecutor is John Sargent (Fred MacMurray) who, during court, realises it will difficult to win the case so he postpones it until after Christmas. However, noticing that Miss Leander will have to spend her custody time in prison, he turns sympathetic and requests her bail. Somehow she lands on his doorstep and before either of them knows it, they head out to spend Christmas together with Sargent's family. After the discovery that they are in love, coming back to court proves to be complicated. Watch out for a not so predictable ending.

The plot moves fluidly and is expertly handled by Mitchell Leisen (while not that well known, his filmography boasts other classics such as Easy Living). The filmmaking here is not flashy or auteurish, just well-polished which is in itself not an easy feat. One aspect that is noticeable though is the cinematography - Stanwyck was captured here so lovingly and her close-ups bring out all the appropriate nuances. There are some lovely scenes that are misty and shadowy and thus, bring out a romantic and moving atmosphere.

Fred MacMurray was sometimes stiff in his acting - mostly when the film is itself a dud - but here he is more than adequate and creates good chemistry with Stanwyck. As for Stanwyck herself, there's rarely a film where she's isn't great, but there's something especially moving about her characterisation here. She begins with rather a protective shell around herself, but gradually breaks it down as we get more and more into her personal world. She's quite poignant here. I've seen quite a few films of Stanwyck's over the last two years, but this might be the one that's really made me a fan.

All in all this is a perfect film to watch over the Christmas break or whenever one is in the mood for an entertaining and heart-warming film. Believe me, it has 'classic' all over it.

A sad day

2009-12-18T08:24:00.016+11:00

On Thursday 17th December, one of the most cherished of actresses of the 40s and 50s passed away. Her name was originally Phylis Isley, but after fame she became forever known as Jennifer Jones. R.I.P Miss Jones, you will be missed.

In her first starring role, Jennifer receieved an Academy Award for The Song of Bernadette (1943), and she went onto have an unbeatable track record for the rest of the forties, raking up three more nominations. Some of the highlights of the decade that I've seen include:

Since You Went Away - when she sends off boyfriend Robert Walker to war it's one of the most haunting scenes committed to screen; and later when she gives Agnes Moorehead one of the best verbal backhands, it's purely awesome.

Love Letters - Jones shows here that she can work well in psychological dramas. She's bright and wide-eyed, yet has repressed emotions that time will reveal. She was nominated for the third time here.

Cluny Brown - Jennifer Jones proves she can do comedy, and with no less than legendary Ernst Lubitsch at the reigns. Jones' Cluny Brown is a delightful plumber to be who finds her eccentric equal is in Charles Boyer.

Duel in the Sun - Apparently this was controversial in its time, and it makes sense since this is one western that's just spilling over with sex appeal. Jones and Gregory Peck make quite a passionate couple in this.

Portrait of Jennie - Probably Jones' best film and performance (so far), this is one of the most enigmatic films I've ever seen. It has such a fantasy setting and Jones graduates from youngster to mature woman in every second or third scene. Jones' indomitable charm and optimism makes this one of her most memorable films.

Other apparent notables that I am yet to see are: her oscar-winning turn in The Song of Bernadette and the Vincente Minnelli directed Madame Bovary. I eagerly await seeing both.

Jones continued building her impressive filmography in the fifties, which culminated in her final Oscar nomination for Love is a Many-Splendoured Thing. Some of the disappointing aspects of the decade were that two of her films with notable directors were butchered by her partner and producer David O'Selznick. Luckily, the originals still exist. I've only seen two of Jones' fifties films and they were both great.

Gone to Earth - This was a Powell-Pressburger film that was eventually re-edited by O'Selznick and turned into The Wild Heart. Luckily I was able to find the original at my university. Jones proved to be stunning in technicolour (see: Duel in the Sun) and even though she is passed thirty in this, you just can't tell. She continued to play the ingenue perfectly and blended her naivety with sex appeal so well. It's a quirky film as only the Archers can pull off and Jones' sometimes enigmatic presence proves to work here.

Carrie - One of the most effective films I've seen this year, to me it's rather cynical and certainly not your typical love story. Laurence Olivier and Jones are at the centre of this film and they prove to have a nice chemistry, which is predominately why the film pulls at your heartstrings so much. Again, Jones plays a young woman and as she often could, she transitions herself from innocence to experience with a grace that is all her own.

Other apparent notables that I'm yet to see: Vittorio De Sica's Stazione Termini, Beat the Devil with Humphrey Bogart (where she dons a blonde wig), the Oscar nominated Love is a Many-Splendored Thing, Good Morning Miss Dove, and a re-teaming with Gregory Peck in The Man With the Grey Flannel Shirt.

The sixties was more toned down for Jones, and she appeared in three films: Tender is the Night, The Idol and Angel, Angel Down We Go.

Jones ended her career with an all-star cast in The Towering Inferno. I haven't seen it, but with such stars on board (Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, Faye Dunaway, Fred Astaire), it's not a bad way to finish such a stunning film career.

Jennifer Jones, you were a marvel on screen. You were somewhat of a predecessor for wide-eyed fifties ingenues like Audrey Hepburn and Jean Simmons. But, of course, you were unique and your characters were all your own. You had an adorable lisp and were stunning to behold. On top of all that, you created some of the most memorable characters of celluloid. Rest in peace.

A Review: Avatar (2009)

2009-12-17T18:35:00.013+11:00

I haven't really been reviewing films I've seen at the cinema (with the exception of a mini one of 500 Days of Summer), but I felt I'd just give out three cheers to Avatar, now that it's still fresh in my mind.

I first heard of the film late last year because of some boards on imdb (it always comes back to imdb...) concerning the most anticipated films of 2009. Well, as is sometimes the case for me, I didn't really give two hoots about Avatar then. A few things would have to happen before I bought into the hype: first a friend of mine from cinema studies showed me the trailer, and yes it looked interesting. But the aspect of the film that really got me hook, line and sinker was the film's rising star, yes Sam Worthington. He appeared on Rove and his story about his struggles in his career and the fact that James Cameron plucked him out of obscurity kind of grabbed me. Soon Sam Worthington becomes my current actor crush (God I haven't had one of those in so long) and his face seems to appear everywhere. So I watched the trailer again and I became as excited as ever for the film's release. This was a few weeks back.

Now it's Thursday 17th of December, and I can safely say in my current mindset, the film is worth the price of admission. Objectively, as a friend pointed out afterwards, the plot structure is kind of predictable in that it takes the path of most Hollywood narratives - conflict/resolution. And that's not so bad, only that the writing sometimes draws attention to its formula. Not that this ruins the film, hardly. The only other issue I had with the film is that it was quite long. My left arm ached so much.

But that was because I didn't want to move it. I was pretty enthralled throughout the film. I mean generally I have to move around in my seat when I'm watching any film. I moved once this time (I'm pretty sure). There's just something about James Cameron's Avatar that works for me. I like the story - ex-marine in a wheelchair joins a crew to the planet Pandora in order to exploit the land from the natives. He is one of three who turns themselves into these natives - three feet and blue-skinned, quite a marvel - through a machine called an avatar. It's their job to gain the native's trust to make the mission easier. Only Jake Sully, the ex-marine (Sam Worthington) becomes so embroiled in becoming a native that he finds his sympathies lying with them. And you can understand his love - Pandora is this beautiful, natural place where there's a deep ecology happening, humans are one with all other living beings around them. He's wary of all this 'tree-hugging' behaviour at first, but then he understands the connections to nature that humans have long ago forgotten. On this level Avatar is quite significant in today's age.

Of course, Avatar is also an action-adventure film and I'll say, for someone who doesn't leap out of their way for these sorts of films, I loved the suspense-filled sequences. I was quite into them, invariably displaying tears, excitement and horror. I can't imagine the painstaking effort taken to make the film what it is, and I won't try to. I'll only say that it's a visual treat to see this film and I only wish I had seen it in 3D, but alas, in its 2D format it's still grand.

Superlatives are dangerous to use, as I'm probably blowing up the film out of proportion. It's suffice to say that I enjoyed it, and I went into it knowing the hype. It's entertaining, exciting and makes you think and feel. What else is necessary for a good film?

Awards Season

2009-12-15T15:39:00.007+11:00

For the first time in my little life I am going to follow the buzz around the Oscars and try to predict winners or put in two cents on what films/performances deserve acclaim. It's all happening because I was on imdb a little while ago and on the classic film board there's a thread on all these critics awards. And from that thread I deciphered that the biggest buzz has been surrounding such films as [mind you I haven't seen any of these--yet--except Up]:

Avatar [there's a big popularity generating around this film in general]**seen it
An Education [I've been really wanting to see this]
The Hurt Locker [Kathryn Bigelow might become the first female director to win an Oscar]
Invictus [Clint Eastwood directed, so I'm there]
Nine
Precious
A Single Man
Up**seen it
Up in the Air**seen it

...Otherwise there are some names frequently popping up for their acting: Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart, Meryl Streep for Julie and Julie, Mo'Nique for Precious, Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds [though I don't think I'll be watching this with its bloodshed...]

None of this means much now, but hopefully in the coming months I'll be posting thoughts as I watch more films...

On the other hand, the idea of this might fizzle out. It's all pretty unpredictable from here.

Glee Completes Me

2009-12-14T16:21:00.009+11:00

The last episode of the first season of Glee aired in Aus yesterday and true to all last episodes, it left me wanting more.

I'm almost certain I could watch the ups and downs of the Glee Club at McKinley High all day and not get bored. I might try it when the dvd comes out. All this even though my first taste of Glee wasn't exactly sweet.

From the pilot episode I decided that Glee was too stereotype-riddled and saccharine to be likeable. The only good points I picked up was the sharp and deadly wit of Sue Sylvester. Even though I like musical-filled shows/films, the songs here didn't immediately grab me. They felt too 'high school musical'.

Weird things happened the more I watched. I was actually engaged by the Quin pregnancy storyline (and even moreso when it turned out Puck was the dad) and just as hooked on Mr. Shue and Terri's 'baby' storyline. I was still a little huffy at the stereotypes: why were the blondes unlikeable? Why was Rachel so self-centred? Finn's a ditz, Kurt's kinda flamboyantly gay (but he is lovely), Puck's a bad boy. It's sometimes hard to like characters if they're two-dimensional, and yet the more of Glee I see, the more hooked on these characters I get.

And there's more. I know that Emma is probably best for Mr. Shue, there's obvious reasons to ship them as a couple - she understands him, respects him, adores him. His wife, in comparison, is so self-centred. But maybe Terri's just misunderstood and Emma's not as sweet as she seems to be. It'll be up to the writer's to see how this triangle continues to unravel itself.

One of the biggest drawcards of a show like Glee is the music - they're basically all covers (maybe there are a few written for the show, I don't know), but they're nicely done, in spite of the pop overfill. The kids have a great energy and look like they're really enjoying themselves and that's of bigger importance than anything else. The show has some nice moments of friendship, teamwork, believing in yourself and sticking it out no matter what. Kind of cheesy, yes, but Glee has an indescribable vibrance about it that distinguishes itself from other teen-directed shows out there.

The test now is, will Glee be able to keep it? Will it give out too much too soon? Will it give too little? And will Sue bring on the works as she promises and keep producing hurdles for Glee?

Here's hoping that the second season will be as good as the first!

Fangirlism

2009-12-10T10:34:00.010+11:00

Time for the actors, which couldn't quite fit into my last post. I had kind of run out of steam, not to mention it would have been too long. After some repose and some thought, here are some actors that I've liked lately.

Leslie Howard: He's well-known as Ashley Wilkes in 'Gone with the Wind', but I can't personally say I liked him in it. He was probably too old and so he didn't quite look like the guy who had inspired such romantic obsession in Scarlett. That aside, I don't think Ashley's an all that interesting character anyway, even in the book. Leslie Howard made more fascinating portrayals in his acting career. My favourite for the moment is his Henry Higgins in 'Pygmalion', otherwise known what came before the musical 'My Fair Lady'. He's perfectly grumpy and unlikeable until the point where he discovers he loves Eliza (Wendy Hiller, who also deserves a shout-out here). Other Leslie notables have been: 'Of Human Bondage', making use of his sensitive Englishman persona who gets tangled with Bette Davis' Mildred Rogers; 'Smilin' Through': his role is kind of supporting here, but he has great chemistry with Norma Shearer and he makes the transition from young lad to elderly man rather convincingly. Most looking forward to next: The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934).

Robert Montgomery: I saw 'Here Comes Mr. Jordan' and I didn't realise then that his everyday Joe was not quite the persona he had established in his earlier MGM days (meaning maybe I should re-watch this now that I see Robert Montgomery in a newer light). Today, if known at all, he's probably best known as the father of Elizabeth Montgomery, or Samantha from 'Bewitched'. Lately I've know him most as the effortlessly classy, tall and ridiculously swoon-worthy leading man of 30s MGM actresses like Norma Shearer and Joan Crawford. Having not gotten round to Joan, I've lately only been seeing the ones he made with Norma. They have quite good chemistry, even if they can't fully realise it in two out of the three films I've seen. But the film I most look forward to is the one where he got his sole Oscar nomination and cred as an actor, 'Night Must Fall'.

Current Obsessions

2009-12-10T09:55:00.018+11:00

It's the holiday season for the next couple months and so I have time to concentrate on some classic movie obsessions. I should probably get a part-time job instead, but I'll be Scarlett O'Hara and think of that tomorrow...

There was a time, and there still is every now and then, when I think I'll stop liking classic movies. Everyone goes through fads - I've been invariably obsessed with various bands, classic books, even knitting and they didn't last long. Somehow I don't think classic films will ever have 'their time up' with me. Or film in general. I guess it's a love that's here to stay.

Right now there's too many actors and actresses to be interested in. Here are some that I'm really intrigued by at the moment:

Linda Darnell: I hadn't heard of her until this year, after I was glad to hear that madman had released some Dana Andrews films, including 'Fallen Angel'. I read up on it a bit and found out that Dana didn't think the film was very well, and that Linda Darnell had given the standout performance [note: I still wait to watch this film]. I think by this point I had seen 'My Darling Clementine' and I liked Linda as Chihuahua. She had a lot of sass and I probably preferred her to the sweet and wholesome Clementine. Just recently I've picked up my interest in Linda and have seen 'Unfaithfully Yours' where she plays off Rex Harrison really well and 'A Letter to Three Wives' where she is initially somewhat cold, but then grows in depth and sympathy as you get to know her character. She very much stands out.

On the 'A Letter to Three Wives' dvd there was also the A&E biography of Linda called 'Fallen Angel'. She lived a somewhat tragic life and was thrown into films at too young an age. But boy was she talented and beautiful.

Bette Davis: Many people view Bette as one of the best actresses in the history of cinema, and I can't dispute that though I've only seen six or so of her films. It's suffice to say that she hasn't disappointed me yet. You can sense that she really understands acting. To me her performances don't try to overdo it, but rather they create a foundation and then build up on this. In one of her recent films I've seen, 'Dark Victory', it's hard to see the mechanisms at work, but somehow you come away with the understanding that this woman is incredibly afraid of death as anyone would be if they were faced with it. You don't have to search for excuses to say that Davis is a great actress, she conveys it without you having to think consciously. That's the feeling I get.

Norma Shearer: I was kind of sceptical of Norma. Initially I'd only seen her in 'The Women' and I personally thought she was not that special in it (but her performance deserves a re-watch now). After that I simply knew her as MGM producer Irving Thalberg's wife who got all the prestigious pictures at her home studio. Then I decided three-quarters into the year that I'd try to find out what Norma's best films were. The one I was most eager to see was 'The Barretts of Wimpole Street' and she blew me away with her subdued but confident performance. I'll admit that in some of Norma's performance she makes some exaggerated facial expressions, somewhat left-over from her silent film days maybe. But she has a lot of sass and sex-appeal in her early pre-codes. And she's charming with Robert Montgomery, they make a great screen couple.

Mia Farrow: This year I've also gotten an increased interest in Mia. Last year I first saw her in 'Rosemary's Baby' and I don't think I was expecting much, but she perfectly conveyed her character's feelings in that. For me she really stood out and my opinion of her changed a bit. This year I've been making it a goal to get my hands on her films with Woody Allen and so far, so good. She's barely recognisable in 'Broadway Danny Rose' with her kind of Brooklyn-accent and big sunglasses - that one's probably my favourite of her performances. She also sunk chameleon-like in her performances in 'The Purple Rose of Cairo', 'Radio Days' and 'Hannah and Her Sisters'. Back-tracking a bit I also saw her 1969 film with Dustin Hoffman 'John and Mary'. They had good chemistry, though the film itself sinks a little. It sort of had a cool, bohemian feel about it, but the plot itself seemed unlikely. Then came 'The Great Gatsby' and though Mia looked stunning and her reading of Daisy Buchanan was not bad, the film itself sort of fell flat. Nevertheless, I still hope to see more Mia films in the future.

A Review: Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (1957)

2009-12-05T08:37:00.005+11:00

Frank Tashlin is an interesting director to emerge out of 50s Hollywood. He was initially an animator who moved on to live action features, and his abilities to draw out caricatures and exaggerated situations are evident in these latter films. At his best he could use film to mix entertainment with observations on pop culture. In Artists and Models, he explores the craze of comic magazines; in Hollywood or Bust, it's all about the film industry itself; and in The Girl Can't Help It, the emergence of rock n roll is explored. In 1957, Tashlin tackled the advertising industry with Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?

In a nutshell, this film is about Rockwell P. Hunter who works for an advertising agency (played well by Tony Randall). He's sort of at the lowest rung of the agency, a rather ordinary guy. That is until he finds the perfect endorser for the latest ad-campaign for Stay-Put Lipstick: none other than the blonde bombsell with the 'most kissable lips' Rita Marlowe (played nicely by Jayne Mansfield). The only thing is that Rock has to pretend to be Rita's 'loverboy'. And overnight be finds himself as a 50s Robert Pattinson, with a bevy of fans wanting every piece of him.

Tashlin's film is fully-equipped with luscious technicolor, a nice supporting cast (with Joan Blondell, John Williams and Betsy Drake) and great gags. One of the best gags is when Rita tells Rock he doesn't have to worry that they're the same height because she's bought him 'lifts'. They were commonly used by short men when up against taller leading ladies, such as was often the case with Humphrey Bogart and Charles Boyer. When Rock tries on the shoes he can't quite get the hang of them (mind you, he's also wearing this large suit belonging to Rita's beefy ex) and he sort of stumbles around the room, looking way out of his league. Quite plainly, he doesn't 'fit' into the publicity world of Rita.

On the surface this is a candy confection film that's well-packaged. But through a deeper lens, the film is exploring the manipulative world of advertising. To paraphrase Rock Hunter, advertisements try to convince ordinary people every day that their lives are lacking in something. It promises to fill that void, but really only provides an unattainable fantasy. As we see in today's industries, models are airbrushed, appliances don't always work as they're supposed to and we probably don't really need all those entertainment gadgets out there. As Rock discovers through his brush with fame, he actually likes being a humble, ordinary person. It's at the top of the business that people have problems, always trying to figure out a new way to sell their items and make the person at the bottom content. But it's a life of continued disappointment and pressue and ultimately, unfulfillment. Ordinary as he is, Rock has his family and not even money could substitute for that.

All in all, this is a wonderful film with great characters and great moments (including a sly side-commentary on the take-over of television in the fifties). It's executed well and with a lot to think about. It's a nice treasure of the 50s.

A Review: Samson and Delilah (2009)

2009-11-29T11:41:00.024+11:00

Great films, really great films are hard to come by. Really great films produced in Australia are even harder to come by--lately.

It is thankful then when lyrical and beautiful films like Samson and Delilah are produced.
The words 'lyrical and beautiful' have to be taken with a grain of salt, though, because this film does cover some gritty issues that aren't glossed over nor should they be.

The film centres around two rural young Aboriginals, Samson and Delilah (played with realism and pathos by new-comers Rowan McNamara and Marissa Gibson). Their lives are fairly routine and very little changes during the first five or so days in which we encounter them. Then tragedy strikes Delilah when her grandmother passes away. Perhaps needing a change from their lives, Samson and Delilah move off to the city. There they find that they are just as isolated as they are at home. They struggle for food, find shelter underneath a bridge, endure hostile treatment from others and take salvage in petrol and in each other.

Some of the scenes are hard to watch because they're so confronting. Oftentimes you want to pretend that Indigenous issues don't exist. Very often one can go day to day and not think of such issues or care about them. The film depicts this and shows people--white people--looking down on Samson and Delilah and trying to shoo them away from their guarded society. Watching the film you find yourself despising these people, but then wondering if you're just like them. It can be unsettling. Such is the power of this film.

Warwick Thornton directed, wrote and photographed this film and he did a premier job at that. Although at times the film seemed initially slow-moving and so very quiet, but then the action and the emotions build up. The film gradually gains hold of your complete attention and then doesn't leave it until the credits roll. Before you know it, these characters and their plight are so important to you that whatever happens to them is going to deeply affect you.

The cinematography is beautiful. Thornton's camera captures beautiful sunsets and silhouettes. The rural area that Samson and Delilah live in looks simultaneously harsh and beautiful, depending on the scene. The camera also captures great close-ups of both characters, acting as a window to their feelings.

The end scene is one of the finest I've seen. In spite of all the brutality and despondency of before, Samson and Delilah give each other looks of hope and belief. I guess one of the film's ultimate message is that love, support and connection can be stronger than anything that goes against it.

Reflections on A Clockwork Orange (1971)

2009-11-07T19:26:00.022+11:00

I won't call this a review, cos I don't know how far into that territory it will go...also I don't know if I could really review this film or even just articulate what I feel about it. It's been two days since I saw it and it's still in my mind, not quite ready to be released into words.

It's the kind of film that comes along once or twice a year if you're lucky (and watch too many films a year). By that I mean, it's the special kind of film that sinks you right into its unusual world and then follows you wherever you go for a few days. The feeling is indescribable (or maybe that's a cop out way of saying 'I won't even try to understand my emotions towards this film').

Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (1971) leaves you with recollections of its music, colours and the kind of stunning cinematography you wouldn't except to find in one of the most violent and controversial films (the word 'violence' needs to be used carefully however--it's not the kind that makes you want to turn away, but it does make you uneasy and unsettled). And then you're left with mixed feelings about the main character Alex, and of the systems which keep humans in order.

Could you ever imagine feeling sympathy for someone who rapes and beats up people for kicks? You just may if you see this film. The person in question is Alex DeLarge (played so very convincingly by Malcolm MacDowell), a young man who's apparently still in high school. He goes from being a delinquent with an eerie, dominant presence with a fetish for 'ultra violence' to a prison inmate who takes part in the new 'Ludovico' experiment to get out of jail.

This experiment, however, doesn't end up being the simple procedure he probably expected. It involves him being held down by this electrical equipment, his eyes clipped open, while he watches images of the activities that used to make him feel good. However, as he watched this images again, he only feels pain, and you see him squirming unbearably since he can't close his eyes. Gradually he's reinforced to see violence as bad.

And interesting things happen to your belief system. You noticed that he's being subjected to the kind of torture he used to take part in. He's transferred from the perpertrator to the victim, gaining your initially stubborn sympathy in the process. Secondly, he's getting 'treated' against his will, in that he didn't get to make the conscious decision to be good. We might feel that criminals forsook their liberty when they committed their crimes, but 'A Clockwork Orange' nonetheless sways you to look at things in another way.

And along the way you discover--perhaps while Alex's creepy eyes from the beginning are still in your consciousness--that this young man can be funny and intelligent. And during the post-prison scenes where he comes back into society, the ill-treatment he receives actually makes you feel kind of bad for him. I know, I know, how can this be? It's these weird torn effects that make the film so enthralling.

Stanley Kubrick is often referred to as a 'visionary director' and you can see a unique, bizarre vision unfolding itself in front of your eyes. It doesn't turn out to be the film you'd expect by reading reviews and just looking at the dvd cover. Simply because what it turns out to be is nothing you'd imagine. I think it's brave of Kubrick to step so out of the square--risky, unconventional films either become rejected or they're placed above most other films. I think 'A Clockwork Orange' falls in the latter category.

It's also risky for another reason, which is its content: constant phallic symbols, rape, nudity, are perhaps hard to digest, and maybe it's even more jarring when Beethoven's music is in the background in these scenes. With such a content it's not the kind of film I'd expect myself to rave about, and I still feel a little weirded out by how much I liked the film, but it really is a film to wonder and ponder about.

Moving back to Kubrick, the other intriguing thing I found out about him is that he's a perfectionist. Apparently he likes to sometimes do up to 30 (or was it more...) takes for a scene. He often worked a considerable long time on each film, and as a result he made about 2-3 films in each decade from the 50s till the 90s. And if you go on Imdb, astonishingly, most of them are either in the top 250 or rated above 7.5. Which is kind of rare. I really look forward to seeing and reflecting on his other work.

A Review: A Damsel in Distress (1937)

2009-11-02T09:59:00.033+11:00

In spite of a varied and rich career in front of the screen, Fred Astaire will perhaps always be most remembered for his partnership with Ginger Rogers in the 1930s. It seems the audience knew it even then, if box office statistics are anything to go by. I say this because the one time Fred decided to break away and make a Ginger-less film, it sunk.

Up till this day I'm pretty sure that this 'infamous' film - A Damsel in Distress - is still most well known for being the only one out of Astaire's 1930s output to lose money at the box office. However, with its steady 7.0 imdb rating and its availability on TCM, perhaps all is not lost with this somewhat obscure gem.

The opening title sequence alone promises that this film will deliver. Aside from Fred Astaire, you have a strong supporting cast led by the beloved partnership of George Burns and Gracie Allen. You also have Joan Fontaine who would later become an accomplished actress most famous for Hitchock's Rebecca. Joan was only beginning her career at this point and in addition, she wasn't a trained dancer. So consequently, as people have noted, she seems like a fish out of water in this musical. Nonetheless, it's always intriguing to see actors in pre-stardom roles.

Then there is George and Ira Gershwin, composer and lyricist respectively of the film's soundtrack. George Gershin wanted to be considered as a serious composer at the time, meaning he didn't only want to be working for money, but also wanting to compose for art's sake. Thus, he rarely composed for film musicals. I think due to the sophistication of George's music and Ira's well fitting lyrics, the film has a touch of elegance. The songs 'A Foggy Day' and 'Things Are Looking Up' are particularly beautiful and romantic.

The other major drawcard of the film is the director, George Stevens. At this point he'd already proved his ability with the Katharine Hepburn vehicle Alice Adams and with a previous Astaire-Rogers film Swing Time. In his pre-war career he was an accomplished director of comedy which you see in the film through a lot of light moments injected into the film with ease.

Once the film gets under way, you find out (or at least I did) that the film lives up to the sum of the talents involved. I can't be objective or elaborate where Fred Astaire is concerned, so I can only say that his great dancing, singing and overall persona is in great form here. George Burns and Gracie Allen establish the fundamentals of their partnership - he is the straight man and receiver of her endearingly loopy personality. Just about all the laugh out loud lines are thanks to them and their delivery. In fact their wonderful exchanges could be devoted to a whole new entry. Here's but one example:

Fred Astaire (to Gracie): What's today [the date]?
Gracie: Well I don't know.
George: You could tell if you look at that newspaper on your desk.
Gracie: [picks it up] Oh this is no help George, it's yeserday's paper.

The other main reason to see this film is for the two wonderful dance numbers between Fred, Gracie and George. As I found out afterwards, Gracie and George did a lot of soft-shoe stuff during their vaudeville years and George even taught tap dancing once. Well it's no wonder then that they dance so well with Fred. The standout is a amusement park number called "Stiff Upper Lip" where they go into this swirly room with slides and distorted mirrors. It's both funny, inventive and a showcase for talent.

The slight letdown of the film is the convulted plot akin to that of the Fred and Ginger films; except minus the charm of the latter. It's a formulaic plot that centres around mistaken-identities and mis-understandings. It's supposed to be funny I guess, but having seen these devices already through Fred and Ginger films, they wear thin. Unfortunately, Fred Astaire and Joan Fontaine don't have the best chemistry -- it's sweet and functional, but it doesn't sparkle.

Their dance number 'Things Are Looking Up', though more often maligned than not, tries to work around Joan's limitations: the garden setting blends in with her and Fred's clothing and they are filmed in medium-to long shot through a kind of low angle. You also don't see Joan twirling around much, but when she does she lands a little off-balanced. She's ok with the leaps, though, and there is some nice choreography framed around her strengths. But again, the dance number doesn't sparkle; it begins and ends with little emotion (one of Ginger's strengths) or technical consistency (which Cyd Charisse had in buckets).

However, I will give the romance one positive. The number 'A Foggy Day' not only utilises a beautiful song, but the cinematography too makes it the most profound moment of the film. It comes at a point where Fred thinks (again) that Joan is in love with him, but what he doesn't know yet is that another misunderstanding has occurred. While Joan looks down at him from her window, he's standing around the garden they danced in the day before. He starts singing in his melodic voice that blends as one with the music, and then he looks around himself, seemingly reminescing. All the while there's a sort of fog/light coming from the sky and it gives the whole sequence a magical look.

So in short, the film is delightful and charming in spite of some flaws. What you come away with is a film that holds up better than its box office stats would have you believe.

a life in graphics

2009-11-01T09:39:00.010+11:00

Making that Halloween-themed post reminded me of one of my on-off hobbies since 2007. I kind of like photo editing, even if it is arguably not a craft (though there are indeed graphic makers who can breathe in vivid new life into photos). I can't remember exactly how it began, but it sort of coincided with my budding enjoyment of classic films. As far as my sometimes unreliable memory goes, I was looking at google for classic-movie related stuff and I stumbled upon livejournal. I saw really cool icons and banners made of Audrey Hepburn, Breakfast at Tiffany's and the like and saved as many as I could to my computer. I remember wasting days just doing this obsessively.

And then one day I decided to join livejournal and soon after I started creating my own icons. But I've only gone on lj sporadically this year so my graphic-making career has kind of died. I still get the urge though to edit classic film/general film photos from time to time. I thought I'd just post some recent efforts.

B a n n e r s

I c o n s

Halloween Fever

2009-11-01T09:33:00.003+11:00

Halloween was technically yesterday here in Aus, but nonetheless I just wanted to post some Halloween-themed pics I kind of manipulated using a photo editing program called Photofiltre. I didn't do much editing, but it was fun nonetheless.

{edit: unfortunately the images have lost some of their quality during the upload, but oh well}

C'est tout.

Life's Big Questions

2009-10-30T17:33:00.005+11:00

Another survey, courtesy of a user over at imdb. I thought I'd post my response here instead of there because most of those threads have relatively short shelf lives...over to the survey.

1. What's bigger, movies or life? Movies-they're my life support system, along with family and friendship of course.

2. Paste one movie quote that you find profound: One that I can't get enough of ever since hearing it: "The heart is a resilient little muscle." -- Woody Allen in Hannah and Her Sisters. You can't hear it on paper, but in the film it somehow comes across as the sweetest, cutest and moving thing. I don't know what breaking up is like, but the remedy is this quote I am sure.

3. What's the one thing (tangible or non-tangible) you most regret losing? I have no idea.

4. Are you a romantic? If so, have you ever been in love? I used to be a romantic, but now I'm more cynical for no reason (I've been watching too many movies about adultery and fizzled out romances courtesy of Woody Allen). I'm also probably not a romantic because I've never been in love...except unrequitedly for a movie or book character....hmm...

5. What's one song you can't get enough of right now? I love Bobby Caldwell's Beyond the Sea. It's nice and jazzy and breezy.

6. What's your favorite fashion accessory (other than clothes of course)? I love the hats of the 20s and 30s.

7. Tell us something about the last film you watched: Zelig. A mockumentary about a man from the late 20s who has a psychological disorder where he assumes the identity of those around him. Among other things, he achieves wide fame and ends up falling for his psychoanalyst and finally his condition becomes less of a nuisance. It's a Woody Allen treasure. <3>

Favorite movie from The Archers (alias Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger)? The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. From the moment I heard of it I was sceptical about its appeal. Anything with the word 'colonel' sounds too military like and bland. Somehow this movie, in its glorious technicolour and great storyline, was anything but bland.

9. About how often to you post here on IMDb? Very rarely. I read other people's comments more. What can I say, I'm an observer first and participator second.

10. Coffee or Tea? Bleh, I dislike coffee (and yet I was addicted to it when I was 12, go figure), but tea is practically a staple. I drink it every morning with milk.

11. Favorite subjects? Cinema studies, Literature, Sociology-related subjects, Philosophy (which I've been really taking indirectly through Self & Other).

12. If you could be one film character for one day, who would you be? The ultimate question and yet I'm stuck. I have no definitive answer for this, so I'll have to answer with one out of a million choices. Any of Jean Arthur's characters would be great, but I'd especially like to be her Connie Milligan, no-nonsense working girl with sharp wit who's secretly yearning for romance. Why definitely.

13. What is your best and worst quality? I can't be objective about this, but at my best I'm an honest, kind, perceptive and humble person. At my worst, I'm narcisstic, insecure, unsociable and irritating/irritable. Woops, that was four qualities each, narcissicm (sp?) creeping in again.

14. What is your motto? It's simply, be happy.

15. If you could listen to one voice for the rest of your life, whose voice would it be? Charles Boyer. Sexy French accent yes.

16. If you had one superpower, what would it be? The power to be incredibly witty, now that is talent if you ask me.

17. What came first, the chicken or the egg? This question just puts me round in circles. Unanswerable.

18. Name one historical figure you find absolutely fascinating: Anne Frank. Remarkable writer, utterly complex, firm believer in good at such a time of atrocity. Her life and her diary haunt and inspire me whenever I return to them.

19. If you could live during one time or place, where would it be? Hollywood in the 30s and 40s.

20. If you could change one thing about you, what would it be? To be more productive and put some more effort into things rather than run away when the going gets tough.

A Survey (classic-ish style)

2009-10-21T22:15:00.007+11:00

A survey mood! I found the following one on this blog
http://harlowcutie11-dreaminginblackandwhite.blogspot.com/.
It's classics-ish which is a bonus.

1. What is your all-time favorite Clark Gable movie?
Probably Gone with the Wind, it's Clark at his roguish charming best I say.

2. Do you like Joan Crawford best as a comedienne or a drama-queen?
Hmm, she's a great drama-queen, particularly in Mildred Pierce. But she's delightful when she's wise-cracking like say in Grand Hotel or The Women. Perhaps a tie?

3. In your opinion, should Ginger Rogers have made more musicals post-Fred Astaire?
I kind of wish she had made a couple or so with Gene Kelly...

4. I promise not to cause you bodily (or any other serious) harm if you don't agree with me on this one. So please be honest: do you like Elizabeth Taylor? Hm?
She can be quite a tour-de-force actress at times (particularly in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Suddenly, Last Summer) and she's stunningly beautiful, so I like her for the most part.

5. Who is your favorite off screen Hollywood couple?
Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward. 50 years of marriage, I think that's wonderful. <3

6. How about onscreen Hollywood couple?
Hmm...a tie between Fred and Ginger and William Powell and Myrna Loy.

7. Favorite Jean Arthur movie?
The More the Merrier (I like Mr. Deeds Goes to Town a bit more, but I think The More The Merrier is more of Jean's film).

8. What was the first Gregory Peck movie you saw?
Roman Holiday, but I got my first glimpse of him in the court room scene in To Kill a Mockingbird. I don't think I saw how powerful a person can be on screen until that moment.

9. What film made you fall in love with Alfred Hitchcock? (And for those of you that say, "I don't like Hitchcock" -- what is wrong with you?!)
I've admired Hitchcock for a while, but it was seeing Vertigo last year that gave me a newfound appreciation for his art.

10. What is your favorite book-to-movie adaption?
Gone with the Wind.

11. Do you prefer Shirley Temple as a little girl or as a teenager?
Hmm, I haven't seen any of her films of her as a little girl, and yet that's the image of her that is most prominent in my mind.

12. Favorite character actor?
Charles Coburn.

13. Favorite Barbara Stanwyck role?
The Lady Eve, I think it's the most layered role I've seen of hers so far (I still need to make my way through most of her filmography though).

14. Who is your favorite of Cary Grant's leading ladies?
He worked terrifically with just about all of them, but I've liked him most with Kate Hepburn, Ingrid Bergman and Irene Dunne.

15. Bette Davis or Joan Crawford?
There's a truckload of movies I need to see of both, but so far Bette is a finer actress. But to give Joan credit she has quite a dazzling and dynamic screen presence.

16. What actors and/or actresses do you think are underrated?
Actors: Charles Boyer Actresses: Jean Arthur, Irene Dunne, Claudette Colbert

17. What actors and/or actresses do you think are overrated?
Not sure...I mean I know Marilyn, Audrey and James Dean are probably the most exposed of classic cinema, but their talent beneath their iconic/commodified images is much underrated outside the classic loving sphere imo.

18. Do you watch movies made pre-1980 exclusively, or do you spice up your viewing-fare with newer films?
I was kind of exclusive for a while, but spicing it up is good and allows me to appreciate a wider ranger of films.

19. Is there an actor/actress who you have seen in a film and immediately loved? If so, who?
Maybe Rosalind Russell. When I saw her in His Girl Friday I immediately thought that was one of the best performances an actress could have the opportunity to give.
Also Humphrey Bogart. I saw him in Sabrina and felt I knew immediately he was a good actor.

20. Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire?
Fred Astaire for me.

21. Favorite Ginger Rogers drama?
I recently saw her in Romance in Manhattan and thought she was so touching in there, particularly when faced with the moment where her brother was to be taken to an orphanage. It's a good depression era film and Ginger excels as the struggling working class girl.

22. If you wrote a screenplay, who would be in your dream cast and what roles would they play? (Mixing actors and actresses from different generations is allowed: any person from any point in their career.)
There are probably trillions of 'if only' pictures I could imagine (though strangely they're not coming to me now), but here's one: Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly and Ginger Rogers. The plot would probably be a recycled love triangle one that allows the two leading men to dance with Ginger and then for there to be a nice number at the end where they all come together to dance (something like the near end of Broadway Melody of 1940). It would be made in the early to mid 40s, shot in colour, produced by Arthur Freed and perhaps directed by Vincente Minelli.

23. Favorite actress?
Audrey Hepburn, though she might be more my favourite all round humanitarian and role-model.

25. Favorite actor?
Humphrey Bogart.

26. And now, the last question. What is your favorite movie from each of these genres:

Drama: Bonnie and Clyde

Romance: A Matter of Life and Death

Musical: Top Hat

Comedy: The More the Merrier

Western: Shane

Hitchcock (he has a genre all to himself): Vertigo

Blue Skies Turn to Grey

2009-10-21T20:58:00.018+11:00

I'm not supposed to have much free time right now (not with my last essay of the semester hanging in the air and upcoming exams trailing not far behind), but I'm so pooped this evening or night. Blogging sounds like a good diversion.

But then we get to this pressing question: What to write about this time? I was going to write about film highlights I've had lately, but as it turns out, there has been really only one standout film I've seen since New York New York.

A back-story: Two or so weeks ago, on a Sunday night when I should have been researching for a French debate (which wasn't so crash hot in the end, but I digress), I chose instead to embark on a three hour filmic journey. It was something I had eagerly wanted to watch ever since a) I found out it was a good film and b) I grew really interested in the actress Jennifer Jones.

I mentioned the film's length, 3 hours, and on average such a length can give me pains and an incessant looking over at the time. Heck, even a one hour and a half film can have the same effect. But this film -- and I've neglected to give its title, Since You Went Away (1944) -- stood faithfully by rule number one "Thou shalt not bore". It was an engaging treat, combining interesting storylines with interesting characters.

The film circles around the Hilton family, who has recently had to separate from their husband/father who went to war (the second world war to be specific). And so we get a picture of what this war was like for those on the home front. We see this family feel that slightly bit emptier and then pick themselves up and do what they can for both the war effort and for their personal happiness. It's a bumpy ride for them, since they encounter happiness, then sadness, death, and then hope. And so you get this homely atmosphere, perhaps a little sweet and sentimental, but all the same their journey is genuinely touching. You want them to have all the happiness they could get really.

I can't quite explain it in minute detail, but this film was a treasure. There's something both slightly ominous and then sparkling about it. It never wants to be completely depressing nor completely light and make something frivolous out of war, so it straddles between the middle line and the result can be a sort of bitter and sweet combination.

All the main actors do a top notch job, but there were two that particularly stood out for me. There's Monty Wooley who plays a sort of war veteran (if I'm correct) who stays at the Hilton family's house because of housing shortages. He starts off kind of grumpy and keeps to himself, but gradually you find he has endearing qualities. He doesn't exactly have the most screen time, but he's a character who adds something to the atmosphere and whose presence gradually becomes familiar and more potent as you progess to the end.

Then there's the tour-de-force that is Claudette Colbert. I've seen four of her films and she's not one to disappoint. It isn't that she does something dramatic and dynamic with her role, it's really how she subtly underplays and remains the constant source of strength of the film. She plays the mother role and she's the kind of warm, understanding and capable mother one would like to have. She displays the range of her talent in this film, showing why she is one of the best comediennes of the 30s and 40s during the lighter moments. She's equally good in the more dramatic moments, displaying well her emptiness and struggles in the absence of her husband.

The cast is pretty much what is called an all star cast. You have:

- the aforementioned Jennifer Jones as the older sister, who matures from naive teenager to someone who learns what it's like to deeply love and then to lose that loved one,

- Shirley Temple (yes, the cute curly blonde Depression star with the addition of a few years) as the younger sister, who's as chatty and chirpy as any younger sibling is known to be,

- Joseph Cotten as the charming and cheeky-ish dear family friend,

- Robert Walker as Jones' love interest (curiously, and perhaps painfully, Walker and Jones were once married in real life, and were pretty much estranged during the production of this film. In an arguably cruel twist, David O. Selznick --producer and lover of Jones at the time--decided to make them the estranged couple love interests in the film. I think the chemistry is there in the film, but it's almost unsettling to watch with the above knowledge),

- Hattie McDaniel, as the Hilton's servant and dear friend is as warm and engaging as always,

- and in a great, deliciously catty role is Agnes Moorehead, portraying an irritable character to perfection.

So that's that. This is a great film. I think it would fit perfectly on a double billing with 'The Best Years of Our Lives' to show classic Hollywood's representations of the during and after effects of war. An idea for future curating?

Change Your Mind {Jane Eyre part deux}

2009-10-13T20:47:00.009+11:00

True to my fashion, I've decided to go blogging on the night before my French debate. I should really be preparing my heart out, but no, I have something 'important' to say.

Two entries ago I wrote a positively gushing love note to what was one of my favourite books of all time 'Jane Eyre'. And all was going well until my Literature tutorial last week. And unforuntately I can't look at that novel the same. Now it seems bizarre, contradictory and not quite the celebration of women's rights I once saw (because why does Jane keep insisting on calling Rochester 'my master'. Sure I could once bypass this and even mentally erase it, but not anymore).

Plus, why does the book end with Jane pondering on St. John Rivers, the guy she declined to marry? Is she not happy with Rochester? Suddenly the love she must have felt for him somewhere in the middle of the novel feels like it deteriorated at the end. And did Rochester ever really love her? After all he was planning on making her his mistress. Right now to me he seems predator-like and only wanting selfish desires out of the relationship. By the time he's blind and a shadow of his former life, it feels like he's more happy that he's got someone, and someone who loves him than because he loves her.

Well it's still an intriguing book, but it's not quite the same wildly romantic read it once was. Now I only have cynical lens when I approach it. But upon reflection, that's not so bad. I've gotten an alternative reading out of it, sure, but maybe it's more intriguing and dark this way.

But yes, by a general rule, it's best to steer clear of literature subjects that feature your favourite novels on their reading lists. If you have a malleable perspective like me, you're bound to never look at the novel in quite the same beloved way.

A Review : New York, New York (1977)

2009-10-10T12:48:00.013+11:00

Hmm, I'm not sure how easy it's going to be to review this film. I want to try and balance the good aspects with the not so good. I'll see how it goes.

This film is, for one, quite long. Apparently the original was four and a half hours long so director Martin Scorsese had to cut it. Well it went through a series of cuts and then a restoration of extra material, before finally standing at 163 minutes. How did I bare it? I rarely noticed the length, such is the engagement I had with the film.

But engagement doesn't necessarily equal a flawless film experience. I did have issues with the film, mostly because it doesn't move in a typical, familiar way. It's not simply a musical, nor simply a dramatic love story nor simply a comedy (because actually a lot of it is comedic, sometimes awkwardly so--deliberatly I think). It aims to be all and then to transcend genres and be something else.

The film could be what you may call a homage to those technicolour musicals of the 40s and 50s. It has some of the most beautiful colours swirled together and you can just tell that the scenes are taking place on lush, romanticised sets that probably bear little resemblance to New York as it actually was. But at the same time the film wants to express truth and it does this through Liza Minelli (as Francine Evans) and Robert De Niro's (as Jimmy Doyle) tumultous relationship. There's a certain tension between the artifice and the attempted reality of emotions, and I'm not sure if it works. However, I will admit that this tension adds a certain poignancy to the film (it is somewhat reminescent of watching the 1954 version of A Star is Born, starring none other than Liza's mother, Judy Garland).

Another tidbit is the seeming bipolarity (a word?) within the film. It goes through certain hyperactive moments and tries to balance this with more subdued, tender scenes. I'm not sure, but this could partly be because of the following trivia: both Scorsese and Minelli have stated that the dialogue was mostly improvised (though taking cues from the script) to add to the seeming reality of the main characters' relationship. Apparently it was hard to edit these improvisations and still make the film seem like seamless viewing. And so it feels apparent in the film, for when I examine the film as a whole I get some points of disjointedness. But again, I can somehow rebut this by saying that the film becomes truer to real life this way. Sure, we love a flawless film, but they aren't life. If we were to review our lives as a film we wouldn't get such a seamlessness. This is where, as a film New York, New York has room for improvement, but as a piece of reality, it works much better. Interesting that it can become this within the bounds of a lavishly photographed film.

So it turns out that when I get to the bottom of things, the above mentioned aspects of the film don't bother me much at all; they're simply passing observations. Perhaps the uneasiness I really have with the film is Robert De Niro's performance. I'm sure it's written in his character to be a tryhard Joe Cool and to be at times overbearing, arrogant and chauvinistic. However, there were times when I found him to be overdoing it. Maybe this is a feminist's perspective, but one has to ask what Liza's Francine really saw in De Niro's Jimmy. But then it got me thinking that indeed he does have a bit of charm and when he's tender and subdued, he's very likeable. Plus, he's a talented saxophone player which somewhat gels with her singing skills.

And I suppose there's this: in filmdom fantasy, only the most perfect man will do for the heroine. He's got to be effortlessly funny like Cary Grant and never be overbearing. And yet, often as he does, De Niro is attempting here to portray a person, not a movie-star persona. However, unlikeable he can be in this role (sometimes hamming it up), he's being that much more truer to life. In life, nothing moves smoothly, nobody has quite the right lines like in the perfect comedy; and nobody has the right things to say in painful scenes.

And actually I can't deny that there are some scenes where De Niro really excels (in that, rather than getting choppy moments of overacting, you're getting a more complete character), and you feel all at once that he's fading into the background, that he's quite not so successful without Francine. That underneath the Joe Cool act there's a bit of self-loathing. No it's not likely the performance that is going to make it into the top De Niro performances list, but it deserves to be looked at for both its flaws and triumphs.

I think Liza's Francine comes across as much more sympathetic. Her character development is less jagged than De Niro's and we can gradually see her move from wall-flower-ish singer to confident star. She has a notable naturalistic acting (perhaps helped by the improvisations) and her emotion-charged scenes work well. On a somewhat more aesthetic note, she looks quite stunning in the film. I also want to bring attention to her big eyes that are particularly haunting in one close-up scene. Her singing moments are also note-worthy for being in turns entertaining and poignant.

Just by writing this review, I'm starting to see something very special in New York, New York. It's an interesting, bumpy experience (just like Francine and Jimmy's relationship). It made me laugh, cringe, feel uneasy and all the while my eyes received such a treat through the cinematography and art design. An intriguing blend of a film that somehow transports you back to post-war 40s through a 1970s Scorsese lens.

"Reader, I married him"

2009-10-07T22:26:00.006+11:00

I'm re-reading Jane Eyre for Literature and falling in love with it again. It's my 'it had to be you' book (for all your faults/I love you still) because it is in fact flawed, yet it still retains something special. Jane Eyre, with all her plainness and quietness, is an intriguing character. She's observant and acutely aware of things that nobody else cares to see. Rochester (move over Cullen, this is the real Edward) is incredibly questionable in his morals and his treatment of Jane, yet she gets him--even if a lot of readers don't--and he happens to be just as observant as she, however immersed in his troubles he may be. And for the record, it never detracted from the book that Bronte's main characters happen to be 'ugly'. Maybe because I always reached the conclusion that:
a) they're not that 'ugly', they're unconventional
b) whatever the case, they have attractive qualities that speak louder than exterior appearances

Anyway, I just wanted to put on this blog a powerful passage (courtesy of Charlotte Bronte's moments of inspired poetry) about Jane 'getting' Rochester, while simultaneously revealing the hidden, profound love she fosters for him.

I saw Rochester smile - his stern features softened; his eye grew both brilliant and gentle, its ray both searching and sweet. He was talking, at the moment, to Louisa and Amy Eshton. I wondered to see them receive with calm that look which seemed to me so penetrating; I expected their eyes to fall, their colour to rise under it; yet I was glad when I found they were in no sense moved. 'He is not to them what he is to me,' I thought: 'he is not of their kind. I believe he is of mine - I am sure he is - I feel akin to him - I understand the language of his counteance and movements: though rank and wealth sever us widely, I have something in my brain and in my heart, in my blood and nerves, that assimilates me mentally to him.

<3

[I'm still waiting for the perfect film companion to the book, though the 2006 BBC version was pretty good. I think Rochester is not too difficult to capture on screen, he's naturally a fascinating and engaging character. What's harder is to capture Jane Eyre without making her dull or submissive, and also not to increase her age--she never quite looks eighteen in the film versions. But Ruth Wilson in the aforementioned BBC version was pretty good...gosh I gotta watch that again...]

In other news, I found out via email that one of the dvds I requested of the city library to purchase has come through and it's ready for me to borrow. I say, Christmas has come early. Why? Because this is not any film, it's Martin Scorsese's sole musical feature (as far as I know), called none other than 'New York, New York' (with that famous theme song). Liza Minelli and Robert De Niro? It's sure going to be one of the most intriguing pairings I've seen.

30s and 40s : Glitz, Glamour, Drama, Humour, Wonder

2009-10-04T14:53:00.006+11:00

I've had a really good run of films lately, and they've been mostly from the 30s, early 40s (I'm going back to my classic roots). Here are some little summaries from the best of the bunch:

Come Live With Me (1941) - Hedy Lamarr and James Stewart make an interesting couple. She's foreign and has a raven beauty (well she was dubbed the most beautiful woman in Hollywood) and he's the everyman. But they make it work. The film has some comedy and clever lines, but at heart it's a (albeit light) love story. It has some nice cinematography (particularly when considering these films were usually made on the studio lot) and nice performances (I've seen one other Hedy film, Ziegfeld Girl, and she was unfortunately cardboard bland in it. But in this film she is much comfortable and engaging). Overall a very enjoyable film.

It's a Wonderful World (1939) - Another Jimmy Stewart film, and this time he's paired with Claudette Colbert (one of the fine comediennes of the 30s imo). Again, they're not the couple you'd expect to be paired up, but they work fine. There's a particular scene where Colbert's character has to get up on Stewart's back (this is a screwball comedy so it's to be expected) so she can get apples from the tree. The processes of this action and its results show a real naturalness between the actors and great comedic timing from both. The rest of the film is great lighthearted fun and was much more enjoyable than I was expecting (since it's not talked much of, I naturally thought it wasn't good).

My Best Girl (1927) - This was my first Mary Pickford film and it didn't disappoint. The fascinating thing about Mary was that she was quite young looking and played ingenues even when she was well passed thirty (as she is in this picture). She was also short and petite and cute, which I guess helps. Here she was teamed with a younger man, Charles 'Buddy' Rogers (just about the cutest, baby-faced looking guy in silent filmdom), who would later become her husband. It's no surprise I say because they have quite good chemistry in this. There's such a lovely boy/girl cuteness between them, but also tenderness in one particular close-up scene. The film is on a whole pretty funny and very lovely, capturing a sweetness that only other silent films of its kind can capture.

The Barretts of Wimpole Street (1934) - I'm generally a sucker for period romantic films, but I'll admit that they're not always well made. That said, this one is wonderful. I think it might be because the romance is not overbearing (nor under utilised), and also the heroine is a fascinating character. I've never cared much for Norma Shearer (I've only seen her in The Women, where she played arguably the dull character amongst show-stoppers), but watching this has made me re-examine her. I don't know if she was Oscar-nominated [edit: she was nominated, yay], but she should have been. The story itself is fascinating. It's about the poet Elizabeth Barrett's life around the time that she met and fell in love with Robert Browning (played by the handsome Fredric March, though his performance was a little over the top, or maybe that's how Browning was?). They have one obstacle, her overbearing and possessive father (played to perfection by Charles Laughton) who doesn't want his children to marry. The film is a winner for me.

Romance in Manhattan (1935) - I've seen about five (now six with this new inclusion) of Ginger Roger's films sans Fred Astaire, and each of them have given me a different outlook on her. As it is, different co-stars and settings can bring a different dynamic to an actor's performance. In this film, Ginger still keeps up her 30s, no-nonsense, yet wise-cracking working class girl persona, but she brings something a little varied to the plate. This time she has to deal with the Great Depression (it was also an issue in Swing Time, but somehow there wasn't a doubt she'd pull through financially). I don't know if Romance in Manhattan is classified as a comedy, but it's through-and-through drama for me with a side-dish of smiles. Ginger is great as the struggling working girl who has to find a way to prevent both her brother from going to an orphanage and her newfound Czechoslovakian lover (Francis Lederer, also very good and sympathetic in this) from being deported. Up until that final reel I still didn't know if the ending would be happy or not (though, alas, the ending is happy--perhaps wishfulfillment happy, but I'm not complaining; it would otherwise have been a painful film).

I Love You Again (1940) - I just watched this one today and boy, William Powell and Myrna Loy can do no wrong when they're together. Now this is the screen couple upon which all others are measured. In my opinion, nobody quite has the believability that they do. Their chemistry is mostly known for its comedic qualities, but blended in this comedy is much affection and a dash of romance. In their own rights they are fine actors and they make this film possible, which would otherwise probably not work (the plot is slightly absurd and the comedy could easily have been uninteresting and unfunny if actors with less enjoyment and dedication to their work had been on board). That said, the plot does run smoothly and this film is very funny and has meaning. Powell and Loy are wonderful, unique talents.

.Fin.

Up-lifting music

2009-10-04T13:37:00.031+11:00

I've been listening to some ace music and watching some ace films lately, but I haven't been doing that dreaded two-part word that will be addressed here only as 'hw'. Yes, I have two essays due in on Wednesday (which means I still have three days and whatever is left of this day, but still I also have classes on those days too, so I really don't have much time). The best break from stressing would be to actually do the work, but no, I'll take blogging instead.

I saw Up (2009), the latest Pixar wonder last week and I loved it. Films of its calibre are just peerless. Before they come along, you feel like you've seen the height of filmmaking. And then you watch this superior film and you realise that filmmaking has no limits. Up has what I call the perfect blend, and that is of comedy and drama (which--as Jack Lemmon said and probably Charlie Chaplin affirmed this--is what life is about). Watching it, I laughed hard (to the point of tears) and I felt sad and inspired (to the point of tears). And I generally don't expect animations to make me feel the sort of emotions I expect from live-action films. And yet Pixar's Up does what even live-action doesn't. It's so balanced that it never feels cheesy, nor too silly. And all the while it has meaning.

One wonderful thing about Up is its soundtrack. My particular favourite song is 'Married Life' and it has everything -- happiness, sadness, excitement, quietness. And on top of that it has this nostalgic, 30s/40s feel to it that makes me happy. I made a tribute video set to it just recently, of classic film marriages (what else?). I'll probably post it on yt later in the week.

I also found out that my favourite scene in 17 Again is set to the Cat Power song 'The Greatest' and I realise that half the emotion of the scene is directly from the song. I've been listening to it frequently, but such incessant listening has worn off the impact of the song. Oh well, it's still lovely.

And then...I've heard of Sarah Blasko for a while now. She's apparently one of those quiet achievers who slip under the cover if you're not paying enough attention. She's got a nice, indie, mellow voice (the kind that's pretty popular now). I really like the songs 'Planet New Year' and 'Perfect Now'.

That's all for the moment.

A Review: Taxi Driver (1976)

2009-09-29T17:48:00.043+10:00

The alternate title for this entry was going to be 'Taxi Driver Or: How I Learned to Stop Postponing and Watch This Film' (a thinly veiled reworking of the film title 'Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb'--coincidentally another film I have to get around to).

There were a few reasons why I took my time in watching Taxi Driver. They are as follows.
1) It was really only recently that I got the urge to want to watch it.
2) I didn't have access to it--today I was lucky enough to find it on the cheap at a dvd store
3) Its R rating was a deterrence (I was expecting lots of violence--yes there's violence, but it wasn't over the t)

Even though I say I was avoiding it, I nonetheless had high expectations about it (It's considered one of Martin Scorsese's best, it's one of the landmarks of the American New Wave, it has much hype over at imdb and elsewere). When I have high expectations I tend to look more closely at every tendril of a film and anticipate the 'wow' moment. Of course, it never comes. But with Taxi Driver what did rush over me at the roll of the closing credits was still positive. The film has much going for it.

I could go on about a few different things. The music was probably the first thing that striked me. It was scored by Bernard Hermann (most known for scoring Hitchcock films--in fact some of the music in Taxi Driver could easily be substituted into a Hitchcock film, that's what I think anyway). There's two recurring music themes in this film. I don't know their titles, but one has this low, humming dangerous feel, and the other one has a more saxophone seedy/sensual sound to it (sort of reminds me of the music they sometimes put on soapies--except Taxi Driver is by no means a soapie). As it usually goes with motion picture music, Hermann's score helps in the creation of the film's atmosphere. The music anticipates the bleakness and loneliness to come.

Of the performances, Robert De Niro as the main character, Travis Bickle, is of course the standout. The intriguing thing about Travis is that if he were a guy in your suburb you'd cast him off as a loony and would want nothing to do with him. Yet since the film gives us a look into Travis' private world and as we're with him for most of the film, you can't help but feel sympathy for him.

Bickle is a Vietnam veteran who has now taken the path of a cab driver. His mundane existence consists of cab driving, taking pills and porn theatres. He's also a pretty observant person and we see that as he witnesses all the seediness and corruption of New York's nightlife. He feels growing despair towards these things and vows to 'clean up' the city. But cleaning up turns into a gun and violence fetish. De Niro portrays Travis' bundle of contradictions--as Bickle's one time love interest Betsy put it--really well (quite characteristically to his dedication to acting, he apparently spent many months refining his taxi driving skills and brushed up on his knowledge on insanity).

Yet the piece of acting that made my jaw figuratively drop was that from a young (12 years old in fact) Jodie Foster, portraying an underage prostitute. It was pretty astonishing to see her talk--and convincingly--about prostitution and the like. Foster's acting is really natural, there's nothing self-conscious about it. Her performance adds to the grittiness of the film.

And what to say about the director that is Martin Scorsese? (On a quick side-note, he actually plays a minor but significant character--a mentally unstable man plotting to kill his wife; he's pretty good).

I have seen six films of Scorsese (do I count The Aviator though? It's been quite a long time since I've seen it) and so far he has a flawless track record. His films flow well and all have smooth editing, it's such that it's hard for me to actually speak of Scorsese's directing and what it achieves. Except that it achieves what filmmaking should--he let's the story be told and to be told well. He also happens to be a daring director in my opinion, anyone would be to make something like 'Taxi Driver'. I think (as the cliche goes), if it were in lesser hands the film wouldn't have been quite as good. I think it was also a risky film because Scorsese seems to me the director who makes each project personal, he seems to put a lot into his films, and it's not unlike the risk that actors put when they're out on stage or in front of a stagecrew. You're exposed to scrutiny.

What can be said in short of Taxi Driver? Only that I think it's a film that's rightfully praised, except that I don't want to blow it out of proportion. It didn't have that loud spark, but alas sometimes the impact of that kind of film can quickly fizzle out anyway. No, I think Taxi Driver more quietly and deeply weaves into the consciousness and promises to stay there for longer.

Films That Are Surprisingly Good

2009-09-27T18:54:00.015+10:00

Every so often comes a film that prompts me to think about similar film experiences, and so here we are. The film this time is 17 Again. The reaction was pleasant surprise. You see I was expecting the teeny bopper routine that always gets old in five minutes. Anything 'Zac Efron' generally screams 'steer clear' for me. But generally, this latest Efron epic (no, it's not an epic by any means, but I made an alliteration so the word stays) was not bad. It had enough to keep me interested. And by enough I mean plenty of Efron charm (and his comic timing is ok), several other interesting characters (my favourite being Mike's best friend--have forgotten his name--the weird sci fi fan), good enough dialogue and some sweet moments (my favourite being--spoiler--when young Mike enters the courtroom, which older Mike was supposed to attend to finalise his divorce, and he starts 'reading out' Mike's message. After he leaves, Scarlett goes over to the letter and realises those spoken words weren't written down. Surprisingly effective).

Now, it's not that I'm hailing 17 Again as the best film of all time, but what I mean to say is that it wasn't as bad as I was expecting. It was entertaining, and the flaws weren't distracting enough. With so-so ratings by the Herald Sun I was expecting much less.

And now for some other examples of films that I was expecting to not get along with (mais au contraire...).

Yolanda and the Thief -- in the classic lover's world this film hardly gets a mention (though I'm pleased to say it does have its fans on imdb) and during its release it flopped badly. So I wasn't expecting much when I approached it. But as it turned out, this was a film I could like. It has Fred Astaire (big plus), gorgeous technicolour, nice dancing and it's directed by Vincente Minelli (one of the best musical directors this side of the universe). It's arguably not for everyone, maybe because it's indulgent and not really conscious of marketing appeal.

Dr. Zhivago -- This film didn't have much to recommend itself to me. Its running time is too long and I've read from others that they couldn't sit through it. Somehow I did endure, and it wasn't so bad. Granted, I do have issues with it -- mostly that the illicit romance doesn't seem interesting, but instead its saddening for the wife that gets laid aside (Geraldine Chaplin, who's character is my favourite, so of course my sympathies are entirely with her). Otherwise, the film's grandeur, gorgeous cinematography and great music (Lara's Theme in particular) outweigh the flaws. Quite a surprising treasure.

School of Rock -- I avoided watching this film for God knows how long. One friend kept telling me how wonderful it was, but I didn't believe them. So really the only way I was going to see this film was if it was obligatory to, and that was just the case this year in cinema studies. Needless to say it's a treat from beginning to end, with terrific lines and a great delivery by Jack Black. Oh and the end title song is cool.

C'est tout.

Summaries of film highlights of September

2009-09-23T08:31:00.045+10:00

Hmm, I thought instead of writing several individual reviews, I'd condense them all into this one entry.

Doubt (2008) -- one of those great thinking movies. Not a lot of action happens, but there is great moments of acting, namely by Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman. The film takes place in a 1960s school run by nuns where one of the sisters (Streep) is accusing a priest (Hoffman) of having an inappropriate relationship with a student. There's something shifty about Hoffman's character, but there's also something desperate about Streep's character too, and the truth is never actually revealed. That can be frustrating but it also makes you go over the film and actively think about it, which wouldn't have been the case otherwise.

The Trial (1962) -- Between this film, Citizen Kane and Touch of Evil lies (in my opinion) Orson Welles' best direction, but I can't decide which is the best. Needless to say, I'd say The Trial is Welles' most surreal film and most heavily influenced by European cinema (well it was made in France if that counts). It's based on Franz Kafka's novel of the same name and it's about a world in which people don't have a say in what happens to them. For Joseph K. (Anthony Perkins in a role every bit as good as his Norman Bates), this means not having a fair trial for a crime (which is never named) that he is adamant he didn't commit. As a result you can feel his suffocation and oppression as you go through his rollercoaster ride with him.

Mulholland Drive (2001) -- The dvd inset of the film prepares you somewhat for the weird, incomprehensible atmosphere you're about to enter. There's 10 clues, that David Lynch apparently wrote himself, to unlocking the film. I quite liked the idea of putting in clues because it somewhat made me look closer at the film's little details; it almost feels like you're invited to peek into the construction of the film. Well, Lynch's Mulholland Drive is itself a film about the processes of film and fame themselves, morseo to the darker, possessive side of these things. Naomi Watts is stellar, but that only becomes apparent when you reach two-thirds of the film (enough said there). A great, eerie experience, sort of reminescent for me of my first viewing of Vertigo.

Replusion (1965) -- A film that delves into isolation and mental instability promises to make one uneasy and this film delivers. It's set in the be-bop London of the 60s and centres around a young woman named Carole (Catherine Deneuve) who withdraws around men and lapses into deep thinking quite a lot. So when her sister, whom she lives with, jetsets off to Rome with her boyfriend for a week or so, well you can already tell this isn't such a good idea. And so begins the nightmarish, somewhat muted manifestations of Carole's paranoia. She imagines herself to be assaulted by men in her bedroom and slowly she stops coming into work and barricades herself in her room, as she becomes increasingly unstable. Polanski's direction and Deneuve's performance really drive this film along.

(500) Days of Summer (2009) -- Though I haven't seen that many films of this year, this one for me is so far the highlight. It's a rom com that isn't routine and doesn't just rehash all the elements of the rule book. It shows that relationships and love are not simple; it doesn't necessarily happen that both parties feel the same for each other, or that being in love equals enjoying one's company. It explores this complexity quite well through the out of order scenes that both show the high and the low of Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who's great in this) and Summer's relationship. And through it all it remains entertaining and inventive.

Love Letters (1945) -- This film is somewhat implausible. To elaborate, the plot goes as follows: A world war two soldier, Allen, (Joseph Cotten) has been writing his friend's love letters to his girlfriend Victoria for him. It just so happens that he's has fallen more in love with Victoria than his actual friend. Then after the war Allen finds out that his friend has been killed, and by Victoria herself. He goes searching for the clues to what happens, and through circumstances, comes across a curious girl who goes by the name Singleton (Jennifer Jones). Before long it becomes clear that Singleton is Victoria, except that she has gotten amnesia from the murdering of her husband. The plot sounds a little tangled, but it actually works pretty well. Cotten and Jones have an easy chemistry and their first kiss in this film is a swoon-worthy moment. Overall it's an interesting film with interesting themes, but perhaps the happily-ever-after ending feels a little abrupt after all the drama before it.

Portrait of Jennie (1948) -- This was the final screen pairing of Jennifer Jones and Joseph Cotten and it's a pretty good swan-song. It's similar to Love Letters in that it has an extraordinary premise. This time Cotten plays Eben, a struggling painter who just can't seem to find inspiration for a good painting. Then it comes at Central Park in the form of a young girl named Jennie (Jennifer Jones) , who seems like she's from another time. He meets her several times more and each time she grows up a little. As he begins to find out, she is from another time, and yet she is real to him as she exists now. It's a story of impossible love and has a dreamy-like atmosphere that is helped by the somewhat foggy cinematography. Like with Love Letters, the themes of this film are pretty thought-provoking and the easy-going chemistry between Jennifer and Joseph makes for a compelling story.

A Review: The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)

2009-09-23T07:58:00.008+10:00

I'm currently on a two week break which means...more movies for me (even with essay deadlines hovering in the air). So I had the urge today to do some reviews since I haven't done any of those this month.

So I guess while on the topic of films (and my self-declared incessant love for them), there's no better place to start than with Woody Allen's The Purple Rose of Cairo. To me this film is about films and how being in a cinema and watching lovely people have lovely idle fun, can somehow restore and rejuvenate you after reality has let you down (phew, long sentence). And also it's a heck of a creative and somewhat surreal film.

The film stars Woody Allen's main muse of the 80s, Mia Farrow, as Cecilia. She's somewhat in her late 20s in a period that is probably the mid 30s (so the depression is very much in the backdrop here). She struggles to commit to her job as a diner girl and at the same time she's enduring abuse and neglect from her husband. So it's no wonder Cecilia likes to go the movies so much. Cut to the latest film that's out, The Purple Rose of Cairo. It's characteristic of those 30s escapist films with their lush art deco and hot night spots and an explorer guy (played by Jeff Daniels) who ditches his search for 'the purple rose of cairo' to enjoy the company of wealth and an attractive night club singer.

Well Cecilia takes such a fancy for this film (as she finds herself increasingly dissatisfied with her real life) that she goes to see it about five or six times. It's on this last time that something really unreal happens: the explorer guy notices her in her seat, and then he speaks to her. Moments later he leaps off the screen (and we're to believe this is actually happening since both the cinema-goers and the characters on screen notice this). And so begins Cecila's too good to be true love story off the screen.

This is quite an intriguing film. I really like its blend of comedy and drama. I like how it's captured the 30s in its reality and made sure to separate this from the films of the same era. And I really like Mia's Cecilia, a very sympathetic character, who somewhat reminds me of Giuletta Masina in Nights of Cabiria. Both films are explorations of fantasy and idealistic dreams and both women find themselves used by men. And I think most significantly, the final shot of both is an affirmation of the human spirit.

So I guess in the end Cecilia learns that those lush 30s films are too good to ever be true, but that doesn't mean they have no purpose. They can still give her one and a half hours of bliss. I guess it's a bittersweet ending, but it shows me that film can be a source of strength and restoration (which they kind of were in 30s Depression).

What to do?

2009-09-09T07:08:00.005+10:00

In the midst of freaking out about a 500 word anecdote that I have to write today in French and an impending Literature essay due next Thursday (not to mention the frenzy that is uni this week--it's the week of the Student Union elections, where political parties I've never known about before have started to get last-minute support from indifferent people like myself), in the midst of all this...I've found a timeslot (7 in the morning, how ideal) to write a random blog entry. I don't quite know how this entry will turn out, I'll just have to go with the flow.

One thing I could start talking about is how uni is starting to trip me out. I don't quite know why I'm there or what direction I'm heading in. It's just been the case that for the last several years (ever since I knew about higher education) I've wanted to end up at a university. I thought that's where all the job opportunities were. Now I'm not so sure uni can offer me what I want (I'm even less certain about what it is that I want). I know I like cinema and I know with my degree I can major in cinema studies, and yet I wonder if everyone who pursues a career in the film industry goes through uni to do so. I mean, those who want to be a doctor need to do medicine, and those who want to be a lawyer need to do law. But I don't feel like an arts degree gives such direction, unless I want to do postgraduate studies. So yeah I'm at a cross-road there.

If there's one thing I semi-know, I think it's that I want to help people (and that's a broad thing to say), but I don't want to be a political activist or attempt to represent everybody, I just want to work with small groups/individuals (it almost sounds like I want to be a psychologist but I don't think I do...). I think if I can help people--say, with education, employment, family problems etc--then that would make me feel like I'm achieving something, even moreso than being a university graduate. But again, I don't know. I'm afraid of choosing the wrong career path, it's a fear that's been instilled in me by my parents. The underlying belief is that, if you change career paths then you'll always have a tendency to change your mind and you'll never settle to one thing or be grounded. But maybe it's not such a bad thing to constantly circulate and change your mind. Maybe that means that you're open to change and you're open to the idea that nothing needs to be the way it is. It's something I'm going to have a difficult time to come to terms with.

Tis all a matter of taking risks. I think it was Katharine Hepburn (or another like-minded person-maybe Ingrid Bergman?) who said that the only thing she regretted was the things she didn't do. But don't get me wrong, I admit that being a bit grounded is good and that there are some things that are never good to do (like inflicting deliberate pain on others, for one), but there is the flip-side of risks: they're the ones that help you to move forward.

That's a human ear all right

2009-09-02T20:35:00.004+10:00

So it's been a week or more since my entry on that top 100 films list, and looking back at it I realised that I recently saw another film from it. That film is Blue Velvet.

The first time I heard about this film was probably year 11 in media, at a time when we were studying The Elephant Man, which is directed by David Lynch. My teacher mentioned some of the films Lynch had made, and off the list there was Blue Velvet (in fact, I had probably heard about this film even before that because it somehow resonated a lot with me). It sounded intriguing, but its R rating sort of turned me off (I automatically imagined the film would be explicitly violent and very adult, and well I wasn't ready for that).

And so it wasn't until this year, through cinema studies, that my curiosity of the film re-surfaced. This time it was because we were talking about avante-garde filmmaking and how more mainstream films borrowed from it. And so as an example we saw a film clip from Blue Velvet, of a man (played by Kyle McLachlan, these days he is probably most famous for his role on Desperate Housewives, where he places Bree Van DeCamp's second husband) finds a severed ear that has ants crawling out of it. Again I thought I wouldn't like to see the rest of the film because it felt as if it would get worse from there, and even potentially horrific.

Well I watched it on the weekend that's just passed (--I was only coaxed into doing it because I was in a kind of emo mood and I thought that this film would surely distract me from my crankiness--) and I can say that for all the expectations I got from its R rating, well, it was pretty watchable. That's not to say its impact was any less, just that I could handle it more than I originally estimated.

But anyway, maybe more about the film. I would definitely want to see it again, I felt that there was probably a lot more I could get from a second viewing. It just felt pretty rich and the whole atmosphere of it was--dare I start saying it?--very much all in a vein of Lynch's own. The film was great at unsettlingly juxtaposing the pleasant side and the unpleasant side of suburban life. It slightly made me think of Edward Scissorhands--with the contrast of the picture-perfect suburban life and the dark tower at the end of it. Except Lynch's film seems more real (and it wasn't what you'd call a fairytale). Actually, and now I'm going to contradict myself, I find Lynch's film, in an affectionate way, strange and unreal. Which doesn't mean that its depictions of sadism and crime (otherwise known as the unpleasant side of humanity) are unreal, but the way that it presents these things--through its editing, cinematography and use of music among other things--makes them seem somewhat surreal. And I think that's the most truest way of getting to reality, because reality is actually usually stranger than fiction.

So anyway, I must say I'm very fond of this film. It's almost a cult film in a way, because it has all those quotable lines and scenes that make their way into pop culture, but at the same time I'll be already toting it as a veritable classic. At any rate, it's unique and it's the kind of film that one would wish they had made. I might be starting to understand what it is about Lynch that my year 11 media teacher and countless others admire.

Now I gotta get myself a copy of Mulholland Drive...and while I'm there I'd like to start watching Twin Peaks...

100 films

2009-08-25T21:06:00.005+10:00

Sometime last year (I'm late to jump on the bandwagon), Entertainment weekly considered the following films as the new classics (pfft). And so the point here is to bold what I've seen. I'm also going to italic the ones i'd like to see:

1. Pulp Fiction (1994)
2. The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-03) don't know if I could ever re-watch this
3. Titanic (1997)
4. Blue Velvet (1986)
5. Toy Story (1995)
6. Saving Private Ryan (1998 )
7. Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)
8. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
9. Die Hard (1988 )
10. Moulin Rouge (2001)

11. This Is Spinal Tap (1984)
12. The Matrix (1999)
13. GoodFellas (1990)
14. Crumb (1995)
15. Edward Scissorhands (1990)
16. Boogie Nights (1997)
17. Jerry Maguire (1996)
18. Do the Right Thing (1989)
19. Casino Royale (2006)
20. The Lion King (1994) i may have seen this, nonetheless it needs to be watched again
21. Schindler’s List (1993)
22. Rushmore (1998 )
23. Memento (2001)
24. A Room With a View (1986)
25. Shrek (2001)
26. Hoop Dreams (1994)
27. Aliens (1986) i've seen a snippet-a very graphic snippet of an alien coming out of a guy's guts...no more thank you...
28. Wings of Desire (1988 )
29. The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
30. When Harry Met Sally… (1989)
31. Brokeback Mountain (2005)
32. Fight Club (1999)
33. The Breakfast Club (1985)
34. Fargo (1996)
35. The Incredibles (2004)
36. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
37. Pretty Woman (1990)
38. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) would like to see this again
39. The Sixth Sense (1999)
40. Speed (1994)
41. Dazed and Confused (1993)
42. Clueless (1995)
43. Gladiator (2000)
44. The Player (1992)
45. Rain Man (1988 )
46. Children of Men (2006) excellent film. well deserved on this list.
47. Men in Black (1997)
48. Scarface (1983)
49. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)
50. The Piano (1993)
51. There Will Be Blood (2007)
52. The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad (1988 )
53. The Truman Show (1998 )
54. Fatal Attraction (1987)
55. Risky Business (1983)
56. The Lives of Others (2006)
57. There’s Something About Mary (1998)
58. Ghostbusters (1984)
59. L.A. Confidential (1997)
60. Scream (1996) it has been positively ages...don't want to watch it again nonetheless
61. Beverly Hills Cop (1984)
62. sex, lies and videotape (1989)
63. Big (1988)
64. No Country For Old Men (2007)
65. Dirty Dancing (1987)
66. Natural Born Killers (1994)
67. Donnie Brasco (1997)
68. Witness (1985)
69. All About My Mother (1999)
70. Broadcast News (1987)
71. Unforgiven (1992)
72. Thelma & Louise (1991)
73. Office Space (1999)
74. Drugstore Cowboy (1989)
75. Out of Africa (1985)
76. The Departed (2006)
77. Sid and Nancy (1986)
78. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
79. Waiting for Guffman (1996)
80. Michael Clayton (2007)
81. Moonstruck (1987)
82. Lost in Translation (2003)
83. Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn (1987)
84. Sideways (2004)
85. The 40 Year-Old Virgin (2005)
86. Y Tu Mamá También (2002)
87. Swingers (1996)
88. Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
89. Breaking the Waves (1996)
90. Napoleon Dynamite (2004) could not sit through all of this--twice--
91. Back to the Future (1985)
92. Menace II Society (1993)
93. Ed Wood (1994) one of the best things Tim Burton and Johnny Depp ever did together
94. Full Metal Jacket (1987)
95. In the Mood for Love (2001)
96. Far From Heaven (2002)
97. Glory (1989)
98. The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)
99. The Blair Witch Project (1999) the hype was scarier than the actual thing--although, the very end where the three young filmmakers run away and drop their cameras, and what you see is this camera on the ground while it looks like one of those filmmakers is standing in the distance, that was spooky.
100. South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut (1999)

film meme time

2009-08-25T20:10:00.002+10:00

Ah these memes are great, pointless fun--and are perfect for those times when there are '50 others thing you must do first but have postponed in the name of distraction'. I found this one on http://www.thegirlinthecafe.com/2008/10/14/a-film-meme/ after google searching 'film meme'.

1. Name (a) film(s) that you have seen more than 10 times (cinema + home).

I don't know if there's a likelihood of this, but the film that comes closest to such an honour is:

+ Strictly Ballroom

2. Name a film that you’ve seen multiple times in the cinema.

Click (twice)

The Dark Knight (twice)

3. Name an actor that would make you more inclined to see a film.
all my favourite classic stars, but the two people who i would watch just about everything of are: Fred Astaire and Doris Day; and lately I'm feeling more and more inclined to watch everything Daniel Day-Lewis has done so far.

4. Name an actor that would make you less likely to see a film.

Adam Sandler (crude and lewd--so how did I watch Click twice? I don't know either); also I originally thought I'd become a big fan of Betty Grable's becaue she's so energetic and perky (kind of like Doris Day-ish), but I actually find her more annoying with every film I see of hers.

5. Name a film that you can and do quote from.

Strictly Ballroom! Ah I went through a whole stage where lines from that film would just run across my mind like song lyrics.

Also probably: Sabrina, Breakfast at Tiffany's,

6. Name a film musical that you know all of the lyrics to all of the songs.

Impossible--nevertheless parts of Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music are probably embedded in every person's brain.

7. Name a film that you have been known to sing along with.

Umm...if I sing it's usually in private, so nobody has known me to sing any song, but in my own time I do like singing Gershwin tunes (from no particular film).

8. Name a film that you would recommend everyone see.

Vertigo, Mon Oncle, A Matter of Life and Death, 8 1/2 <- these are what I call unique film experiences

9. Name a film that you own.

How about the first film I bought? Early on in my collection there was only Strictly Ballroom, Moulin Rouge, Shakespeare in Love and Edward Scissorhands. Now these titles are overwhelmed by classics.

11. Have you ever seen a film in a drive-in? If so, what?

Yes indeedy. King Kong (2005). I fell asleep mid-way though, but woke up in time to feel teary-eyed over the final scene. But boy, did the film have to be so long?

14. Ever walked out of a film?

I walked out and back in to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Needless to say I don't remember much of what happened in the film. Interestingly enough, I did the same thing this year with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, this time on the account of a bursting bladder. But I came rushing right back (I was actually enjoying this latest HP release--thankfully I saw most of the film and loved it).

15. Name a film that made you cry in the cinema.

Many, many. Million Dollar Baby, Cheaper By the Dozen 2 (yes an unusual choice), Marley & Me to name a few.

16. Popcorn?

Yes, and also choc-tops and coca-cola. But I don't really like eating at the cinema, too distracting.

17. How often do you go to the cinema (as opposed to renting them or watching them at home)?

Once a month sometimes. I'd say I go roughly six times a year, which sounds like a disappointingly low figure.

18. What’s the last film you saw in the cinema?

Public Enemies. Johnny Depp's hot property these days, but the film fell a little short--I may be in the minority, but I actually wish they had scrapped the romantic subplot. Is it me or does every biopic these days have to have some romantic plot slapped on? Romance is best when it comes naturally, not when it feels like the film's trying to increase its appeal across the demographic.

19. What’s your favourite/preferred genre of film?

I like musicals, romantic comedies, romantic dramas, comedies in general, anything that makes me feel good--Powerful sad, tragic films are great every once in a while.

20. What’s the first film you remember seeing in the cinema?

Free Willy I think. I went with my parents and sister, all the way to the city by train. I don't remember much except bursts of images of that killer whale. I also saw Babe when I was pretty young and the scenes with those border collie dogs getting into an argument scared the beejeesus out of me. But it was a great film.

21. What film do you wish you had never seen?

Just last year, I don't know why now, I watched You Don't Mess With the Zohan. It was painful.

22. What is the weirdest film you enjoyed?

Nothing is really coming into my mind. Hang on, The Fly with Geena Davis and Jeff Goldblum was pretty weird, disturbing and somewhat graphically violent (it's a horror film), yet somehow it was touching and sad. I think that's the weirdest mix of emotions I've ever felt towards the one film. Otherwise, there's Cries and Whispers, my first Ingmar Bergman film, and that was kind of off-centre but oh so intriguing. Jean-Luc Godard films can also be a bit of a weird experience in a good way, primarily because he deliberately never lets you really settle and connect to what is happening.

23. What is the scariest film you’ve seen?

The aforementioned The Fly. Also The Exorcist, and for a different kind of scary, there's Rosemary's Baby. Apart from one disturbing rape sequence (which isn't graphically disturbing though), the film is more psychologically disturbing rather than graphically disturbing. It was pretty suspenseful, but never actually shows the horror that you think it will show. It sort of applies that Hitchcockian idea that there's no fear in the shot of a gun, only in the anticipation of it.

24. What is the funniest film you’ve seen?

To Be or Not to Be is one. His Girl Friday is also a hoot (as are most Cary Grant comedies). Also What's Up Doc, My Man Godfrey...and more...

If at first you don't succeed...try failure

2009-08-24T18:44:00.010+10:00

I've discovered this blog which is a wake-up call to all self-described pessimists (like myself): http://www.positivityblog.com/. And it had some notes on the notion of failure and this quote particularly resonated with me:

"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." -- Michael Jordan

I've succumbed pretty often to the stigma of failure (why try if you're going to fail?). And here we have Michael Jordan, who needs no introduction, telling us that failure helped him to succeed. A statement like that brings a whole new meaning to saying 'I failed to succeed'. Usually that means 'I failed to make things work and now I should give up', but right now that's sounding more like 'I failed so that I could succeed'.

The writer of the aforementioned blog, Henrik Edberg, discussed an interesting thing. He said something to this effect: when we first go bike riding, even after we fall off we still get back on that bike and persevere till we get it right. And how about when we're infants, our first trial of walking involves tumbles and cuts and bruises. But we don't stop.

Somehow the older you get the less often you want to make mistakes (or it might just be me), the more wrong it seems to make mistakes. There's such an emphasis on 'success', we kind of forget that mistakes are the roots of every achievement.

The irony (<- i never know when to use this word, and I so often want to use it badly) of it all is that, as a poster on Murphy's laws informed me, solutions actually lead to more questions and conflicts. So really there's no way of escaping failure.

Without failure, you can't move forward. So it's probably about time that the word didn't have such negative connotations. I say failure should be the new success (kind of like the way you hear fashionistas says 'pink is the new black').

Films that involuntarily drain out your tear ducts...

2009-08-23T14:36:00.018+10:00

...that is, films that make you cry. Not out of boredom or hatred, or coincidentally getting something in your eye while watching a film, but those tip-of-the-iceberg moments where it all comes emotionally tumbling down.

For example, I watched Gran Torino earlier today (Clint Eastwood directed and starred in this film--I've cried in 3 out of 3 of his films I've seen...hmm...). Man, when the near to end scene comes (no spoilers, just in case) ...well I couldn't stop the tears. It was a 'nooo' crossed with 'awe-inspired' moment, I was unhappy but at the same time I felt the film couldn't have ended any other way. Clint Eastwood's character in this, Walt Kowalski, is one for the ages. I don't know if this is true, but I may have heard somewhere that he would retire as an actor after this (but please not his directing, he's only begun to reach his peak if you ask me), and boy you couldn't pick a better ending for an actor. Enough generalisations said.

As I mentioned, this isn't the first Eastwood film to get me blubbery. Before Gran Torino, there was Million Dollar Baby and Changeling, both interestingly about persevering women who won't give up no matter the odds. Even if these inspiring films perhaps reek of sentimentality, I'm not cynical enough of their bewitching powers to care. There's nothing like an extraordinary story to lift a person up.

Take for another example, After The Promise, which my friend Jezza made us watch one school holiday afternoon. That was a beginning till end tear-fest practically, mostly because it was so heart-breaking. But then when the indominable human spirit makes its entrance and shows that hope has not died, well that's life-affirming, wouldn't you say? If life isn't tough and rough, then there's nothing to really prove, nothing to demonstrate human strength.

Other all-time favourite crying sessions:

-- Camille (1936), before there was Moulin Rouge! there was this tale of a courtesan who falls for a younger, naive-ish man who can't promise her money, but he can promise her love. Unfortunately, there's more than the hurdle of her 'financial income' ( 'the other man') to prevent the two from being together...with all the tug and pull that this couple goes through, the ending feels cruel and oh so encouraging for the tears.

-- Titanic (1997),call it an over-blown, over-budgeted, over-rated film, but it's undeniable that when that iceberg hits, your breath catches in your throat. And when it becomes clearer and clearer that Jack isn't going to make it, well by then you're a goner.

-- Big Fish (2003), this had the added problem of some friends choosing to visit me while I was watching this; and it just so happened that the waterworks had begun by this stage. Needless to say, this film (or what I remember of it--I own it but I haven't watched it since) was heartfelt and it circulates somewhat around death and lack of belief when it's needed the most (i'm being quite vague), issues that tend to be teary.

-- Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939), whether it's true or not, I'll remember this film as the first classic that I ever cried to.

-- Cheaper By the Dozen 2 (2005), this is an unusual choice for me, but I'm placing it here because amidst all the tears I've shed for sad and tragic moments, I've shed tears for joyous moments too. And for this film it happened when Tom and Kate Baker have their baby.

Award for least-expected film that I'd cry to: Click (2006). I say 'least-expected' because 1) it's an Adam Sandler film and 2) it's a crude-humour filled film, which means I should have been more likely to get grossed out or uncomfortably laugh, than to be moved. But alas, when the film takes its dramatic turn and you realise you actually care for Adam Sandler's character enough to cry over his predicament, well that's surprising (even more from a retrospective point of view).

And the award for most inspiring, fist-pumping in the air film...Rocky (1976). Hidden in the shadows of "Adrian!" parodies and the fact that this beat Taxi Driver (and I say this without having seen Taxi Driver) to the Oscar finish line, is a really good under-dog type film. "Gonna fly now"? Heck yeah!

p is for poetry

2009-08-18T12:45:00.006+10:00

Winter

Muddy boots kicked off,

Wet hair ruffled,

A slight cold shiver,

And that unmistakable cough.

The winter rain to dance to,

Gum boots sloshing in the puddles,

Moodiness caused by dreary skies,

The idea of hot chocolate sounds good.

The heater which warms the hands,

Grandma knitted sweaters all around,

Scarves and gloves of every colour,

Snow if you’re lucky.

Warm soup never tastes better,

Staying inside is a good idea,

Rainy day movies in the vcr,

Cooked marshmallows in the hearth.

For some it’s Christmas time,

For others it’s the year’s middle,

It’s the season of cold and grey and melancholy,

And it’s the season of self-made warmth.

I have a French oral tomorrow, but I'd rather ignore it and reside at my blog. Why oh why do they give you three assessments in one week and then on top of that expect you to be prepared for tutorials and still have sanity by the end of it---I sometimes wonder how people do it. Is it really possible to do well both academically and socially, or do you have to forsake one a little for the other? And then when 'socialising time' turns into 'too much solitude time', well, then....

One turns to poetry. I've been doing a bit of that lately. It doesn't take long (to shape it up and create a masterpiece would be a different matter) and it allows you to release emotions quickly and sharply and impulsively (this is how it works for me anyway). I've been doing sort of 'free-falling' poetry, not really immersing myself in getting rhythms (but then I don't have a sense of rhythm anyway) or abac whatever patterns. What I've really been doing is writing in lines---I write a bit, and then decide it's time to press 'enter' and start on a new line. I don't know if that's poetry, I mean if I'm to go self-critical at this point, I'll point out that i don't have the widest vocabulary or a knack for groovy metaphors. But it's kinda fun and self-absorbing.

And it just so happens we're doing Romantic (a literary/art movement, not necessarily meant to evoke Mills and Boone imagery) poetry. I read up on John Keats just on the weekend and he died at a young age, which makes it fascinating that the guy could write all that poetry in his late teens to early adulthood, talk about child prodigy, the James Dean of the poets. Oh and he was a short statured person, so I guess I can identify with him there.

tra la la : musicals survey

2009-08-10T21:58:00.003+10:00

Through a bit of blogspotting (http://someparade.blogspot.com/ -- hmm, maybe I should follow more blogs instead of snooping sort of intruder-like), I came across a survey that mostly circulates around musicals. And if I must say it (and I must), musicals are probably my favourite genre, that and comedies. Anything which makes me feel happy as a lark.

What is your favorite musical from the 1930s? At the moment it's Top Hat, love those great big white sets, the unrealistic but dreamy recreation of Venice, most of the Irving Berlin music (except the treatment of The Piccolino, the Busby Berkeley wannabee choregraphy doesn't fit in nicely with the rest of the film) and of course, Ginger and Fred and their witty banter and dancing.

From the 40s? Much harder with Minelli, Garland, Kelly, Astaire in this decade. It's probably the Golden Age of musicals. I'll go with The Pirate, it's somewhat surreal, has great use of colour, fine performances and nice Cole Porter music.

From the 50s? The obvious answer would be Singin' in the Rain, but I love An American in Paris and Gigi more.

From the 60s? ... I do like Thoroughly Modern Millie, it's a quirky musical, an ode to the roaring twenties, suffers a little from political incorrectness, but recovers with the loopy performance of Carol Channing.

From the 70s? Cabaret is great, Liza Minelli is sensational in it.

From the 80s? not sure...

From the 90s to today? Moulin Rouge is the most recent musical that I take a shine to.

Out of these, which is your favorite? An American in Paris is the one I've been able to return to most frequently.

Who are your favorite musical actors? Fred Astaire, Donald O'Connor, Gene Kelly, Howard Keel

Who are your favorite musical actresses? Doris Day, Judy Garland, Ginger Rogers, Vera Ellen, Cyd Charisse, Rita Hayworth

Who are your favorite musical directors? Vincente Minelli, Stanley Donen

Who are your favorite songwriters? The Gershwins, Jerome Kern, Johnny Mercer, Cole Porter

Who are you favorite dancers? Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor, Vera Ellen, Cyd Charisse, Rita Hayworth, Ginger Rogers, Bob Fosse

What is your favorite showtune? Tied between They Can't Take That Away From Me from Shall We Dance and Never Gonna Dance, from Swing Time and have to add in, Gigi from the film of same title.

What is your favorite movie with Fred and Ginger? Top Hat, but since it's already mentioned I'll give a shout out to Swing Time--it's flawless in its music and dancing and Fred and Ginger's chemistry steps it up a poignant notch.

What is your favorite movie with Mickey and Judy? Girl Crazy--for one, it starts off with Mickey pining after Judy rather than the other way around. For another it has a Gershwin score. And for a third, it's just the best film of the two.

What is your favorite movie with Nelson and Jeanette? Haven't seen any yet. Watch this space.

What is your favorite Judy Garland movie? Easter Parade/The Pirate.

What is your favorite Gene Kelly movie? An American in Paris

MGM or RKO? What? They both gave us some of the best musicals, where would the Freed Unit and Singin' in the Rain be without MGM? Where would Fred and Ginger be without RKO?

Pasternak or Freed Unit? Freed unit, though can't forget that Pasternak produced Anchors Aweigh which is a formidable musical.

Astaire or Kelly? Astaire for me.

Howard Keel or Gordon McRae? Probably Howard Keel, but Gordon McRae is great, particularly in Oklahoma and he has a lovely voice to boot.

June Allyson or Jane Powell? I've seen a little amount of films of either, but June so far, she was very sassy and sweet (do the two combine? Well they do here) in Good News.

Barbra Streisand or Liza Minnelli? I've seen more of Babs than Liza so it's probably not fair to say. They both have their strengths and are great actresses and performers and singers in their unique way.

Mary Poppins or The Sound of Music? The Sound of Music.

Julie Andrews as Poppins or Audrey Hepburn? Audrey as Poppins? Nope can't imagine it.

Favorite dance by Fosse? I'm pretty sure he choregraphed his dance with Tommy Rall in My Sister Eileen so I'll say that one. It's flawless.

What is your favorite aqua-musical? I've seen one Esther Williams--queen of the water--movie and it was Take Me Out to the Ballgame. To my knowledge it has one scene in the water, I don't know if it counts.

What is your favorite non-musical scene from a musical? I just can't get over Fred Astaire's 'peek-a-boo' when Ginger finds out he's driving her carriage in Top Hat.

A Review: Oscar and Lucinda (1997)

2009-08-10T17:25:00.005+10:00

In 1997, Gillian Armstrong, the director of My Brilliant Career and Little Women brought to the film-going public something new to bask in, Oscar and Lucinda. The said title characters are just about my favourite kind (which is starting to become a kind of cliche in this blog): people who skirt on the outer edges of proper society; misfits; outcasts; un-fitter-ins (I made that one up myself to spice things up).

I'll say it right off. This film isn't perfect, nor is it near-perfect. The pacing is a little uneven, some scenes are perhaps too long, others perhaps too short, and perhaps this is not a film for those with weak attention spans - they, like myself, might be left wondering at what is happening. Oh, and the ending is cruel (well, that isn't the film's fault, but wishful thinker me would have liked it to be not so...bittersweet).

It's always good to get flaws cast aside at the start so you can move forward to the pros of the film. For me, positive number one comes in the form of Ralph Fiennes, whose beautiful light blue/green/ocean-like eyes are not beside the point but part of his wonderful characterisation of Oscar. There's expressions in those eyes that the camera allows us to focus on. We see sensitivity, awkwardness, love, risk--add your own emotion. So as you can gather, Fiennes made the film for me. Cate Blanchette's bold, assertive, independent, feministic (before the term was popular) Lucinda is a wonderful heroine. She defies society's rules and one delightful example is in her clothes: yes, she wears the frilly dresses of her time, but she combines them with long pantalons that can be seen. How do these seeming opposite yet similar one of a kinds meet? Through a passion of gambling--one is a priest who gambles to make money (Fiennes), another is a heiress who gambles to lose her money (Blanchett). The premise is delicious isn't it?

But like I mentioned, this film is bittersweet. It's a film that shows that love can be limitless and it can bring out the bravery you didn't think you had (Fiennes' Oscar, who had an unfortunate incident with water as a youngster, hates coming into contact with it. Yet, love makes him take a glass-made church through several rivers...). And that bravery can have costs. I say no more on the matter.

One of the wonderful things about the film is the score by Thomas Newman (he's a notable modern composer as far as I know--I hear much of his music through wonderful mvs on youtube). The music played during the titlecards and again in various moments, evokes the sweeping, glorified Australian landscape. It makes me think of untamed wilderness and freedom.

So though this film didn't reach the cinematic height of My Brilliant Career (to make an arguably useless comparison between films by the same director), it sparkles with individual charm. In the end it is the title characters that make this film worth one's while.

R.I.P John Hughes

2009-08-08T11:04:00.011+10:00

On Thursday (or yesterday to Australia and countries of alike time-zones), the writer and sometimes director of 80s hits The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller's Day Off and Pretty in Pink passed away. I think it's safe to say that he will be remembered for a long time coming and several of his films are already (cult) classics.

After watching Pretty in Pink and The Breakfast Club somewhat back-to-back a few years ago, I became pretty inspired by his writing style and his ability to get somewhat into the teen psyche. His films have such memorable moments--has anybody forgotten the Twist and Shout parade in Ferris Bueller's Day Off? In his films, you have your moments of pure elation and then your moments of angst and awkwardness--opposite emotions blend together, just as they do in real life. His films are also like a time capsule of the 80s--capturing the hideous and out there clothing and hairstyles and the sometimes electro, sometimes rock-edged music of the time. Hate that decade or love it, the 80s made a statement.

My favourite film of his is The Breakfast Club. It's a film that shows that in high school, people are put into groups (I don't think here in Melbourne, cliques are so clearly defined, but groups exist nonetheless) and you have an expectation to uphold the 'rules' of the group--you can't step outside of it, or else you find yourself in social exile. In the film, an interesting circumstance occurs whereby five teens from five different cliques find themselves in detention. At first they hate it--they've nailed it into their brains that they're too different from each other to get along, just as high school culture has dictated to them. But as the film unravels-alas!-they share emotions, they can identify with each other. And through bonding together, they realise, that nobody really belongs in a cookie-cutted group--they've compromised themselves in some way to belong. For one day in detention they see themselves as they really exist-as individuals (not stereotypes). It's a complex film that benefits from an exploration under the surface.

R.I.P John Hughes, you live on in celluloid.

When beautiful people share the screen...

2009-08-08T10:35:00.007+10:00

I don't know what 20:to:01 thinks (I mention that show because every second episode is usually about the best scenes/couples/heroes/films of *thisandthatgenre*...usually with the same films...), but if I were to say who is the number one screen couple--based on sheer gorgeousness--I'd look no further than:

Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor in A Place in the Sun (1951) <--they made two other films, but the chemistry is evidently most evident here. So...what inspired me to gush about these two? Browsing through imdb's classic board today I saw that a user had shared links to photos of them. And it just made lovehearts take over my eyes (animation style). So here are some photos from Life magazine's archives (hosted by Google) to show you that I'm not making a hullabaloo over nothing.

They weren't lovers in real life, but after meeting on the set of A Place in the Sun, they became good friends and remained so until Monty's death in 1966. In fact Elizabeth even saved Monty from dying much earlier from a car accident in 1957. They seemed to have a really good friendship, with Monty even once saying (according to imdb) that Elizabeth felt like " the other half of (him)".

It's worth mentioning that aside from being genetically blessed, they were two great actors, who both really hit their peaks in the 1950s.

Favourite Characters of Celluloid

2009-08-01T20:45:00.023+10:00

There's always the odd character which you take to moreso than usual (well for me anyway) - maybe it's because they seem so idealistic, so dynamic or so wickedly evil or maybe we can identify with them. Anyway, here's a list of characters that have stood out in my film-watching experience:

<- the perfect dad

. Atticus Finch
The personification of Good, a man who hasn't had it easy by any means (he's had to tackle raising two children on his own and to defend an African American in a town where racial intolerance reigns), but who is able to quietly, yet strongly remain dignified. The book gave a great basis for Gregory Peck to perfect Atticus Finch on screen. I first saw snippets of this film in a Commerce class in Year 10 and they were of the court scene - and as the cliche goes, I was blown away.

. Longfellow Deeds
A character with high ideals (in spite of his use of violence and somewhat temper that comes out in one scene-but hey, who's perfect?) and boyish charm, Mr. Deeds is the kind of guy who happens to be both awkward and handsome (perhaps the combination is what makes his good looks more down to earth). In the film Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, Gary Cooper--someone who somewhat skirts the line between underacting and not acting at all, it all depends on one's opinion on the matter--plays the title character with such nuance, if you look closely at his every movement, every facial gesture, you can see how fully his character's traits come alive.

. Antoine Doinel
We have the fortune that there were five films chronicling Francois Truffaut's alter ego, Antoine Doinel (played by Jean-Pierre Leaud-who actually shares resemblance with Truffaut). Here we get the progression of a troubled youngster who lacks the proper love from his parents and who just can't get himself out of ruts. As he moves to adulthood, he finds he suffers from irresponsibility (carried on from childhood I guess) and is unable to fully commit to a wife or an occupation, resulting in the divorce of the former and of the latter, a career in writing his memoirs. He eventually finds, what we assume, is a gal who'll he commit to and we leave on a satisfied note. Through his successes and losses we are with Doinel, becoming infectious towards his charm, his humour and his introspection, hoping ultimately it will all come together for him.

. Sybylla Melvyn
I only just wrote about My Brilliant Career last week, but here it comes up again in another form. Maybe, perhaps, I identify with Sybylla because she doesn't quite fit in to society's conventional structure-though in that sense, maybe she's not so different to many people, as I suppose everyone struggles to fit in and conform. What separates Sybylla I guess is that rather than try to take her 'rightful' role in society, she choses to rebel instead. She doesn't get everything in the end, but with what she has achieved she is content. I like Sybylla because she can be contradictive (asserting her independence, and yet so obviously trying to get Harry to notice her), she's very human and very free-spirited, as perhaps everyone is naturally. Oh, and her ultra frizzy, big hair really gets attention--I wondered more than once why she didn't use hairgel or something to control it, but when I think about it more, I guess her hair makes a statement of who she is-she can't be tamed or controlled, just like her hair can't be.

--fin--

A Review: Carrie (1951)

2009-08-01T20:37:00.006+10:00

First of all, this film is not an adaptation of the Stephen King horror classic of the same name--for one, it came before the publication of Stephen King's book (i'm pretty sure). It is, however, based on a novel that according to the dvd's back cover was considered controversial at the time of release (the film itself is tame for today's standards, but the themes are still significant).

I guess we all go into a film with some preconceived notions of what it'll be about. For me, the front cover--featuring a close-up of a man (Laurence Olivier) and a woman (Jennifer Jones) positioned close together--suggested that this was a straightforward romantic, costume drama. Somehow I never figured it would be quite as sad as it turned out to be. I don't know if you can place this film in the romance genre (though it has romantic elements). It's more the kind of film that challenges the idea that "love conquers all". While we often hear the affirmations that "love is all you need" (that one is courtesy of The Beatles) and that "money doesn't make the world go round", this film instead provokes us to further explore these (perhaps simplistic) ideas.

The setting of the film is something like turn of the century Chicago, where society is not quite so forgiving if you turn your head from your 'duties' (this all sounds so ambiguous, but let's see if I can elaborate). We enter the film with a young woman, Carrie, (Jennifer Jones-who even past the age of 30 still looks refreshingly youthful) who leaves home to venture out to make her living. Yet making that living proves difficult when she loses her job and somehow gets entangled in a sexual relationship with a well-off man (Eddie Albert). In this society sex before marriage is taboo and she soon finds herself ostracised from her neighbours. Wanting to get away from this relationship and find a more respectable living, Carrie finds her ideal in George Hurstwood (Laurence Olivier in a great performance). As the story begins to turn more towards George, we find out that he is a wealthy man with a family, and in theory, he should be happy, but he's in a loveless marriage. When he becomes acquainted with Carrie, he finds within himself emotions that he thought were long ago extinguished, and you see through Olivier's expressions just how much this man wants to be freed by the trappings of his current life. However, society being what it was and still is, when George's cruel and self-absorbed wife (Miriam Hopkins) finds out about his relationship with Carrie, she refuses to divorce him (since divorce threatens her own reputation in society)--which leads to a chain of events that keep spiralling until we reach the point where George no longer has access to his money and he and Carrie find themselves in poverish circumstances (you'll have to watch it to believe the injustice of the situation).

All the hardships and eventual departing between the two lovers might raise the question: was love worth it in the end? Even when at the end of the film where George is seen at his physical and financial worst, he still feels grateful that he was given the opportunity to find love. This is somewhat easier to grasp when we think what his alternative would have been: remaining in a yes luxurious life, which in spite of all that money could buy, wouldn't have presented him with the love that he felt with Carrie. I think by showing what George went through and by how he felt in the end, the film displays acute awareness that there is no right or wrong answer on this subject. One can blame George's society for his downfall, or that George himself should have known better, or even could see Carrie as some femme-fatale (or maybe not), and maybe a combination of things contributed to the ways things turned, but in the end, what's done is done--and the film chronicles that journey and I believe it allows the audience to come to their own conclusions (albeit with sympathy for George's plight).

The film was directed by William Wyler (also the director of Roman Holiday, among other notable pictures), and he's somewhat known as the director who usually extracts formidable performances from his actors (often by issuing repeated takes, which has the affect of breaking down the actor's mannerisms, causing them to be more natural). Wyler was particularly good at helping Laurence Olivier, who he had worked with once before (on Wuthering Heights). Early in his film career, Olivier couldn't quite shake off his theatricality (he's considered just about the greatest theatre thespian, and I would have killed to see him on stage), but Wyler helped to adjust Olivier to the toned-down nature of films, and in Carrie, Olivier gives one of his most natural performances. I applaud his sinking into his character, even moderating his uppercrust British accent to sound more American (I read that he modelled his voice on that of Spencer Tracy's, and with that in mind as you watch the film, you can kind of hear the Tracy-ness of Olivier's voice). I'm pretty sure Olivier's performance here wasn't Oscar-nominated, but I think it deserved to be. His slow decline from a handsome and wealthy man with everything society holds up high to a poor, tired and much more aged man is quite convincing-in particular, his voice and his expressions convey so much. Jennifer Jones is very solid in her role, she transforms well from a poor, small town girl with much dignity in spite of her upbringing, to a wealthy, mature woman. I feel that the script doesn't quite allow us to delve as much into her character as Olivier, but Jones allows through her expressions to give us a better understanding of her character. Also, I've come to the conclusion that the film shifts from Jones to Olivier to show just how he has become dependent on her, after she was initially dependent on him - they shift roles (she goes from poor to rich, and he does the opposite) and this adds more to the sadness of the film and to the social commentary. Even as I think now, I find myself finding more potential layers of the film--this is quite a film to think about.

So overall I can say that Wyler's great directing (it's really hard to find a film of his that doesn't work), the wonderful script that gives so much to think about, and the all round performances make this a film that rises above the kind of fare that quickly leave your consciousness once the credits stop rolling. This film feels somewhat timeless and so long as society itself exists, the themes of the film remain relevant. And if that doesn't mean a thing, this film can work purely on the level of seeing Laurence Olivier delivering a great performance.

Favourit Actors

2009-07-25T21:34:00.023+10:00

Here's my follow up to my favourite actresses post. The point of all this? Just spreading the love (and self-gratitude).

Fred Astaire
Somewhere between Strictly Ballroom and Fred and Ginger films I realised that I like seeing people dance. Somewhere around the same time I also realised that I like seeing Fred Astaire dance. And sing. And act in his amicable way. Could this be the same guy who allegedly received the report from a screen-test: Can't act. Can't sing. Slightly Balding (with some sources adding 'can dance a little')? Luckily that didn't stop Astaire and he's shown to countless supporters he can do just about everything, and with the lightest of touch.
Favourite film: There's many great ones, so maybe this knuckles down to my mood. My mood at the moment says Top Hat, because it's an escapist's dream wonderland.
Favourite performance: Fred Astaire's persona usually finds itself in every film, but it's nice when variations occur. I really like him in Broadway Melody of 1940, he doesn't start as the main guy, but his character quietly creeps up in notice before somewhat stealing the show. Showcases some of his very best dancing, including the tapping showdown Begin the Beguine.

Humphrey Bogart
Hard for me to say this now, but just before watching the film Sabrina, I looked at the dvd cover and thought "ugh, Audrey Hepburn is teamed up with him". Then I watched the film and I was in awe, haven't looked back since. Bogart has such understated charm and a subtle way of really making you care for his characters. And his delivery of lines is really something too and part of the reason why Casablanca's dialogue is so famous, you can't forget the words here's looking at you, kid after hearing Bogart say them a few times over. He was a star and an actor, and not everyone in the business can accomplish both.
Favourite film: Aside from Sabrina, there's--a lot of wonderful titles in his filmography. One that I immensely enjoyed is the film noir The Big Sleep, a very entertaining film and Bogart was arguably never sexier (yep I said it).
Favourite performance: In a Lonely Place shows Bogart like never before and never since. Stripped down and bare, he is shattering and electrifying and terrifying and completely human.

Cary Grant
Every guys want to be him, every girl wants him--or at least he's closer than anybody else to these superlatives. That's pretty much all you can utter about Grant, superlatives. Because he's peerless and just about everybody knew it during the Golden Age. He was more often than other actors offered the best scripts and he worked with a lot of the best directors, two of them thought he was the tops: Alfred Hitchcock and Howard Hawks (and probably others) and a lot of actresses have nothing but fun memories and praise for him. He was equally great at comedy and drama and he was charming to the bone. Who wouldn't want to be in his presence?
Favourite film: Could there be a tougher thing to state? But I do love Holiday, one of the best odes to misfits, outsiders, free-spirits.
Favourite performance: His comedy performances are great, in equal turns fun and funny, but it's always nice to see the more intense, serious Grant and so I love him in Only Angels Have Wings.

James Stewart
He's so adorable and he can melt ya with his everyman charm. He's also very natural on screen, one would misguidingly think that acting is the easiest thing by watching him. It's this natural ability, an ability that every actor strives for, that makes him so memorable. With Stewart, you can feel every step of the way the emotions he's going through. He played so many good guys in his earlier career, that it's fascinating when darker shades are explored in Capra's It's a Wonderful Life and his films with Hitchcock.
Favourite film: Vertigo. One haunting, disturbing experience quite unlike any other.
Favourite performance: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was the first one that made me sit up and pay attention, an inspiring performance, you're with his character every step of his journey.

Spencer Tracy
Ah such a great actor. He's another natural, like Jimmy Stewart (I wonder why the two never made a film together?). He could play quite a range with his screen persona and even though you kind of know it's Tracy up there on screen each time, you also feel the character he is portraying coming through. A real consummate professional, he was straight to the point, 'don't embroider' he once said and so he didn't.
Favourite film: One of my recent favourites is Captains Courageous, a very inspiring film and you grow quite fond of his character, as does the boy who he befriends.
Favourite performance: A harder question. Well, he makes the film Father of the Bride with his pinpoint timing as the stressful title character anticipating his daughter's upcoming wedding.

Buster Keaton
The great stone face, one of three top comedians of the silent era (the other two being Charlie Chaplin and Harold Lloyd, still need to see his films). Keaton was very funny, his comedy was very visual (well, of course, it's a silent film) and physical. As a result, you see a minimal number of title cards in his films and in their place there are great positioning of props, great stunts by Keaton himself and surreal moments that you can't believe could be achieved in the 1920s.
Favourite film: My first film of his was The Cameraman, and though it's not his crowning achievement, it's still funny enough and simply moving and romantic (plus there's a cute monkey who becomes Keaton's companion)
Favourite performance: Though most of his memorable roles were as the blue collar, working class lad, he is perhaps at his funniest when he plays pompous, rich boys, like in The Navigator, who find themselves in extraordinary situations which reveal their lack of skills--and inventiveness--(and comedy ensues).

--I like many actors, but these are probably the most consistently talented in my opinion. That, or I'm just out of writing energy.

A Review: My Brilliant Career (1979)

2009-07-25T20:34:00.003+10:00

Sybylla Melvyn, what a wonderful character of celluloid.

This is in my opinion one of the finest films ever made in Australia by Australians (speaking as an Australian). And yesterday was my second time in seeing it. I really enjoyed it the first time and likewise with the second time (which doesn't always happen, does it? sometimes the magic can wear off and it feels as if you're not watching the same, once beloved film). It was great to see again why I like this film - the music, the capturing of the open Australian landscape, the great costumes that take you back in time, all the characters that shine, the messages of the film (which spoke out to me more on the second viewing).

A little on the plot. The film is based on a book by Miles Franklin. It's set in late 1880s colonial Australia and centres around Sybylla Melvyn (a young Judy Davis, who sinks right into her role), a young woman raised in a poor family who strives for an independent livelihood in a context where women shouldn't strive for anything higher than marriage and children. Sybylla is adamant about what she wants, but that is until the arrival of rich and handsome Harry Beacham (Sam Neill, appropriately dashing) - suddenly she is very conflicted. Sounds conventional, seen it all before, right? Well no. It's on the strength of the performances, the script and the direction that this film doesn't fall into the scrap heap of routine costume dramas. The film has depth and can spread messages to you if you want it to. It's true to life because it shows that you can't have everything, you're forced to make decisions and compromises and let go, as hard as that can be. And you've got to learn to live with your decisions and be satisfied, as Sybylla is in the final scene of the film (boy, don't I sound preachy?).

It's always nice to see a female director at the helm of a film, and in this case that director is Gillian Armstrong (maybe most famous for her 1994 adaptation of Little Women, which itself bears similarities with this film). Apparently the budget was tight in this film, but I never noticed. All I noticed was how craftly this was made and with much more effort and creativity than is usually seen in Australian cinema today.

A Review: What's Up, Doc? (1972)

2009-07-24T10:51:00.019+10:00

Yesterday at the library, I finally came across this film (a film that I had been wanting to see for a while-the only place I saw it was at a dvd shop, and well, I didn't want to buy it in case I didn't like it). I loved it.

The film was directed by Peter Bogdanovich, one of the most devoted cinephiles of the world (I just read last night that in his youth he would see up to 400 films in one year-wow). He also happened to be an avid fan of classic cinema, and this film is an ode to one of the classic genre's: the screwball comedy. Here's a definition of the genre (according to wiktionary): A genre of motion picture made in Hollywood in the 1930s and 1940s where opposites were juxtaposed; characterized by snappy dialog, and a blend of sophistication and slapstick.

The leading actors in this film are two of the definitive stars of the 70s, Barbra Stresiand (famous singer, but also great actor of Funny Girl and The Way We Were) and Ryan O'Neal (famous for Love Story--which is parodied in this film--and Paper Moon). They are supported by a great, madcapped cast.

I find that even though the film was a homage to screwball comedy, it still had its own unique feel. That might partly be because it's set in modern day (that is, the 70s for them) San Francisco, rather than instilled in the Golden Age past. But also partly because of Peter Bogdanovich and his team, who have been undoubtedly influenced by veins of comedy beyond the screwball genre (if that makes sense). Anyway, I like it all the better for what it is. You get both an entertaining, unique comedy, but also enough homage to potentially make people want to explore the screwball genre.

One of the elements in the film that is very screwball comedy (for lack of synonyms to interchange this term with) is that the lead male Howard (Ryan O'Neal) is a stiff-necked businessman who is more concerned with his paelontological career (a direct homage to Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby) than living a romantic, adventurous, unpredictable life. His female lead Judy (Barbra Streisand) is the opposite--she plays the madcap heroine who brings Howard to the edge (but then Howard comes to realise he loves the edge).

On a side-note: I found it interesting that she constantly called him 'Steve' rather than his actual name (this simultaneously reminded me of two non-screwball films, but with decidedly screwball elements--which is arguably what What's Up Doc? is-- : To Have and Have Not, where Lauren Bacall calls Humphrey Bogart's Harry Morgan "Steve"; and Pierrot le fou, where Anna Karina calls Jean-Paul Belmondo's Ferdinand "Pierrot").

There are so many inspired moments of comedy, it's one of those films where the cast looks like they're having a whole lot of fun--in fact there's a behind-the-scenes featurette on the special features that suggests just that. There was a particularly candid, blooper moment when Ryan O'Neal's character asks Barbra "Where's my rocks?" and she just broke out in laughter. He then asked lightly to someone behind the camera-probably Peter Bogdanovich, "Why does she always laugh when I say that? I thought my reading of the line was pretty good."

I have much gratitude for comedies as wonderful as this. <3

A Review: Changeling (2008)

2009-07-17T16:58:00.002+10:00

At heart, I like watching films that were made before the last four decades, but once in a while I get amazed by a recent film. Which is what happened yesterday evening when I saw this. If you ask me, this film kind of slipped under the cover last year. It didn't receive that much hype (or is it me who has been under a rock?) and the only real interest for me in seeing it was Angelina Jolie's Oscar nominated performance (Jolie is kind of over-exposed in the media if you ask me, and I wanted to see if she had acting chops--I think this is probably the first film of hers I've seen). Other than that I wanted to see another Clint Eastwood film (Million Dollar Baby being so wonderful and all). Oh and this film is set in the 20s and that is always a bonus.

Fascinating subject matter this film has, it perfectly explores the anxieties and anger of a mother with a missing son, who is brought back a boy who isn't him. You can feel the corruption of the LAPD, the isolation and alienation of this mother and the injustice of the matter. The film works on multiple layers, and Eastwood unfolds each without the film feeling like one jumbled mess. The film is moody and depressive for the most part, but as justice comes to the forefront in the form of several characters who have goodness and integrity, you can also feel hope.

I love the cinematography, the details that allow one to be transported to the late 20s. As far as I'm concerned the costumes are accurate and so are the set-pieces. The colour of the film uses a lot of dark green and brown shades that add to the sombre mood. The music completes the mood of the film-it has a tinge of jazz, but mostly uses piano sounds that are haunting.

This is my kind of film--thought provoking, haunting, a beautiful score and cinematography that places you in a particular time and space.

Favourite Actresses (other than Audrey)

2009-07-15T21:00:00.006+10:00

I have way too much fun saying what are my favourite things. But hey, why spoil fun when you're on a roll? Here we go.

Katharine Hepburn
She's the woman who a critic once flamed as 'running the gamut of emotion from a to b' and who, along with other notable names, made a list of Box Office Poison in 1938. And yet two years later she came out with the successful The Philadelphia Story and didn't look back. It is for this resilience and unwillingness to back away when the going gets tough that I admire her. Also, often actresses hit their peak in their 20s and early 30s and then fade to obscurity. But no such thing for Hepburn, who was acting for six or so consecutive decades (she won her last Oscar in her seventies). She's, to me, one of the best rebuttals to the argument that it's a 'man's world'.
Favourite film: Holiday (1938), an ode to free-thinkers and the quirkier people of the world
Favourite performance: Woman of the Year (1942), Hepburn perfectly plays a woman who just can't compromise her career ambitions for marriage.

Doris Day
To me she was once some chirpy actress who played in routine comedies (prior to actually seeing a film of hers). That, or she was the woman who sang "Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps" in Strictly Ballroom. Then after some time: I watched three or so of her films, was mildly impressed, then saw Calamity Jane and didn't look back. Day is the one actress who I believe I could watch any film of--I tend to disregard ratings of her films because I know that I've found entertainment in just about every one I've seen of hers. I guess some people tend to see her as having this virginal, girl next door, superficial fluff image, but if an actress is so capable of lifting up the screen when she comes on, what's superficial about that? To boot she has a wonderful singing voice.
Favourite film: Calamity Jane (1953), packed with high, exhilarating energy, this is no doubt one answer to the word *fun*
Favourite performance: Love Me or Leave Me (1955) gave Doris the chance to show how comfortable she could be in drama

Jean Arthur
You know that question, who would you like to portray you in a movie of your life? Well, my answer is Jean Arthur. The first film I saw her in was Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (after an unsuccessful attempt with Mr. Deeds Goes to Town) and I just felt such an identification with her character, moreso than I've ever felt. Jean was quite a talented actress--she could do comedy with such timing and was equally strong in drama. When you see her so natural and comfortable on screen, you really can't believe that in real-life she was very insecure and shyed away from the public (hence perhaps why, outside of classic film lovers, she's virtually unknown).
Favourite film: Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, a film that is in equal turns funny and moving
Favourite performance: The More the Merrier, the part was written for her and shows off all her strengths.

Jane Fonda
She didn't quite come into her own as an actress until the late 60s, but when she did, she became a powerhouse. In her best parts, she's so intriguing because she has this outward toughness and independence, but inwardly she's brimming with insecurity and self-destruction. I haven't seen as many films of hers as I'd like to, but so far I think she's great.
Favourite film: Barefoot in the Park, wonderfully light comedy, that conjures up the bohemian 60s
Favourite performance: has to be a tie, sorry but I can't tear these performances apart, They Shoot Horses Don't They? and Klute. This is what it means for an actress to let themselves go.

Marilyn Monroe
Many people adore her, she's universally appealing. Mysterious, profound, self-destructive and a legend. She was also a great actress, but that wasn't something I had immediately realised. Sometimes she played the dumb-blonde role, but though that's what's she most famous for, she didn't play that kind of role as much as I thought. In fact, even when she's playing that role, her comedic abilities and actor's instincts give her away as someone who is very intelligent. Though she's a sex symbol, it's that inward vulnerability and insecurities that brings her down to earth and allows us to understand her. She is every bit worth the title 'legend'.
Favourite film: Some Like it Hot is probably the best film she's appeared in
Favourite performance: The Prince and the Showgirl, she's so sassy in this, and all-knowing, not to mention the way she's photographed so etherally.

Judy Garland
Does anybody sing like Judy? Does anybody pour their souls into a song or role like she does? Probably not. Judy was one of a kind and when you see her up there on screen, you can neither take your eyes off or forget her. She keys into your emotions with her moving voice and performances.
Favourite film: Easter Parade, it's delightful
Favourite performance: The Clock, it's WW2 and Judy falls in love with and marries a young GI in the matter of hours, one of the only films where Judy doesn't sing, allowing you to focus more on her natural acting.

Deborah Kerr
One very talented actress. She was sort of typecasted as a prim and proper upper Englishwoman, yet she showed she had diversity--she could play a promiscuous wife, a nun questioning her faith (I think she played this kind of role twice), and a mentally ill and meek woman. She was often captured as an ideal woman in her films and rather than envy or dislike her, I felt myself admiring her very much.
Favourite film: The King and I, I'm a sucker for musicals
Favourite performance: Heaven Knows Mr. Allison, she plays a nun who finds her values coming into question by a roguish kind of man--she never outwardly gives in, but you can tell her conflict through slips of dialogue and her expressions.

Gene Tierney
In my opinion, she's the most beautiful woman in film history, yet she strove to be recognised for much more, namely her acting. And she did deliver on that front, kind of proving that yes it is possible to be both genetically blessed and talented. I admire actresses who try to prove themselves beyond people's opinions of them and so I admire Gene.
Favourite film: Laura, a film noir with elegance
Favourite performance: The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, this is for me her most sympathetic performance

Myrna Loy
She's cute as a button, has a sense of comedy that is all her own (and perfectly understood by her onscreen equal, William Powell) and is just all around fascinating. She kind of began her career as a vixen-type, until it became clear that she was much more suited to playing sassy, independent society women. She was intelligent and sharp but without being overbearing.
Favourite film: The Best Years of Our Lives, great film about the aftermath of war
Favourite performance: The Thin Man, holding her own in the male-dominant detective world of her husband

That was long.

An Actress is an Actress: Audrey Hepburn

2009-07-15T20:21:00.002+10:00

Ok, I'll admit it. I tend to watch films (well older ones mostly) depending on the actresses (and actors--but this is an actress post) in it. I know there are many others involved in the film, you have your director, producer, cinematographer, writers, set designers etc, but up on that screen, it's the actress/actor that you're watching. They're kind of your window to the film.

I like a whole range of actresses (a lot of them from cinema's Golden Age). I admire them for their acting, their ability to be believable/fascinating/etc in a performance, but also I admire them for who they are or how they come across in their persona, what they kind of bring to the table as a human being.

And so I will now go on to a produce a list of my favourites with some explanations on the side.

Audrey Hepburn: She's probably my favourite. I've admired her for a long time (I guess most people hear about Audrey at some point in their lives). Without really knowing why, her name epitomised for me the words 'elegance', 'poise' and 'class'. I also knew of her iconic role in Breakfast at Tiffany's for quite a while before finally watching it--having only seen that picture of her in Tiffany's with a breakfast sprawled out in front of her and a cigar in her hand (I hadn't taken notice of that cigar until much later, yup I am not good at paying attention to detail), I thought that she was a young innocent teenager (opposed to the callgirl she actually plays-but it's due to Audrey's charm that even today people probably still can't believe the subtext of her character).

Audrey's not only a style icon and the personification of good breeding, but she's also a talented actress. I know that often she played similar characters (with Parisian backdrops and much older men opposite her), but sprinkled around her filmography are some standout characters. There's, of course, her Oscar-winning performance in Roman Holiday, showing audiences for the first time how charming, fun, quirky and moving she could be. There is also her performance as a nun in The Nun's Story, which Audrey tackled with hardwork and showed her character's anguishes and difficulties with repressing her spirit and adopting the role of a nun. Of course, there's Audrey's iconic Holly Golightly from Breakfast at Tiffany's, which apparently was the performance that Audrey was proud of because the character, being an extrovert, was so different to her own introversion. Other two performances I'd like to point out are: Audrey playing a blind woman in Wait Until Dark, a role she thoroughly researched for and played to conviction (apparently she was advised to wear sunglasses to make it obvious that her character was blind, but she refused, wanting her character's blindness to show from within); and in Two for the Road she played a woman whose marriage is chronicled through various stages: when they first meet, when they're in love and when their marriage is crumbling. In her role, Audrey was uninhibited, natural, full of fun and misery as her marriage fizzles out. Just about every film role Audrey she did, she seemed to tackle with much effort and professionalism. And even when the film is not terrific, you can still depend on her to be (one example for me is War and Peace--for the most part I thought it was boring and was dissatisfied, but I felt Audrey was full of spirit and joy and lifted the film up in the parts she was in).

Then there was the humanitarian aspect of Audrey. In her later years she worked for UNICEF in third world countries and you can see from footage of her just how much goodness she had. As I vaguely remember, her son (in his memoir of her) said that she believed in simplicity, and I think that can be seen in the way she seemed to live. She once said "I decided, very early on, just to accept life unconditionally; I never expected it to do anything special for me, yet I seemed to accomplish far more than I had ever hoped. Most of the time it just happened to me without my ever seeking it." She's an inspiration indeed.

Ok, so this turned out much longer than I thought it would, and I haven't even touched on other actresses yet. I might do that in another post then.

A Review: The Grapes of Wrath (1940)

2009-07-11T22:03:00.007+10:00

I saw this film for the first time today. I've wanted to see it for a while now, particularly for Henry Fonda's performance (which has been oftentimes considered one that should have won an Oscar--well, now I can say, Oscars aside, it was a great performance).

The Grapes of Wrath (1940) is based on John Steinbeck's novel of the same name which was published in 1939. The film chronicles the Joad family, who lose the rights to their Oklahoma farm and embark on a gruelling journey to California to find work. The film is set at the time of the Great Depression, during which starvation and suffering were widespread.

Coming into the film I didn't realise it was going to be as sad and moving as it was. Hardships strike the family through the film and because you're there every step of the way, you really find yourself indentifying with them. Even so, there's never any "cheap" attempts/devices at the audience's sympathy, the film shows things as they were (and still are in poverty-stricken places). The inspiring thing of the film is that it shows how strong the human spirit is. It also speaks out against injustice--people who are poor shouldn't be exploited and treated as secondary human beings, they have as much dignity as the next human being, and it's beautiful to see as Tom Joad (Henry Fonda's character) begins to realise he needs to fight for his rights.

The other thing that strikes me about the film is the cinematography. The landscape is captured so well, various shots are captured from interesting compositions and I also liked the lighting/use of shadows in different shots--all this adds to the film and to the feelings which one comes away with. Much of this should be credited to the director John Ford, who I haven't seen a great deal of films of, but he's someone who I'm becoming more curious about.

In a word, this film is fascinating. Its impact is still very much with me some seven or so hours after I've seen it.

Strawberry Fields Forever

2009-07-11T21:52:00.000+10:00

Just yesterday I somehow landed on Paul McCartney's imdb page (it was because on youtube I had seen a clip of him explaining the sorrow he felt after his wife Linda's death--which I had clicked on because Jerry Lewis also spoke in the clip, which featured a series of celebrities talking about sad times--ah, interesting isn't it how one thing leads to another?) and anyway, I then went to the pages of John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo Starr and voila, I ended up with a craving to hear Beatles songs. Some I'd already heard and loved (Yesterday, Girl, Yellow Submarine, Hey Jude, I Am the Walrus), but there was one that I had never heard before and that I now love a lot, which is Strawberry Fields Forever. It has this sort of dreamy feel, when I listen to it I feel like I'm floating and then gently sinking and floating again, or something like that. It has a nice melody and I like the singing (I think for the most part it has Paul McCartney's vocals?).

I don't quite have a favourite Beatle yet, but I feel like I have a soft spot for Ringo Starr, to me he seems a little like the oddball of the group (and he was the last to join too) and to boot, he plays the drums (I'm kind of fond of drum players). But they're all pretty cool huh? I really want to see their first film, A Hard Day's Night, which is apparently pretty good. I don't know where to find it though. Maybe it'll land on my lap one day...

Probably my favourite Beatles song--alas I haven't heard them all--is Yesterday. I think it's very beautiful, kind of ballad-y and kind of heartbreaking too. I also really love Across the Universe, another beautiful song with a kind of soothing, lullaby sound. Great band!

Who am I?

2009-07-11T21:40:00.000+10:00

So this is my first entry (--and it took me a while too, considering i've had this blog for about a month) and I thought I'd make into an introductory entry.

I'm a 19 year old uni student, but one who perhaps identifies more with the title 'film lover'. I also like music, particularly jazz and that form of rock/pop which bands like Coldplay subscribe to (how do you describe their sound?). Occasionally I read books, not quite as many as I used to, but a good book can still grab my attention once in a while (right now I'm trying to read Tess of the D'Ubervilles). Otherwise, I like hanging out with my friends, the Oddbottles--they make me happy and they're a quirky, unique bunch. And I love my family (woops, sorry to put them second).

I think I have an old soul, nothing in today's culture quite grabs me as much as the culture of the 30s,40s,50s and 60s. I love the fashion, sophistication, music etc of those times--I know the world wasn't all peachy keen jelly bean back then (for one there was the Great Depression of the 30s), so I guess I have a subjective love of the past. In a curious way though, I'm somewhat glad I didn't live in those times because I somehow think I wouldn't have understood what was special about it. I don't know, it's somehow more intriguing imagining the past than actually living it...

I feel like writing a lot right now, so you might actually see three or four or five more posts straight after this one. See you again in the next minute!