Wander Darkly.

Review #1662: Wander Darkly.

Cast: 

Sienna Miller (Adrienne), Diego Luna (Matteo), Beth Grant (Patty Healy), Aimee Carrero (Shea), Tory Kittles (Liam), and Vanessa Bayer (Maggie) Written and Directed by Tara Miele.

Review: 

“I think as humans, story is our deepest faith, right? Story is how we make sense of the world. And I do think at the end of the day, they have to meet in the middle in this place, right?"

You are probably wondering the same question that I had when I looked at it the first time: What? Who? I have to admit that this film figuratively came out of left field, as it is the latest beneficiary of timing and attracting interest on the shelf circuit (I said shelf circuit, not streaming circuit), and March seemed exactly right for this kind of movie. This also happens to be the first work of Tara Miele to reach a certain kind of attention, since it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in early 2020 (remember that year?); it serves as the fourth feature film for the Long Island native, as she had started her feature career with the indie film The Lake Effect (2010) after entering films with a couple of shorts (beginning with Miss Gentilbelle in 2000); she has also done some work in television. The impetus for this film came out of a car accident that Miele and her husband suffered several years ago (occurring during an argument with their kids in the car that left her with a concussion). She wanted to explore the parallels that come from one's perception after suffering an injury and the cycle of grief that all experience at some point in time. So basically, one is experiencing the fragility of life through narrative therapy that will involve flashbacks and dreams while one faces the truth about what it means to be alive.

I imagine there are two extremes one can fall into when thinking about the experience they had with the film: one will either find it to be an interesting look upon the fragility of life and memories that make for a surreal and soothing experience...or they simply will not care for its maneuvers into therapy that seems like a clunky gimmick for those who don't have the kind of patience for what it wants to say about things that might seem obvious. It really depends on just how much one goes with its existential question of what makes life worth living and all the wanderings that come from. For me, I thought it was an okay movie, because its main duo is the one sticking point that keeps things afloat when it comes to charisma in a film that practically wears "indie" on its sleeve. It aims for some sort of hope in the face of grief and manages to get a marginally useful experience out of it, in that it kept the attention going for 97 minutes without falling prey to all the clunky clichés of the surreal...in that it only gets to pick from the bag of tricks a few times, right down to trying to play with just who is exactly leading the other from the realm of the dead in a love story that I'm sure you've seen before and will see coming yet again. It is strange, because there are small moments that work much more handily in keeping one on the toes rather than the handful (i.e., hands and hands) of exchanges between Miller & Luna saying what is/what is not real in memory - consider a sequence involving our lead checking the baby in its cot, one that is not breathing or moving that alarms her before one realizes what exactly is up. At any rate, Miller and Luna are tasked with matching the other in naturalism that have distinct qualities that draw/repel each other. Miller sells it a bit better, one that expresses the doubts and fear that come from new-found purgatory nightmares that is quite captivating, wandering into terror with fair enough timing that drive the film, whether that means stuck by oneself or stuck wondering how she and Luna were ever a thing to begin with. As for Luna, he does well with what is given on the other side of the coin in terms of striking doubts and tense tenderness, and one could see the film from his perspective just as well as one could do with Miller without thinking either is overplaying their hand in drama or the inevitable argument of who seems more right (to which I shrug my shoulders). Grant and the others in the small cast play the moments with our main folks just fine with no puppetry required. The climax might prove the most interesting or the most "okay, sure" in terms of what it ends up doing in maneuvering the logical end-point for this procession of memories and grief and moving forward, which for me is mostly in the latter category - at least it isn't a complete cheat or something silly, because at the end of the day the movie wants one to end on a poignant moment and that I suppose is enough. At the end of the day, it is an okay movie, curious in its little moments spent with memory and grief that will stick with you if it connects with you after it ends or it will just pass on by with the curiosity of two decent actors to help lead it by - in that sense, being okay with a writer/director having their perspective told for a passion project is not a bad place to be.

And so we close Women's History Month. It was an interesting time trying to do fifteen reviews that would (in my mind) celebrate the month within female directors and stars, particularly in the differences that came out from era to era in perspective. As always, I hope you folks enjoyed this little series of reviews and I will see what will be done in the months ahead to keep up interest in what makes film so fun to write about.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Hustlers

Review #1661: Hustlers.

Cast:

Constance Wu (Destiny), Jennifer Lopez (Ramona Vega), Julia Stiles (Elizabeth), Keke Palmer (Mercedes), Lili Reinhart (Annabelle), Lizzo (Liz), Cardi B (Diamond), Mercedes Ruehl (Mama), Wai Ching Ho (Destiny's grandmother), Madeline Brewer (Dawn), Trace Lysette (Tracey), Mette Towley (Justice), Frank Whaley (Reese), Paul Nielsen (Detective Hunter), Brandon Keener (Alpha), and Steven Boyer (Doug) Written and Directed by Lorene Scafaria.

Review:

"There’s a responsibility to the truth and what really happened, and it’s not a black and white story, after all.”

Time is an important thing to think about when it comes to a film and its story. After all, it has only been two years since the release of this film, but one wonders how much it will be remembered, much less the person behind it with Lorene Scafaria, fresh off her third feature film (well, two years is still fresh, in this decade...). The New Jersey native was interested in writing from a young age; in fourth grade, for example, she would find interest in "inventing" a book to write a report on in order to win free pizza for those who read the most books (with ensuing reports) - by high school, she would become interested in acting and writing her own plays (inspired by playwrights such as David Mamet) and fiction, for which she would write her first play at 17. She studied for a year at Lafayette College (where she briefly honed time to be involved with plays) before tuition troubles led her to transfer to Montclair State University, for which she studied in English that focused on playwriting and fiction. Prior to entering directing, she had been involved with acting alongside writing for theater productions before entering film with a screenplay adaptation in Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008), and Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012) was her feature debut. The film is inspired by the article "The Hustlers at Scores", which was written by Jessica Pressler in 2015 based on true events that had an interview from Roselyn Keo (the operator of the business end of targeting wealthy clients) that led to jail-time for two workers and probation for others involving substances and stolen money, which involved conspiracy, grand larceny, assault and forgery (incidentally, one of the ringleaders ended up writing a book about their experiences). Not long after its publication, the rights to make the film were acquired by Gloria Sanchez Productions (with Jessica Elbaum, Will Ferrell and Adam McKay serving as producers, alongside others that joined later like Lopez). Scafaria was attracted by the article in the "fascinating friendship story at its core", complete with the perspective of the article writer involved alongside the subject at hand. When Scafaria had finished the script in 2017, she was not exactly the first one in mind to direct the feature, with producers initially seeking out directors that were familiar with the type of genre the script fell into, which included asking Martin Scorsese (who declined) and thoughts about Adam McKay (who served as one of the producers of the film) - it took a sizzle reel created by Scafaria alongside editor Kayla Emter to help convince the producers to have Scafaria be the director.

Perhaps it should not be surprising that it took some time to attract attention from studios to get the film made, as they could see the commercial value but had un-comfortability with the subject matter (as if one needs to make sure that the marks have to also all be worthy of being so, despite the fact that the film is playing by the beats of an article), in addition to the judgement shared of the profession at hand (not reporting the terrible things that have happened to them is a different story), and the article itself started out by describing those folks as "(mostly) rich, (usually) disgusting, (in their minds) pathetic men" - basically, it is a film of supply and demand. The film has its touches that might make one think of a modern-day Robin Hood tale or (indirectly) Goodfellas (1990). With films like The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) and The Big Short (2015), perhaps one really does in an age of scammer-infused curiosity for entertainment. Consider the perspective of Kao, who in an interview about her life after ending the hustle, stated "I think a lot of women are rooting for me even though I was wrong.” (conversely, two of the women involved with the scheme want nothing to do with the limelight while the other sued the filmmakers for defamation - she lost, naturally). Oh sure, the music also probably plays a small part in the interest, since Scafaria intended it to help tell the story that would range from Janet Jackson to Bob Seger (naturally, the musical inclinations will differ for some, since I dig "Night Moves" more than anything). In the end, what matters most is what you get out of the experience) when it comes to a story with a perspective that is not usually told often - in that sense, it makes for a fine movie. It never quite reaches any major heights beyond a few clever moments within the crime angle and occasional charm, but there is an undeniable allure to the performances that come out within the main quartet that make for a dazzling curiosity with its look upon a world that might have people as mercenary as the folks on Wall Street that they ended up dealing with. Wu, best known for her starring roles in Fresh Off the Boat (2015–2020) and Crazy Rich Asians (2018), manages to hold pretty well to drawing one in as the focus without being lost in the lights and the other noted names behind her, having a carefully controlled sense of confidence that leads the story along with care. Lopez is of course the other side of the leading coin, and she delivers quite well on a captivating performance, one that dazzles in ruthless charm that strings the viewer with interest from the very first scene she is in (a dance scene, perhaps fittingly), and it is clear to see why she was Scafaria's first choice for the role, since she walks right through it with ease in amorality. Honestly, my quibble doesn't exist with Stiles but rather just my disagreement with the need for the journalist to be included as part of the story in the first place - it's an okay performance, mostly just there for little moments with Wu probing about the events that happened, but it just never really clicks to anything other than one just nodding their head (while trying to not drone the inevitable "X didn't do that in its crime story" statement in my head). Palmer and Reinhart finish the main group just fine, while cameos from folks such as Lizzo and Ruehl serve the film in atmosphere well enough. At any rate, it was interesting to have the article on hand (for research) to see what ended up being used anyway, for which there are quite a handful of excerpts that are shown for the film that prove fairly accurate, such as the man who liked one of the girls because of pretty penmanship and is then called out of the blue years later by our main lead (as part of a "Get Money" list), the listing of where the money goes when it comes to pay for the workers (minus expenses for the DJ, etc...), and even the events with a sympathetic unlucky client (who had a recording!) that starts a case against the girls that is accentuated by further tabloid cases of others (such as a cardiologist who apparently had a $130,000 bill from four trips to a club that did not want to pay). In any case, 110 minutes is just enough to keep the crime story fairly interesting, wrapped with a bit of introspection about the nature of the con at hand and the drive for more in a scenario that practically (but not literally) invited it. It never wavers on itself for too long to collapse, making for interesting entertainment that will attract those who seek a fair crime story with a distinct perspective and style to go with it to make for a good time.

Next Time: For the last film of the month, we reach the new decade with Wander Darkly.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars

The Savages.

Review #1660: The Savages.

Cast: 

Laura Linney (Wendy Savage), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Jon Savage), Philip Bosco (Lenny Savage), Peter Friedman (Larry), Guy Boyd (Bill Lachman), Debra Monk (Nancy Lachman), Margo Martindale (Roz), Rosemary Murphy (Doris Metzger), David Zayas (Eduardo), and Gbenga Akinnagbe (Jimmy) Written and Directed by Tamara Jenkins.

Review: 

“It was something that was happening all around me and at first I was scared to write about it. It’s an intimidating subject, but ultimately, I think The Savages is a story that is not just about confronting death but really also about seizing upon your life, even in the smallest of ways.”

Sometimes you just have to laugh with the pain. Tamara Jenkins was born in Philadelphia but was raised in California by her divorced father, and some of those experiences would take root in her first feature film with Slums of Beverly Hills (1998). At any rate, Jenkins first studied film with the Tisch School of the Arts at New York University after moving to the state to perform in various productions in the theater. Fugitive Love (1991) was her first short film, which received some buzz on the festival circuit (such as Sundance), and further work followed within public television (including a Guggenheim grant) alongside subsequent short films before getting the chance to make a feature. Nine years followed from her debut film, owing to her attempts at a failed screenplay and time spent with minor theater work; Jenkins would hone the script for the film over the course of a few years, for which it came out of one initial scene that she came up with involving a phone conversation between the two main characters that dealt with their divide as siblings - she has described the first draft as being 200 pages, with honing down coming in the subsequent stages. For the script, Jenkins utilized her experiences spent with her father and grandmother, who each had dementia and lived in nursing homes (it is not, however, a "strict memoir", as she put it). The film was shot in New York and Arizona over the course of 30 days and turned out to be a fair success for all involved, with Jenkins and Linney at the forefront of attention.

Undeniably, it isn't the easiest film to get into, probably because of the inexcusable fact that there is a certain type of people who just won't want to see folks that look like harsh husks of people in their personal lives deal with the inescapability of handling someone close to them die. But one can't escape the immeasurable talent provided by Linney and Hoffman to these roles that seem like yin and yang, and one cannot escape Jenkins in her accomplishment of a black comedy-drama about two folks that have to come together of what the past made them in the present in their issues that make for a tenderly human tale - imperfect, but aware enough to prove worthwhile to wince through. It is a film that takes its microscope to the human experience in a path we all have to face: growing old and seeing what we have become to those around us (and vice versa), whether that means as someone with emotional damage packed with them or with other characteristics that don't fit the usual mold that come from film involving death in its own way. It seemed fairly familiar to me, since my father had to deal with being cared for by others after having problems with both his hip and subsequently his leg and speech (which sticks with me even now, nearly nine years later). We all deal with care-taking and grief differently, but it is the fact that we have to deal with it at all that makes us human, and it just isn't something that can be solved so easily, modern sensibilities be damned (whether that means mediocre jobs, flings or whatever floats the boat of coping with dysfunction). It will prove rewarding for those who buy into what it says about the bonds of family within a bit of laughter in pain, for which I found it to be a pretty good one to sit for 113 minutes, right down to its stark contrasts that range from Sun City to Buffalo in terms of settings to see these people interact with (no guesses for which I might prefer to visit one day). Of the main duo, it is Linney we gravitate to in terms of seeing a person in turmoil, stuck in a middling rut that Linney pays wonderfully, mostly because she taps into the guilt and self-absorption that we can see in oneself without any mistimed notes or any tries at maudlin moments. Hoffman proves just as adept in a task in playing the flaws to what one can expect from an actor who specialized in distinct performances and never makes it seem like a copy, and the banter he shares with Linney in adjustment within life/death hit that delicate line of curiosity in tender mercy. Bosco had a mix of roles in television, stage, and film from 1953 to 2010, and this was his best-known and last film role prior to his death in 2018. Acting as the curmudgeon that shaped Linney and Hoffman in the family trio, he does pretty well with the material, managing to not waver in the balance of short temper and rapid descent in health without becoming an object of pity or simple scorn, reflecting the film's interest in character-driven drama with complexity that have no simple solutions or easy goodbyes (the best scene with the three of them, naturally, is the one where he berates them when they meekly ask him about arrangements for death). Friedman accompanies Linney at times with casual offbeat favor that makes for a few chuckles while Akinnagbe ends up being the last little key of interest with a bit of insight that connects with Linney for a time. Ultimately, we have a film of responsibility and obligation, where working on one's flaws are no easy feat to go alongside the most inevitable quality of all: getting older and confronting how one was shaped by the past around them, which generally results in a wincing chuckle that will prove rewarding enough for those who care for that sort of thing.

Next Time: Near the homestretch, it's time for Hustlers (2019).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Clueless.

Review #1659: Clueless.

Cast: 

Alicia Silverstone (Cher Horowitz), Stacey Dash (Dionne Davenport), Brittany Murphy (Tai Frasier), Paul Rudd (Josh Lucas), Dan Hedaya (Melvin "Mel" Horowitz), Elisa Donovan (Amber Mariens), Justin Walker (Christian Stovitz), Wallace Shawn (Mr. Wendell Hall), Twink Caplan (Ms. Toby Geist), Julie Brown (Coach Millie Stoeger), Donald Faison (Murray Duvall), Breckin Meyer (Travis Birkenstock), and Jeremy Sisto (Elton Tiscia) Written and Directed by Amy Heckerling (#982 - Fast Times at Ridgemont High and #1060 - National Lampoon's European Vacation)

Review: 

"I was writing a character that I thought was the very opposite of myself, a character that was really happy and if there was any negative criticism, she just didn’t take it seriously because she had confidence, and if her father was angry she thought he was just being cute. So I ran with that and just looked for sources of happy characters to get inspiration from. The two big things, of course, were Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and Emma."

It is interesting to note the comedic career of Amy Heckerling, one with nine films to her credit that have had their range of successes more so than misses. The New York University and the American Film Institute graduate had attracted interest upon making short films while studying at the latter that invited Universal Pictures to want her on board for what became her debut in Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982). Most of her films fall under the category comedy in some way, such as the Look Who's Talking series (for which she directed the first two) that resulted in some success while others like Johnny Dangerously (1984) and Vamps (2012) have seen more mixed favor. It all started with the idea to make a television series about teenagers. Specifically, 20th Century Fox wanted Heckerling to make one about the "in-crowd", and so Heckerling felt she could make one about making fun of. At any rate, 20th Century Fox would not through with the idea for either a show or a film, with one complaint reportedly that that there was one too many women in the script (they also had a quibble with ex-stepsiblings falling for each other); it was producer Scott Rudin that helped get the film moving, as he liked the script enough to inspire a bidding war, for which Paramount Pictures won the rights that would help get production started. A television series would be developed by Heckerling, which she wrote/directed four of the first nine episodes for upon its premiere on ABC in 1996; the show featured Dash, Faison, Donovan, Caplan, and Shawn in their roles from the film while the series lasted three seasons. A series of teen novels and a stage musical have also happened, with the latter being written by Heckerling. The connection to Jane Austen's 1815 novel Emma is an interesting one: when Heckerling had started on the script, she aimed to do one about a girl packed with optimism that ended up resembling Emma (which she read in college and re-read again), so essentially one can called it an inspired rendition that happens to take place in Beverly Hills, complete with characters similar to main ones in the book.

25 years later, the film was a fair hit with audiences, no doubt having a legacy that extends beyond its slang and career-making turns for its stars, whether that means "keeping it real" or other various segments that make for some charming moments. It certainly achieves what it wants to do in making a sweet little comedy with an edge for balancing its characters to where they aren't being used as just the butt of jokes or being just a bunch of privileged weird folk. Beyond being an entertaining piece for the 1990s, it manages to grow the mold of the teenager films that came before with snappy patience and style that still evokes interest after all these years for all the right reasons (and the fact that the film gets away with age is quite relevant: Dash was actually two years older than Rudd, and the latter was a 26-year old playing a college student).  Silverstone was a model that had started acting with television before landing her first film role with The Crush (1993), which helped with being featured in a trilogy of music videos for Aerosmith; it was these video performances that led Heckerling to cast her, the sibling of two British parents raised in California She manages to play the role with a great balance of sincerity and amusement that is unwavering in charm, never grating in all of that optimism because of she waves it off with confidence (whether in stoking love for others or learning to drive). Dash accompanies her with well-off enthusiasm, bright and amusing in those interactions spent with Faison that make quite a pair. Murphy, in her second film role, manages to do so well in showing a bright disposition that grows through the film with no wavering or a false "cutesy" note. This happens to be the film debut of Rudd (although technically Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers was actually filmed first) - he counters the idealism of Silverstone with clear amusement in irreverence that make for a clear pairing despite those initial differences that you see before it resolves itself well enough. Hedaya plays the role with a mix of amusement in tough-guy patriarch that nevertheless resonates with Silverstone for sweet resonance. Others do well in smaller emphasis, such as the retro-disposition in Walker or calm foils in Shawn and Caplan or the aforementioned Faison. Ultimately, 97 minutes go just fine with a film detailing the amusement that can come from teenaged lives that deal in materialism with sly insight for romance that still stands tall for itself in clues then as now.

Next Time: The Savages (2007).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Daughters of the Dust.

Review #1658: Daughters of the Dust.

Cast: 

Cora Lee Day (Nana Peazant), Adisa Anderson (Eli Peazant), Alva Rogers (Eula Peazant), Kay-Lynn Warren (Unborn Child / Narrator), Kaycee Moore (Haagar Peazant), Cheryl Lynn Bruce (Viola Peazant), Tommy Hicks (Mr. Snead), Bahni Turpin (Iona Peazant), M. Cochise Anderson (St. Julien Lastchild), Barbara-O (Yellow Mary), Trula Hoosier (Trula), Umar Abdurrahman (Bilal Muhammad), and Cornell Royal ("Daddy Mac" Peazant) Written and Directed by Julie Dash.

Review: 

“I decided to let the story unravel itself in a way in which an African griot would tell the story, since that’s part of our tradition. So the story kind of unfolds throughout this day and a half, in various vignettes. It unfolds, comes back, it unfolds and it comes back.”

The first and easiest thing to say is that Daughters of the Dust was the first theatrical film by an African American woman to gain a wide release. The director for the film is Julie Dash, a native New Yorker that had a father with a Gullah background (having immigrated from the Sea Islands of Georgia, which she referred to as "our Ellis Island"). She entered the world of study with the Studio Museum of Harlem (where she discovered her love of cinema with films such as Sergei Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin) before going on to the City College of New York. She studied psychology for a time before being accepted into the college's film school. She would graduated with a degree in Film Production in 1974 and move on to Los Angeles for further work, which included UCLA Film School (owing to her and other fellow directors who studied there at the time, she is generally referred to being part of the "L.A. Rebellion" film movement, although she has described it as merely "a cute little name"). She was influenced by numerous genres in cinema that ranged from the avant-garde to Russian cinema that wanted to push the envelope of visual storytelling; discovering authors like Alice Walker influenced her away from documentaries and into making narrative films. Her first short came with the experimental piece Four Women (1975), which explored stereotypes alongside a "choreopoem" dance performance. Dash continued with shorts such as Illusions (1982), which dealt with racial discrimination with the workplace in Hollywood in the 1940s for color and gender. She would also spend time directing for music videos, but the dream of a feature film with her at the helm would only come around before she would turn 40 (after she and Arthur Jafa helped make a short film to drum up interest). Daughters of the Dust, released 30 years ago this year, has proven to be the only theatrical film that Dash has directed, as she once stated that "Hollywood and mainstream television are still not quite open to what I have to offer", with one calling her film a fluke despite it attracting crowds. In any case, she has continued work in shorts alongside television to this very day, a career of nearly a half-century that includes a novel that serves as a sequel to this film and a "making-of" book of the film while also serving as a teacher for film at Morehouse College and Howard University. It has endured in the three decades that has followed its release, ranging from preservation with the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress to having an influence on visual albums like Lemonade.

The film was inspired by her father's background that she had initially thought of to do for a film in 1975. Thirteen years later, she received financing to make a feature film with the help of PBS' American Playhouse, and the feature would ultimately be made on a budget of $800,000. Considerable time would be spent in making it a worthy period piece fitting 1902 within furniture and fabrics alongside teaching the actors about the Gullah's Creole language (such as bringing in culinary anthropologist Vertamae Grosvenor with her background in the language). The main sticking point is one that will either attract you or turn you away: it is a dream-like film that runs at 112 minutes but feels like 18, complete with usage of the Gullah language (also referred to as Gullah-English, Sea Island Creole English, and Geechee, which has an estimated usage by over 5,000 people in the island regions of South Carolina and Georgia) at times that fits the story that Dash wanted to tell for nearly two decades. You either will connect with its resonating feelings involving separation or you won't - in that case, I thought it was fine. If it had been told by a different filmmaker, one who wasn't absorbed in the material involving migration and the divide between spirituality and beyond, it most certainly would have been a devastating bore. It only makes sense to try to make a distinct movie about the culture of the Gullah, one who had their own distinct African American culture. For those who desire what it yearns to show about the way of life without compromise - in other words, those who buy into what it yearns to say in the visual sense without an easy narrative will fit right at home here. I can't necessarily say it is a great film, mostly because it works to a point in terms of meaningful payoff and also because it really is just fine - distinct, but fine is a good word to go with when talking about something that has its distinct place within independent and women's cinema. The actors do their part in playing to the immersion factor of a time long ago that start with Day and her gripping presence, one that carries the spirit of the past with nothing wasted. Anderson and Rogers play the struggle in family life fairly alright while Warren narrates the film as one would expect from a narrative that jumps around from time to time being told by a youth (whose character isn't born...yet). The rest are fine, and no one really blends too much into the background when it comes to those little moments that jump at you, such as the final moments spent on the island with the family as one whole. One thing that certainly shines as well is the look of the film, one that is quite striking in crispness that invites the viewer in to an interesting moment with Arthur Jafa (who also served as a producer) deserving the credit in his cinematography. At any rate, while the film is certainly a different kind of experience in terms of period piece family drama, it has a welcome place for those who seek perspective on a culture and the folks that lived (and in spirit still live) in those days of yesteryear that will work for those who have the patience and appreciation for what it yearns to say from a director that deserved better.

Next Time: Clueless.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Decline of Western Civilization.

Review #1657: The Decline of Western Civilization.

Cast: 

Featuring the bands Black Flag [Ron Reyes, Robo, Chuck Dukowski, Greg Ginn], Germs [Darby Crash, Pat Smear, Lorna Doom, Don Bolles], Catholic Discipline [Claude Bessy, Robert Lopez, Phranc, Craig Lee, Rick Brodey], X [John Doe, Exene Cervenka, Billy Zoom, D.J. Bonebrake], Circle Jerks [Keith Morris, Roger Rogerson, Lucky Lehrer, Greg Hetson], Alice Bag Band [Alice Bag, Terry Graham, Rob Ritter, Craig Lee], and Fear [Lee Ving, Spit Stix, Derf Scratch, Philo Cramer], with Brendan Mullen, Bob Biggs, Philomena Whinstanley, Chris D, and Wayne Mayotte. Produced and Directed by Penelope Spheeris (#238 - The Little Rascals, #806 - Wayne's World, #1019 - Dudes)

Review: 

“You get to a certain age and you go, ‘OK, what is my identity?’ My identity is The Decline of Western Civilization. It’s not Wayne’s World or any of those other movies I did.”

Penelope Spheeris managed to hone her interests in music and film into an interesting career that spanned three decades and attracted attention for what she did with her vision of filmmaking. Spheeris was the daughter of a carnival operator, who would move the family across Louisiana through the South, but her father's death in a dispute (the elder Spheeris saw someone being beaten with a cane but was shot when defending them). Subsequently, she would live with her mother in California within trailer parks, and she would use music to (as she once put it) “get my head out of the bummer that my life was", although cinema would also prove an escape as well. She studied art at California State University (Long Beach) before being influenced to change course and study psychobiology at the University of California, Irvine. Hearing about a film school in the University of California in Los Angeles, she decided to change schools again, for which she would use money earned from work as a waitress to put herself through UCLA Film School; she would start making her first shorts in 1968 while graduating from the school with a major in film in the 1970s. She formed the first company dedicated to filming music videos in the city of Los Angeles in 1974 with Rock 'n Reel. Spheeris made her first effort in the film industry through serving as producer of the first film done by Albert Brooks with Real Life (1979). She had first connected with Brooks through serving as producer for some short subjects that featured him as director/writer/star, which were featured through the first season of Saturday Night Live (1975-76). Ultimately, Spheeris has directed eleven feature films and seven documentaries through a career of music and comedies, with mixed results in audiences and with time spent with the studio system. When it comes to this film, it makes sense that Spheeris would cross music within the world of filmmaking. While visting clubs around southern California like Club 88, she found interest in the burgeoning wave of punk music enough to want to document it because of what she found so interesting - she found her reason was the same for the metal scene, in that one could express frustration and anger at the same time with it. This would be the first of three films that Spheeris would do involving the music scene in Los Angeles: Part II: The Metal Years (1988) featured the heavy metal scene with a mix of noted artists in the genre like Ozzy Osbourne and others such as W.A.S.P., while Part III (1998) involved the punks living in poverty (predictably, the latter was less popular with distributors, who would only want to release if it Spheeris gave up the rights to the first two films) - an ironic title became a self-fulfilling prophetic trilogy (incidentally, the success of the second film would lead to the offer to direct Wayne's World (1992), which proved a blessing a curse in terms of putting her into the mainstream). It was only in 2015 that one could see the films on media besides VHS, owing to Spheeris' reluctance to revisit her films, until she was spurred to by her daughter.

The film was shot over the course of six months from December 1979 to May 1980. Four decades have passed since its release, but one certainly can see how prescient the film has been in terms of its visceral insight into what makes music and its fans tick - this balance of time could even have been seen from the time it was released in 1981. By that point, Darby Clash (who is featured on the cover as lead singer of the Germs) had died, three of the bands had already disbanded (Bags, Catholic Discipline, and Germs - although the latter would reunite decades later), while others would persist on with their own levels of varying influence such as Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Fear, and X (who, I truthfully admit I know for exactly one song, which was their cover of "Wild Thing" for one of my favorite baseball movies, Major League). Obviously, folks in the scene liked what they saw - one premiere showing attracted hundreds of punks that led to a raucous display with police and a letter to Spheeris to never show it in the city again - that city was Los Angeles. If Spheeris had to be remembered for just one film, this film most certainly serves as a crowning achievement to talk about, particularly in its portrayal of a time and place that has never looked so far from our memory and yet still seem so relevant now. It is a chaotic affair, featuring the hectic lives and philosophies (in some way) of seven bands alongside shots of the folks around the emotions expressed in those loud moments spent in the lights (there also are a few moments spent within the perspective of Slash, a fanzine dedicated to punk that ran from 1977-1980 that Bob Biggs developed alongside Slash Records to specialize in punk rock). Some of the folks stand out more so than others, moving from point to point with moments that start with living in an abandoned church and sleeping in tight spaces or a candid conversation with Crash that plays in contrast to the wild persona on stage, or Bussy and his distinct rebel voice as a journalist/singer, or even folks playing guitar like Zoom (with his wide-leg stance and grin). By the time one closes with Fear and their confrontational style with the audience (complete with storming the stage), one has fully absorbed all the chaos with satisfaction. When it comes to having a good time with nihilism and a punk spirit that never reaches hagiography or seems too distant for anyone with good sense to check into; it is a music movie that to put it mildly doesn't give a fuck what one thinks, a punk winner for those who embrace the chaos.

Next Time: Daughters of the Dust (1991)

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Harlan County, USA.

Review #1656: Harlan County, USA.

Cast:

Featuring Lois Scott, Basil Collins, Nimrod Workman, John L. Lewis (UMW President), Carl Horn (Duke Power Company President), Norman Yarborough (Eastover Mining Company President), Logan Patterson (Chief Negotiator), Houston Elmore (UMW Organizer), Phil Sparks (UMW Staff), John Corcoran (Consolidated Coal President), John O'Leary (Former Director of Bureau of Mines), Dr. Donald Rasmussen (Black Lung Clinic of West Virginia), Dr. Hawley Wells Jr, Tony Boyle (UMW President), Joseph Yablonski, Chip Yablonski, Ken Yablonksi, and Arnold Miller. Directed and Produced by Barbara Kopple.

Review:

"It also sharpened my determination to continue in my profession as a filmmaker. And it’s more than a profession. It’s a lifelong quest to be able to tell stories about people who you respect, and who are your heroes."

When it comes to cinéma vérité, Barbara Kopple has managed to cultivate a lengthy career in documenting people in the moment. The native New Yorker grew up in a co-op vegetable farm, and she would study psychology at Northeastern University before shifting her interest to film, having seen protests during college relating to the Vietnam War (she has described herself as political first, then as a filmmaker). She decided to attend the School of Visual Arts, and it was there that she met David and Albert Maysles, as they needed help with a film. They proved her biggest influence, one who treated her as an equal as part of a filmmaking "family". She would do work for them in the camera department for Salesman (1969) and Gimme Shelter (1970). Influenced by filmmakers such as the Maysles brothers and D.A. Pennebaker, she wanted to make intimate films that would watch their subject (much as one might see in something like Don't Look Back (1967), for example). She was part of the Winterfilm Collective that helped to direct Winter Soldier (1972), alongside several filmmakers (such as David Grubin) that served as her first feature effort. It was a portrayal of soldiers returning from the Vietnam War with regards to viewing/participating in war crimes that referred to the investigation of the same name that took place in Detroit, Michigan (the investigation, like the film, would generally not see as much attention outside Detroit, although obviously time has been different for each). She has continued on with filmmaking for nearly a half-century, revolving from documentaries of current issues to portraits of artists to episodes in television.

One can tell the time it took by the fact that one of the title-cards talk about industrial action in 1973 (involving Harlan, naturally). Keep in mind, in the time it took from Kopple's initial idea to do a film (with $12,000 initially raised) about the fight to get control of the UMW from its tough boss Tony Boyle...who ended up going to prison after having hired a hitman to kill his competition in 1969. Of course, the story really goes back to the 1930s, within previous strife between locals and bosses in "Bloody" Harlan that practically operated towns like that one. The film touches upon events outside its own area as well, talking about the Farmington Mine and the disaster that occurred on November 20, 1968 that had dozens of miners perish in the small towns of West Virginia. Kopple worked on this film for four years, which included living with subjects on-and-off for that time in order to gain trust, and it was made on a budget of $300,000 that had to be scrounged by Kopple in odd jobs whenever in New York (she would also serve as the sound person for this film); Kopple and the crew would experience their share of danger during filming (a scene is shown of them being attacked by goons in the night time, remember), but the presence of the crew has been thought of as a form of security by the strikers (because who is going to commit a crime on camera?). It still seems prevalent now for the town, since there was a standoff between miners and a coal train in 2019 over disputed pay.

So, what we have here is a portrayal of a struggle in community with labor. There are few interviews and no voiceovers to be found here, as we have a film that does not flinch at what it wants to depict about trouble in a small town. It goes where it wants to go in direct cinema that be comprised of a few sentences: a strike that lasted 13 months. A time capsule of a time long ago in Kentucky that might as well be anywhere with a town built on industry and hard work. A line of work that requires sacrifice to one's mind and body that could prove dangerous. A confrontation between scabs and workers that lead to danger all around. Division all around in terms of leadership that make for contentious moments everywhere. Galvanizing support for their fellow folks to the picket line, complete with someone pulling a gun from their clothes. You get a feel for these folks because you can see a little bit of oneself in the pursuit of a better life, really. Of course, the real sticking part is the songs that are sung in the film, as they capture the culture of the people that live there, most notably with writer/singers Hazel Dickens, Merle Travis, and David Morris (the song "Which Side Are You On?" was a noted song about the town since 1931 that has had numerous cover renditions). In other words, one finds themselves paying attention to the sounds they hear as close as they can, such as hearing about Lois Scott (who would live up to the age of 74) and her attempts to rally the women to support their miners while brandishing a weapon to move for protection. It makes for an interesting 103 minutes to sit through, racked with the gamut in moods that range from tension to persistence that all of us can see in our fundamental being. It is as direct as it can be without losing the story. At any rate, there are no easy endings when it comes to the fight for a proper life in the line of work, particularly when it comes to meetings and broken promises and the ever growing hand of wants and needs that reflect now more than ever after over 40 years since the release of the film. One will take the side they want to take when it comes to this particular vision, but one can not resist its perspective with heart to spare. When it comes to documentaries, this Academy Award winner manages to tell a worthwhile story that connects with its audience in its sights and sounds that make it a prime effort for its field and its director.

Next Time: The first feature-length effort from Penelope Spheeris with The Decline of Western Civilization (1981).

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Daisies.

Review #1655: Daisies [Sedmikrásky]

Cast:

Jitka Cerhová (Marie I), Ivana Karbanová (Marie II), Marie Cešková (Woman in the bathroom), Jirina Myšková (Toilet lady), Marcela Brezinová (Toilet lady), Julius Albert (Older dandy), Oldrich Hora (Dandy), Jan Klusák (Young dandy), Josef Konícek (Dancer), and Jaromír Vomácka (Happy gentleman) Directed by Vera Chytilová.

Review:

“If there’s something you don’t like, don’t keep to the rules—break them. I’m an enemy of stupidity and simplemindedness in both men and women, and I have rid my living space of these traits."

Whether dealing with off-kilter youths or surrealism, the Czechoslovak New Wave certainly had a great flash of absurdity to burn bright with the directors that came with it, and Vera Chytilová found herself as one of the key players despite having only made her first feature film at the age of 34. Born in Ostrava, she had initially studied in philosophy and architecture while in college, but she decided to abandon those fields for further pursuits. She would work a variety of fields such as in modeling before having her first film job with clapper girl for Barrandov Film Studios that would help her find her passion to want to become a filmmaker. Later, she was accepted into the Film and TV School of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague (FAMU) and graduated in 1962. Her short films received a bit of notice, but Something Different [O necem jiném] (1963) was a well-noted feature debut for Chytilova; the film balanced two narratives, one involving a fictional housewife and the other involving medalist Eva Bosáková involving human endeavors and their meaning in fulfilling oneself. Her next effort was the segment "At the World Cafeteria [Automat Svet]" for the anthology Pearls of the Deep [Perlicky na dne] (1966), and this feature film would be released shortly after that. As one might guess, this film did not find favor within certain sectors of civic service, with one describing it as "depicting the wanton", as leaders in the country did not take kindly to avant-garde fare that was felt to be a waste of funds along with not holding to their ideals. At any rate, audiences around Europe liked what they saw (not so much in America, but who's counting?), ranking as the highlight of her career; however, her career would be hindered by censorship troubles within civic sectors in 1968, but she would keep busy within filming commercials before getting to return to work within films and documentaries, doing so until her death in 2014. She wrote the story for this film along with co-writing the screenplay with Ester Krumbachová and Pavel Jurácek.

What is the best way to describe the film? How about we just use the words used by Chytilova: "a necrologue about a negative way of life.” She wanted to make a film with its own style that dared to go against the usual form, complete with changes in color throughout its 75 minute run-time (going all across the spectrum) with two characters named Marie (distinguished by Karbanová wearing a crown of flowers) that freewheel their way through whatever happens to them. Of course, she also once called it a morality play involving evil having potential roots within the malicious pranks of everyday life (as opposed to just destruction of war), where the youth is at their most fufilled to create...or destroy. It can and has been interpreted as a statement in terms of Dadaist or feminism, but it is up to the viewer to let the film speak for itself. Consider its opening sequence (or at least the one after footage of flywheels and airplane footage) and the initial conversation when it comes to the world and being rotten among a rotten world, or perhaps its closing statement in dedicating it to those who are upset only over "a stomped-upon bed of lettuce." (incidentally, the food destruction scene did not exactly please those in power). One can muse all they want about what it means to be good and hardworking to go alongside being happy, or how resolutions are not necessarily going to be clean ones. In that sense, one can not help but think of Luis Buñuel's Un Chien Andalou (1929), which ends up being quite a compliment. Undeniably, the highlight is the nourishment scene with a feast found by our main duo that they make a mess of. The nightclub scene proved a worthy take on anarchic amusement, but the feast plays its farce with excellent decadence, which naturally ends with them wearing what looks like paper-mache. Mayhem never seemed so fascinating, but with tinting and color changes to go with certain shots and cuts it does all the wonders for curious enjoyment, and the funny thing is that our two main actors weren't even professionals - Karbanova was a salesclerk and Cerhova was a student. They do quite well for what needs to happen in improvisation and mayhem in the style of freed puppets that do as they please for a film that never needs to put them in a sympathetic light; they make it all count for amusement in their antics of farce. The others do their part to act within the quirks exhibited by the duo that can range from smug to blathering for great effect. At 74 minutes, one certainly can find the time to see the film and see for themselves where the line goes in farce and philosophy in a bold free-formed kind of movie for those who seek narrative and visionary mayhem. A half century has only furthered the understanding of a film that has farce mixed into philosophy involving destruction that has made an intense curiosity in world cinema for those who seek it.

Next Time: We've reached the middle point of our theme month, so let's cover a documentary with Harlan County, USA.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Blood Bath.

Review #1654: Blood Bath.

Cast:

William Campbell (Antonio Sordi), Karl Schanzer (Max), Lori Saunders (Dorian / Meliza), Sandra Knight (Donna Allen), Marissa Mathes (Daisy Allen), Sid Haig (The Tall Beatnik), Jonathan Haze (A Beatnik), Fred Thompson (Another Beatnik), Biff Elliot (Cafe Manager), and David Ackles (Carousel Operator) Written and Directed by Jack Hill and Stephanie Rothman.

Review:

What we have here is an interesting tale of two directors, each in their own beginnings of filmmaking. Born in New Jersey but raised in California, Stephanie Rothman did study in sociology with the University of California (Berkeley), but her focus to film came with a viewing of The Seventh Seal (1957). She subsequently did study with the University of Southern California in filmmaking, and she would earn a fellowship by the Directors Guild of America with her student film directing. She was hired by Roger Corman in 1964 to work as his assistant, and she would do a variety of tasks on films that could range from writing new scenes to final cut edits that had to be done on a set time and budget. Corman was ultimately the first and only mentor she would have when it came to filmmaking. Rothman would direct her first solo effort with It's a Bikini World (1967, although shot two years earlier) and follow it up with five further films in the next few years; her most noted film was The Student Nurses (1970), which ended up inspiring New World Pictures to make subsequent efforts within depicting nurses. Rothman's career stalled in 1974. Although she tried to find work within television and script treatments with her husband, no sales resulted from these efforts (her work in exploitation, which gave her a chance to direct, ended up as a stigma against her when trying to do work away from it). A decade of languishing misses and rejection of going back to exploitation led to her retirement, although she did find work to live on within real estate investment. On the other side, California native Jack Hill started an interest in film within study at UCLA's film school. One of his mentors would be Dorothy Arzner, and one of his classmates was Francis Ford Coppola, incidentally. Hill did a variety of side-work in his rise to the industry with Roger Corman that ranged from editing to contribution within writing/directing, such as shooting a 20-minute prologue to a TV version of The Wasp Woman (1959) or doing re-writes/direction for The Terror (1963). Hill made his formal directing debut with Mondo Keyhole (1966), which he co-directed with John Lamb. Ultimately, Hill would make fifteen films over the course of sixteen years, which ranged from horror with films like Spider Baby to lesser-known works such as The Incredible Invasion (1971, the last of four that Hill directed the US sequences in USA-Mexico productions that all had Boris Karloff as star before his death) and blaxploitation such as Coffy (1973).

Okay, history time. It all started with a film that was slated to be released in Yugoslavia that was named Operacija Ticijan [Operation Titian] (1963), starring William Campbell, Rade Markovic, and Patrick Magee. It was a thriller film involving a stolen painting, and Roger Corman (on vacation in Europe at the time) ended up being a silent partner in the hopes that he could acquire it and Americanize the feature for release later. Francis Ford Coppola was behind script supervision, interestingly enough. However, the final result was something not quite suitable for the drive-in circuit. He commissioned a re-cut and re-scored edit, which was known as Portrait in Terror. Somehow, it did not satisfy Corman, although a re-edited version of that cut would find its way into television; enter Hill, who was tasked to take the footage and write/shoot new material to go on top of what could be used with Campbell in tow (who reportedly got a nice check for his services, which angered Corman and makes me smirk a little), which turned a spy thriller into a horror film. Somehow, this version (known as Blood Bath) was still not suitable enough for Corman. Two years later, Corman wanted to try again, so he hired Rothman to make her own edits in the story while shooting new footage. So now a film that had a killer artist was changed to a killer artist vampire. To add on to this, Campbell did not participate in the re-shoots, so now Rothman had a film with a vampire lead that would have to re-cast its main lead for the vampire scenes (an actor that has not been identified). Corman at last found something worth releasing despite a film with two directors/writers that never even met and they all lived happily...nope, the story isn't over. There is yet one more version of this film that is called Track of the Vampire, which included just a little more footage to play on television (Rothman/Hill's film lasted 69 minutes). Funny enough, you probably wouldn't even know Corman's fingerprints are there at all, because he doesn't even have an on-screen credit. Rothman would later call it a "mish-mosh", while Hill thought it was "totally ruined" by the changes made to his original cut.

So...we have a Yugoslavian film that got edited / re-shot into two television films AND two feature films, and the one that we are focusing on today is the one with Rothman & Hill on the credit (strangely enough, the one cut entirely by Hill is missing, but all the other ones are there). If one intends to watch the film, the best version to watch it would be a recent release that includes a video essay by Tim Lucas that includes detail of the whole saga of what became Blood Bath with interviews that likely make for an interesting hour to listen to (a full detail also is found with a series of articles done in Video Watchdog). Of course I forgot to mention that in this portrait of a killer artist, there are also beatniks included within the process, so one really seems to be in for a familiar rendition of A Bucket of Blood. Honestly, the beatnik stuff seemed better the first time around, what with its rendition of "beatnik slang" alongside its legend about vampire artists; my favorite head-slapping moment is someone mentioning to Knight's character about a tower and the legend having "peculiar things" happening before telling them to find it for themselves because they have their own problems (that's one way to inspire someone to read up on vampires and say exposition). Hill definitely had more of the prints involved when it comes to matching his horror type over Rothman's more conscious style in women's films (although both obviously were cut on the cloth of cheap filmmaking). Trying to guess who made what can be a doozy, but just know that the film probably didn't make any more sense when it was just Hill at the helm...of shooting/re-writes - the fact that it is only an hour long might come from the fact that the seams would probably have snapped if one tried to put more logic if it lasted longer than that. In other words, the only thing to say is that the history behind its making is far more efficient than the actual result - a mess. An amusing mess with curious moments, but a mess. Campbell is a capable guy, but he can only do so much with a role that is bargain-bin killer at best, and the fact that there is a different actor in the terror scenes dilutes credibility in the same way one would see in a creature feature where someone wears a weird costume with a lack of time to act (so The Man from Planet X, but not as good). It all goes on how one views the death scenes, which can range from a decent sequence involving a friendly conversation leading to a cleaver...to someone being chased into a pool and drowned (for some reason). The fact that two of the actresses in the film look similar to each other at any rate makes this an even sillier affair. The other actors act as one could expect from patchwork, which results in distinct levels of mediocrity, with the beatnik aspects having that middling feeling of semi-seriousness that one could only bear in irony drenched in insomnia. At least one could give credit to folks like Haig (who had starred in one of Hill's short films) for not wilting like a confused cat (despite having a conflict of timing that means there are scenes with/without a beard). Saunders is okay, but the focus is technically more on Knight before we are baited and switched on who the focus is (not that it matters anyway, since one can barely make head or tails about who or what matters in the first place in plot). Schanzer is the bare minimum for folks to focus on, seeming like an abstract of a lead hero than anything. For a film with a bloody title, the count of four is probably more about what could be salvaged than any real sense of terror - it is a jumble, where the vampire twist borders on the idea that you the viewer are going to buy into a deranged descendant of a vampire that happens to change his face before turning them into wax for art...which then turn on him for the climax. Rothman and Hill's assembly of footage into what was one film into four others is a curious tale, but for a movie it is easily too average for its own good. At least Rothman and Hill can each say they went on to better things in filmmaking.

Next Time: On the shortlist a few months ago, now seems like a good time to reach out for Daisies [Sedmikrásky] (1966).

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Animal Farm.

Review #1653: Animal Farm.

Cast:

Maurice Denham (Voices of All Animals) and Gordon Heath (Narrator) Produced and Directed by Joy Batchelor and John Halas.

Review:

Being the first director to do a British animated feature is interesting, but to also note the contributions of Joy Batchelor in short films with her husband John Halas is just as clear to mention. Born in Watford, she expressed an interest in drawing from a young age, and she drove herself to earn a scholarship to the Watford School of Art (while also having an offer from Slade), but she desired to help her family while working in art without teaching. Her first line of work in animation would come in London for the studio of Dennis Connelly, although it did not last too long due to studio closure. After a while spent doing side work, she found an ad looking for animators, for which the man running it was Janos Halasz [born János Halász]. He had a studio in Hungary before having the chance for another one to set up in London. They would spend considerable time together over the years in various fields of art, such as freelance studiowork before being brought on to do work for an advertising agency with J. Walter Thompson in commercials, information films, and war propaganda. In 1940, Batchelor and Halas would marry. Halas and Batchelor would continue on with animation after Animal Farm (which while not a success at the time found a following later on), working on commissions and occasional work in television. Batchelor would retire in 1974 from filmmaking due to arthritis, although she would teach animation for years afterwards before her death in 1991 (Halas would work all the way until his death in 1995, having done six decades of animation work).

Animal Farm is technically the first British animated feature. Handling Ships (1945), a stop-motion animated film in color, was created for use in the British Admirality for training in the Royal Navy in 1945, but it was never formally released in theaters (despite a selection at the Cannes Film Festival; Halas felt it had limited appeal to audiences anyway) - it was directed by Alan Crick and Halas, but Batchelor was involved in the production as was the case with several projects (the two were involved with creating war information + propaganda shorts). For that film, the goal was simple: an instructional film made to guide one on piloting ships, navigation, and maneuverability. The feature was successful enough for another commissioned feature by the offices that led to Water for Firefighting (take one guess what it was about), but Animal Farm came after each and found a way to release in the theater...with its own interesting circumstances. For one, it was a project of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who funded the film as a tool of anticommunism (Halas and Batchelor however did not know this). One could go down the rabbit home about the story behind the CIA's plot for friendly anti-commie films for the masses, complete with a CIA head who would later be involves with Watergate...but here we are. The film is adapted from the 1945 novella of the same name by George Orwell (for which the film calls a "memorable fable" in its opening credit). Interestingly enough, I remember this as one of the first stories I read while in high school, since I found it on the shelf of my freshman English class (for which I carefully used spare time to read it gradually). There were several writers in the adaptation: Batchelor, Halas, Joseph Bryan III, Borden Mace, and Lothar Wolf were given credit for story development while Laurence Heath and Philip Stapp were left un-credited. In addition to directing, Batchelor and Halas also co-produced the film. Interestingly enough, the same year that this was released, the BBC would do a made-for-TV adaptation of Orwell's seminal novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (done one year after an American live production, and a feature film would follow in 1956 - which was also a tool of the CIA). Both Orwell works would have another adaptation several decades later (Animal Farm in 1999 on television while the other was fittingly enough done in 1984).

The voices are not what I expected - for one, I assumed there would be more than one voice for the animals. Denham made his mark in acting for six decades beginning in 1934, starting with radio comedy and soon live television broadcasts that would suit him well for a variety of roles in British media. As for Heath, he was an American that had started in radio with New York's WMCA station before making his debut on Broadway with Deep Are the Roots in 1945. He would also do acting across the pond, such as live performances for BBC Television such as for a production of The Emperor Jones. So here we are with a film that is about animals seizing the means of revolution for their farm and all that comes with it with strife that reflects human nature...and a certain change from those who read it. It might not be a Disney production, but they sure do sing...in animal noises, for which you get to see an old pig die in the middle of it. Between that and animal cries in the first eleven minutes, one gets a pretty strange picture to start with. It actually isn't much of a talking animal picture, as the narration is the real guiding force with occasional noises, with a carefully controlled runtime of barely over an hour that makes it a curious venture, one that had to suit the powers that be alongside audiences (of sorts, since while it wasn't a major success at release it gradually found a following in later years). So....how about that ending? The novella had an ironic ending, one that talked about the nature of equality within animals and humans - in other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same, particularly when the rules keep moving. For the film, whether because of producer influence or director mindset, the ending is lighter in tone, ending on the opposite tone that will certainly not please those who desire faithful works (mostly) to the letter (for example, that key moment that ends the novella occurs just a few minutes before the climax takes place). For one thing, it is Benjamin the donkey (who never actually talks in the film, as compared to his gloom in the book) that takes action against Napoleon the pig (strangely enough, the donkey has been thought of as representing a variety of social classes within its allegory, but the big theory is that there is a little of Orwell himself within the character). Of course, if one thinks a fable needs an appropriate ending, it will be exactly the kind of thing one expects, so the decision is up to you. Of course, if you really want to see an adaptation that evidently messes up the adaptation even worse, you could try the 1999 TV adaptation, which worked with detailed effects and a cast of well-known actors (at least for Hallmark Films)...and completely missed the ending with a depiction of a self-destructing dictatorship that leads to a new group of humans coming into the farm (simply put, that is far more unforgivable given that this was literally 1999, so imagine spending millions of dollars with name actors and looking like a complete failure next to a modest little animated film that only has two voices). One wonders how Orwell would have felt about this creative side-step, if only because the full extent of who exactly funded it would only come out decades after that fact. As a whole, Animal Farm is a nice accomplishment, one that carries its points on the sleeve with decent results - perhaps it isn't exactly a great animated film for its era, but Halas and Batchelor manage well with a curious effort in adaptation that finds a balance in its fable without being sunk by its climax entirely.

Next Time: A film for the numbers...four different versions....two directors...it can only be from American International Pictures with Blood Bath (1966).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Street Corner.

Review #1652: Street Corner.

Cast: 
Peggy Cummins (Bridget Foster), Terence Morgan (Ray), Anne Crawford (Susan), Rosamund John (Sergeant Pauline Ramsey), Barbara Murray (WPC Lucy), Sarah Lawson (Joyce), Ronald Howard (David Evans), Eleanor Summerfield (Edna Hurran), Michael Medwin (Chick Farrar), Charles Victor (Muller), and Anthony Oliver (Stanley Foster) Directed by Muriel Box.

Review: 

"It was the heyday of the cliff-hanging serials, the one- and two-reel slapstick comedies, and the flickering newsreels. King Edward VII's funeral was the most impressive spectacle we had ever seen." 

Being known as one of England's most prolific female directors should be quite an accomplishment, particularly when doing so in an era as long ago as the 1950s and 1960s. Consider this: Box directed a dozen movies in her life-time, and no other female director has matched this accomplishment since. Muriel Box (born Violette Baker near London) wanted to be an actress and dancer (after developing a love for cinema as a child during World War I), but her failings led to other pursuits. In 1929, she started as a secretary at British Instructional Films. In 1932, she would meet (and soon marry) journalist Sydney Box, and they would soon work together in writing, such as with short plays. Being involved with film was quite a family affair for the Boxes, as Sydney's sister would also be involved with Verity Films, for which the three would be behind production over hundreds of wartime propaganda shorts after its inception in 1940. Muriel would direct for the first time with the documentary short The English Inn (1941). The Boxes would work together extensively in the decade with writing scripts alongside producing one-act plays. The Seventh Veil (1945) would be their greatest achievement in terms of screenplay. Their screenplay would win an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay that year, which made Box the first woman to have won the award. It would spur Sydney to moved to head of production for Gainsborough Pictures while Muriel would do story department and Betty would be a lead producer. With The Lost People (1949), she received her first credit as co-director because of her work in post-production (the original director was Bernard Knowles), as she re-shot over half of the feature. The Rank Organization would close Gainsborough in 1949, and Betty would move to Pinewood Studios and become a noted producer in her own right, while Sydney would create London Independent Producers with Murial as one of the partners. Box set out to become a director with an adaptation of So Long at the Fair (1950) but star Jean Simmons (for some reason) insisted to Box being replaced. Regardless of the intrusion, in 1952, Muriel would do her first solo theatrical effort with The Happy Family, which she co-wrote with Sydney. Ultimately, Box would direct a dozen of films until her last one in 1964, which were characterized as low-budget mixes of comedy and drama despite facing doubts from those around her (one actress thought it would be "strange and uncomfortable" to have her as a director). Box was not ultimately finished doing work within promoting women, as she would co-found the first feminist publishing company in England with Femina in 1965.

This was her third theatrical effort, one that be characterized as part of her method of covering society through the roles of women - in this case, an episodic ensemble talking about female police officers. The film (also known as Both Sides of the Law) served as a compliment to The Blue Lamp (1950), a crime thriller that was quite notable for its social realism of the time. It is the kind of "torn from the headlines" movie, one with cooperation from the Metropolitan Police (incidentally, women were only allowed into the force in 1919). It isn't the kind of movie with fancy details as so much it is one that has a semi-documentary feel (complete with shooting in London) while involving vaguely connected stories about family disorder to go alongside mildly interesting drama that nevertheless still seems useful enough for a viewing for what it ends up doing in breezy entertainment. It isn't flashy or packed with grand memorability (such as the aforementioned Blue Lamp film, which inspired a TV series that lasted two decades), but it manages to do a quiet job in portraying the grind of the time with decent enough spectacle in careful pacing for 94 minutes. The main star is Cummins, the young Irish focus (of sorts, since 28 is the new 18, I guess) that has to carry tension with a bit of impulse shining through that keeps us curious for a role that could've been bent as simply one to scoff at. Morgan (who had a modest career sprinkled with "bad guy" roles) follows along as the alluring presence of shifty means that one could see making a good pull at someone's head (in a film with well-meaning cops and a few off-kilter people, he sticks out). Crawford and John (each near the end of their careers, as the former died in 1956 while the latter retired after one more film role) are our main focus in terms of the side of the police, and they carry the movie to where it needs to go in the business of procedural patience with fair charm - this isn't exactly the kind of role that needs devastating screen presences, merely someone who can play the role with that right sense of dutiful consistency. Summerfield makes up the secondary focus with her own shocking involvement with the police, somehow going from rescuing a kid from water while deserting the Army. She does fine with the role, slowly uncovering the layers as a reluctant hero with fair polish. There is another subplot involving a neglected child that also has its own little moments, but the sticking point is within Cummins and Morgan, particularly since one even gets to see a police dog take part of the carefully swift climax. As a whole, it is exactly the kind of film one could expect of a police drama of the 1950s from a British director - swift, fair to the point, and suitable to those who are curious for what it likes to say of the time. For Muriel Box, it serves as a fair and worthy achievement - quietly effective in performances over style with the budget and circumstances given that certainly merit consideration for one of England's most prominent female filmmakers for the time.

Next Time: While Joy Batchelor was a co-director on this film, it is still an intriguing one to consider, since it is the first British animated feature...Animal Farm.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Never Fear.

Review #1651: Never Fear.

Cast:
Sally Forrest (Carol Williams), Keefe Brasselle (Guy Richards), Hugh O'Brian (Len Randall), Eve Miller (Phyllis Townsend), Lawrence Dobkin (Dr. Middleton), Rita Lupino (Josie), Herb Butterfield (Walter Williams), Kevin O'Morrison (Red Dawson), Stanley Waxman (Dr. Taylor), Jerry Hausner (Mr. Brownlee), and John Franco (Carlos) Directed by Ida Lupino (#799 - The Hitch-Hiker)

Review:
When it comes to social message movies and the folks who directed them, one name that should come up with reverence is Ida Lupino. It is interesting to note her as a director considering her road to getting there from her first turn as an actress. She was the daughter of a comedian and an actress in an English family known for their theatrical roots. She was encouraged to act from a young age, and she would study at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. She would make her first venture into film in 1931 at the age of 13 and enter the stage three years after that; she would eventually be cast into lead roles while calling herself "the poor man's Bette Davis." Her arguments with Warner Bros over the quality of roles they favored for her lead to numerous suspensions that she used to observe the process of filming and editing films. Although she would do dozens of roles over the years, what she really wanted to do was take her creativity and use it to direct her own films, having found acting to be a "torturous profession", and she felt that directing was the more interesting work. Inspired, she would form with her husband Collier Young an independent company to produce and direct low-budget works called The Filmmakers. In 1949, she had her first chance to direct with Not Wanted, as Elmer Clifton had a heart attack during filming, with Lupino (who co-wrote and co-produced the feature) deciding to not take credit for the controversial film (involving the topic of unwanted pregnancy). Counting Not Wanted, Lupino directed eight films in the span of seventeen years (with her last film in The Trouble with Angels (1966) being the only one done after The Filmmakers closed up shop in 1955). Lupino, who once joked that her quality as a director was as a "poor man's Don Siegel" (although one of her influences was Roberto Rossellini), would persist in directing and acting in three decades (most notably The Twilight Zone, being the only person to direct an episode alongside star in an episode each) until retirement in 1978. Her films generally dealt with difficult subject matter that were not generally covered within mainstream material of the time, such as bigamy or rape, but she also directed film noir (being un-credited for On Dangerous Ground (1952) while also doing The Hitch-Hiker the following year). This film is also known as The Young Lovers, although it did not help when it came to audience appeal, since this was not a major success. Lupino co-wrote the film with Young, and they also each served as producer for the film, which was distributed by Eagle-Lion Films.

This certainly was a personal film for her, as Lupino had been diagnosed with polio in 1934. Although she would eventually recover without losing the ability to walk, it reinforced her desire to focus on her abilities on an intellectual level without such focus on physicality. In this case, Lupino is making a feature that feels like a documentary at times with its shots of recovery for folks with polio at the Kabat-Kaiser Institute in Santa Monica, whether that means shots of treatment or shots of swimming or even square-dancing (in wheelchairs); ultimately, it is the tale of someone finding their place again in life and not dealing with it alone and become wrapped with self-pity. At the time, polio was a fairly prevalent health crisis across the world; two years after the release of the film, over 3,000 people alone would die of the disease in the United States, with the first safe vaccine for the disease coming out in 1955 by Jonas Salk (efforts to eradicate it worldwide have persisted since the 1980s). This was the second of three films that Forrest had done with Lupino (she made her formal debut in acting with Not Wanted). She does well with a tough role, because one has to convey an isolated tone without seeming too closed off in their arc for 82 minutes. She shows that degree of fear one would have if in that scenario without overplaying her hand. Brasselle matches her on the other side of life with polio - the person closest to her in adjustment, whether that involves trying to sell houses while waiting for someone to get better, or persisting in trying to get his girl on her feet. He does okay with that, seeming more suited for the cheesy number in the beginning or one scene spent with Miller involving regrets and an embrace. This was the first feature role for O'Brian, a former Marine who got into show business after being asked to take part in rehearsals for a play (directed by Lupino) after the lead failed to show that led to an agent wanting to sign him. He probably gives off the best performance, one with confidence and peace of mind for what needs to occur in perspective that never seems like someone doing it on one take. Miller has that fine little sequence with Brasselle as stated, while Dobkin rounds out the general focus decently enough. If it seems a bit off-kilter in its face of adversity in terms of physical and psychological trouble without being wrapped in too much inevitability. It is a closed-in type of movie, where one experiences the pain of the main character that ranges from closed-off despair to lingering doubt that makes its "you are there" segments work handily for what it needs. For me, it seems similiar to another film that would come out later in the year of 1950 with The Men, which dealt with a paralyzed veteran having to adjust with the loss of his legs while at a hospital that goes through a bout of isolation and self-pity. It isn't about what you assume is going to happen as it a film about what you feel about what is going to happen, where that doubt about one's health could apply beyond polio, particularly in recent years where isolation seems more rampant than ever when dealing with (or hearing about) illness. In that sense, Lupino has managed to make a fairly well-made feature that seems quite prescient, and when it comes to key female directors, Ida Lupino makes for a good start in terms of pressing the issue of perspective.

Next Time: Going across the pond with Muriel Box and Street Corner (1953).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Gigi (1949).

Review #1650: Gigi.

Cast: 

Yvonne de Bray (Mamita), Gaby Morlay (Tante Alicia), Jean Tissier (Honoré), Franck Villard (Gaston), Danièle Delorme (Gilberte 'Gigi'), Paul Demange (Emmanuel), Madeleine Rousset (Liane d'Exelmans), and Pierre Juvenet (Monsieur Lachaille) Directed by Jacqueline Audry.

Review: 

Jacqueline Audry honed success in a field and time that was nearly too narrow for it to happen the way it did. Born in France in 1908, Audry honed her interest in filmmaking over a childhood of extensive education through script supervisor before moving on to work work as an assistant director for a variety of directors in a time that ranged from G. W. Pabst to Max Ophüls; this came out of the fact that there were bare opportunities for female directors in the country when it was occupied by Germany in World War II. Audry would make her first own film with a short feature in 1943. Her first feature film would come after the end of the war with Les Malheurs de Sophie (1946), but it now is considered lost. In any case, Audry would persist in directing sixteen films through a career of two decades up to Bitter Fruit (1967, done ten years before her death), often collaborating with her novelist sister Colette Audry on her films. Gigi was Audry's second directorial effort, and the first of three of Colette adaptations. Audry was the first successful French female director to come out of World War II, although her works were not received universally at the time (the French New Wave did not favor her traditional methods to go along with taking novels to make for films); Olivia (1951) is generally her most-known feature, while others are likely in need of restoration (for example, one can check out Gigi on the Internet if they look hard enough for it, although the subtitles are in white). 

You might say this is a victim of remakes. As folks might already know, Gigi is adapted from the 1944 novella of the same name by actress-turned novelist Colette, and she modeled the title character off a socialite named Yola Letellier (the wife of Henri Letellier, who published Le Journal) that Colette had observed two decades prior (the Letelliers would stay married until the husband's death in 1960, although Yola would be a mistress during and after the marriage). It may have been the first adaptation of the novella, but there is no doubt that the musical remake (released nine years later) has overshadowed it in terms of discussion. It's interesting to think about that, since that film (which unlike this one had a cast mostly comprised of French actors) was a lavish affair in terms of being a musical with a wonderful look and fairly effective songs (at least from someone who has a middling patience with folks breaking out into song) in a nearly two-hour affair that nevertheless took liberties with the novella. With this feature, it runs at 82 minutes, and it perhaps seems fitting that one way to check out the feature is find it packed together with the remake on the DVD of the latter as an extra. Of course, we are also talking about different moral tones within the films - a grandparent overseeing a mistress-in-training instead became a grandparent wanting to see her just marry a rich man. In any case, the film is a reflection of its director that results in a quiet but dutiful little romance/comedy. Somehow, it seemed to linger in its pacing more so than the other film despite its clear run-time differences, although at least one doesn't lose sight of the country and some of the period sights. It makes its story of a growing woman weaving through the expectations set upon her of the time work out with careful timing and a few chuckles beneath the surface in the inevitable story of love triumphing over all. Delorme had her most famous role with this film in a sea of sixty appearances in film (including two other star roles in Colette adaptations, each directed by Audry), and she does fairly well for herself here, carefully charmed in reason for what is needed in the sticking points of a growing youth. The duo of de Bray and Morlay make their doting contributions to prim-and-proper standards that make for a few useful glances.  Alas, I wish I remembered the rest of the cast as well. Somehow, Tissler seems confined to the background in terms of slyness, whereas Villard proves just okay in his mild enthusiasm for what society has to offer a man of privilege - namely a stiff expression. I care about what happens in the film, but that aura of inevitability is a mild sensation rather than biting or on the sweet side as with the future adaptation (for better or worse). It isn't so much that the next adaptation was both refreshing and sanitized, it just so happens that the film is okay. It is a decent, stiff, and serviceable effort that will prove fine for those who desire perspectives yearning to not be lost to time.

Next Time: Never fear forgetting about Ida Lupino with her debut into directing with a personal effort in more ways than one with Never Fear (1949).

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.