Marie Antoinette (2006).

Review #1823: Marie Antoinette.

Cast: 

Kirsten Dunst (Marie Antoinette), Jason Schwartzman (Louis XVI of France), Judy Davis (Anne de Noailles, "Countess of Noailles"), Steve Coogan (Florimond Claude, Count of Mercy-Argenteau), Rip Torn (Louis XV of France), Rose Byrne (Yolande de Polastron, Duchess of Polignac), Asia Argento (Madame du Barry), Molly Shannon (Madame Victoire), Shirley Henderson (Madame Sophie), Danny Huston (Joseph II of Austria), Marianne Faithfull (Empress Maria Theresa), Mary Nighy (Princesse de Lamballe), Jamie Dornan (Axel von Fersen), Al Weaver (Charles, Count of Artois), Sarah Adler (Maria Theresa, Countess of Artois), Sebastian Armesto (Louis Stanislas, Count of Provence), and Clémentine Poidatz (Marie Joséphine, Countess of Provence) Directed by Sofia Coppola (#700 - Lost in Translation)

Review: 

“I’m so happy it has an audience now because at the time it was not successful. People didn’t go see it; they didn’t really know what to make of it...It means a lot to me that it continues to live on.”

Oh sure, the Coppola name may be a connected one in cinema, but it doesn't hurt to see the promise of another Coppola making their mark on film. Born in New York City, Sofia Coppola actually became involved in film from a young age, dabbling with a number of appearances in the background of several films done by her father Francis (her first film credit as writer would be as co-writer with her father on "Life Without Zoë", a segment for the anthology New York Stories in 1989), although she also had plenty of her own interests (such as design, photography, and music) while growing up in California; her most notable film role was in The Godfather Part III (directed by F. Coppola) in 1990. She had a handful of interests, but filmmaking would prove to unite all of her interests in a way she wanted, and her first film was Lick the Star, a short done in 1998. Her first chance to direct and write in features came with The Virgin Suicides in 1999 (with F. Coppola's encouragement as co-producer); the film received notice on release in the festival circuit, and her next film would go further. Lost in Translation (2003) won Coppola an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay (to go alongside a nomination for Best Director and Best Picture). The film utilizes the 2001 novel Marie Antoinette: The Journey by Antonia Fraser as the historical material used for the story of Antoinette, and Coppola wanted to make a portrait of the historical figure that did not aim for a traditional biopic and instead aim for a more intimate look of the world of that time; in other words, both the novel and film would end up telling the story of Antoinette without anticipating her ending or reference the sentence she is unfairly associated with ("let them eat cake", a phrase she never said at any point in time). In addition to writing the screenplay, Coppola also served as a co-producer. This was the third film that Coppola has directed over her two-decade career. The film made $61 million on a budget of $40 million while cultivating a divided response from audiences. Fraser noted the differences between her book and the film while saying that she adored the film, for what it's worth.

If you did not know, Marie Antoinette was the Queen of France from 1774 to 1792, having been sent from her native Austria to France at the age of fourteen to secure an alliance between the two countries, which resulted in marriage to Louis XVI (they would not consummate the marriage for eight years); she died at the age of 37 under the French Revolution by guillotine (as was the case with her husband Louis XVI). The storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, the state prison by the kings of France, is commemorated as the country's national day (France would have a long history of changeover in the next century, which included three Republics and two Empires as Louis XVI was not the last French monarch). Look, do you want a cast's cast for this film or not? Any movie that dares to have Rip Torn play a king and dabble on for moments to chew on as a "randy" King in the first half is clearly on the right track. Dunst makes for a splendid lead performance, one that captures the contradiction that comes with being a young royal with expectations thrusted upon them, one who is whisked away from all she knows to serve strange people in a country that seems so far away when kept in a palace where people are expecting you to have children before you are even 18 while gossiping about you and your "foreign" status; there is a certain angst present within all of the glamour seen, if only because one can only do so much to distract themselves (whether that means wanting candy or not), and Dunst shows the patience required from balancing impulse and dignity, whether that involves life in the Palace of Versailles trying to play nice or time spent in the Petit Trianon for ease away from burdens (such as with supposed affairs). Schwartzman plays well in the curiosity that comes with tenuous chemistry shared with Dunst that reminds one of a janitor trying to find the right broomstick (or in this case, key) for the task required, which results in a few laughs for useful effect, since he seems more adept for locks and hunts rather than the prowl of the bedroom. There is a handful of faces to see through the film that provide a few useful or amusing moments, and this mostly falls on the shoulders of Coogan or Torn, which works out without distraction. Davis and the others do fine in carrying the background among all the pomp and circumstance that make for a worthy paradox (or satire), because Shannon and Henderson essentially remind one of high school gossipers. The film is quite wonderful to gaze upon as expected, most notably with the costume design by Milena Canonero and cinematography by Lance Acord, as each help to make the film an arresting experience to view in a way that movies are meant to do.

As a whole, I think this is actually a pretty underrated movie, one that seems quite relevant and interesting despite the passage of over fifteen years and other costume dramas. Yes, it is a glossy historical movie, but it is a glossy historical movie that manages to be an engaging look into the world of 18th century France and the royalty that feels more apart of the country rather than actually part of it (of course it isn't like the film is a defense of the kingdom over rioters); it is a film that utilizes a stylized interpretation of the doomed queen and privilege to worthwhile effect. It captures both aristocratic fun and the loneliness that comes on the other side to useful effect. It never wastes its 123 minute run-time on sanctimony, serving instead to show its lavish atmosphere (rising and falling) in all the right places with a charming lead that makes for a curious film involving womanhood that makes for a modern hidden gem and a worthy third effort from Sofia Coppola.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Well, we have reached another end of March. It was quite interesting to do another themed March involving women directors, one that saw a handful of captivating perspectives that one would only hope we will see some of again next year. Suggestions are always welcome when it comes to theme months, so we shall see where the wind blows next time. 

Frida.

Review #1822: Frida.

Cast: 

Salma Hayek (Frida Kahlo), Alfred Molina (Diego Rivera), Geoffrey Rush (Leon Trotsky), Mía Maestro (Cristina Kahlo), Ashley Judd (Tina Modotti), Antonio Banderas (David Alfaro Siqueiros), Edward Norton (Nelson Rockefeller), Diego Luna (Alejandro Gonzalez Arias), Margarita Sanz (Natalia Sedova), Patricia Reyes Spíndola (Matilde Kahlo), Roger Rees (Guillermo Kahlo), and Valeria Golino (Lupe Marín) Directed by Julie Taymor.

Review: 

If one wants to hear about an entertainer director that made marks in both film and stage, Julie Taymor would be a useful start. Born in Massachusetts, Taymor developed an interest in theatre from a young age, complete with study with L'École Internationale de Théâtre Jacques Lecoq before moving onto Oberlin College (where she studied mythology and folklore). She honed her interests through masks and dance while first serving as director in New York theatres in 1974. She would make a variety of plays such as Shakespeare productions before having her prime moment with her production of The Lion King on Broadway, which was one of the most popular productions of its day in 1997, complete with Tony Awards for Taymor. Meanwhile, Taymor also did ventures into filmmaking, having her first directorial effort with an American Playhouse-produced film with "Fool's Fire" (which both premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and aired on PBS). Her feature debut was Titus (1999), which received fair marks (particularly with costume design). In her film career, she has made five films in over two decades of work. You might be surprised to hear that this film went through a lengthy development hell, with a plethora of considerations considered that involved Madonna, Jennifer Lopez, and Robert De Niro at different points. Hayek (who had slowly built a presence in Hollywood in the mid-1990s) had been interested in doing the role for a number of years, and by that time the works of Kahlo was attracting further interest from art folks, but it only came around in 2001 with Miramax alongside a variety of producers (seven credited) and four credited screenwriters (Clancy Sigal, Diane Lake, Gregory Nava, Anna Thomas) that listed Hayden Herrera's Frida: A Biography of Frida Kahlo as adaptation material, as championed by book editor/literary agent-turned-executive Nancy Hardin.

Admittedly, I had considered watching this film for a number of years, if only because one is always curious about art (no matter how "mediocre" or bad one is at it, as I can attest to). I think most of us at least know about the works of Frida Kahlo (born of German and Mexican heritage), if only because of how striking her art is. With a runtime of 123 minutes, I think the movie does a spectacular job in capturing the artist with enough strokes in style and engagement to make a solid biopic, one that runs through a number of interesting events in the life of Kahlo (and Rivera) with useful patience that never seems to collapse into easy generalizations. It captures the essence of someone with growing pain and talent for a fitting capture of an artist with such a vibrant personality that honors the art without falling into hagiography. With a useful ensemble like this, it should only make sense that Hayek (who received a plethora of award nominations for her role) leads the way with suitable timing, having a burning sense of self that lives through two great accidents (a trolly and Diego Rivera) with honesty. The chemistry between her and Molina sears through with confounding energy, one that endures with the quality of a bird and an elephant that is endearingly watchable, and Molina makes a good showman to pair with Hayek. The rest of the group come and go with varying strokes that hone interest for what is needed when looking upon history with general interest, with Rush and Norton probably being the most notable of the historical presences that compare interestingly when played against Hayek (of course, Golino is quietly effective in small moments spent with Hayek too). The clash of visions (ideological or not) collides for an engaging movie that elevates its subject (complications and all) for a curious biography worth watching from a director engaged with making entertaining projects with style to accompany it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: To end our month of Women Directors...we end with Marie Antoinette (2006).

The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years.

Review #1821: The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years.

Cast: 

Featuring performers Alice Cooper, Ozzy Osbourne, Poison [Bobby Dall, C.C. DeVille, Bret Michaels, Rikki Rockett], Aerosmith [Steven Tyler, Joe Perry], Kiss [Gene Simmons, Paul Stanley], Motörhead [Lemmy] alongside musical performances by Lizzy Borden [L. Borden, Gene Allen, Michael Davis, Joey Scott], Faster Pussycat, Seduce, London, Odin [Randy O, Jeff Duncan], and Megadeth [Dave Mustaine, David Ellefson], with Riki Rachtman & Taime Downe, Chris Holmes [W.A.S.P.], and Bill Gazzarri. Directed by Penelope Spheeris (#238 - The Little Rascals, #806 - Wayne's World, #1019 - Dudes, #1657 - The Decline of Western Civilization)

Review: 

If you remember correctly, The Decline of Western Civilization (1981) was one of the most engaging music documentaries ever produced involving punk rock, a chaotic affair with hectic personalities (and varying philosophies) that lingers with a viewer after they finish it without becoming a "Greatest Hits" collection. Spheeris would follow this with a group of low-budget work such as Suburbia (1984) and Dudes (1987) before returning with a "Part II" that would cover Los Angeles and a different music scene - heavy metal, inspired by what she saw of streets packed with "long-haired freaks", complete with help in funding by I.R.S. Records that would mean a budget of $500,000, which was roughly five times the budget of the original film. Of course, this is the only one of these films to receive major distribution, because this one was released by New Line Cinema. There are a handful of performers that are interviewed amidst the performances, complete with their choice of how they wanted to be filmed - Gene Simmons for example is filmed at a lingerie store (not tacky to him), while Paul Stanley is filmed in bed with a group of women and Chris Holmes is filmed in a pool with his mother by him while he drinks vodka (well, some of it is vodka, actually the rest is pool water). London was shot in Spheeris' garage, while Osbourne is shot in someone else's house, complete with a "juice pouring scene". Incidentally, the film is credited with showing "glam metal" (i.e. flashy clothing/makeup) right in its peak on the Sunset Strip before the rise of grunge and other assorted metal music; you even get to hear about the "evolution of heavy metal"...from a probation officer alongside hearing from folks in the club scene with degrees of promotion and sleaze (incidentally, Megadeth was apparently a late inclusion done as some sort of serious contrast to the glam metal groups, much to their later disappointment).

In this sense, while one will recognize more faces when it comes to the pursuit of fame, at least one won't lose the perspective of folks that crave for it as well, no matter where the road goes (namely sex, drugs, or rock and roll). Of course, there is also the rampant amount of confidence that you see in varying levels when it comes to just how far one will take their pursuit over all others. Aerosmith, stated by Spheeris as the definitive hard rock band, doesn't perform in the film, but it doesn't mean that they don't have an interesting presence in the interview process, whether when being asked about "groupies", "toxic twins", and the things that come with having plenty of drugs to spare and trying to stay on a wagon of sobriety. Osbourne is about as engaging as one could expect from someone who describes sobriety as something that "sucks" - in short, he is offbeat and engaging to see around from time to time, while Alice Cooper is equally as engaging when depicting the usefulness of metal when it comes to rock-n-roll. Sure, it might amuse you to hear from Simmons, but one will clearly remember Stanley and his casual attitude towards...anything, really. Of course, the most insightful one might be Lemmy, photographed at a distance (he claimed Spheeris did this to try to make him look stupid, but this angle works to his advantage), where he also talks about the fast rebel appeal of heavy metal alongside not hesitating if someone tries to rip him off. It also helps that the film isn't featuring just folks that are already "names", so you can enjoy just how hard belief in oneself really can go when it meets reality. Besides, there is a plethora of interesting music (to me, anyway, but I know some have their opinions on hard metal) that goes as well as the first film did, where it still rings true when combining with the art of self-promotion, such as with Poison. Holmes is undoubtedly the most memorable interview, reflecting on who he is as a hard-drinking rock star that thinks he will be dead in ten years (as it turns out, Holmes became sober in 1996 and has remained so), and it endures as the most striking footage despite Spheeris believing it wasn't useable at first. And then there's the folks who believe they have the potential to do things...like Odin, complete with a guy who thinks they will go as big as Led Zeppelin (incidentally, the lead singer became a teamster trucker and seems fine). The 93 minutes pass on by with a consistent breeze to them, regardless of if one is for the music or interviews. As a whole, one will see plenty of distinct human quirks that come with playing music on a big stage: excess, desperation, overconfidence, crudeness, and so much more. While I think the first film manages to capture a unique scene a bit more clearly than this one, it is still quite easy to approach when it comes to looking upon humanity and music in all the weird places it can go as a piece of late 1980s rock-n-roll with a director interested in where all the pieces fall.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Frida (2002).

The Loveless.

Review #1820: The Loveless.

Cast: 

Willem Dafoe (Vance), Marin Kanter (Telena), Robert Gordon (Davis), J. Don Ferguson (Tarver), Tina L'Hotsky (Sportster Debbie), Lawrence Matarese, and Danny Rosen (Ricky). Written and Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker and #1548 - The Hurt Locker) and Monty Montgomery.

Review: 

"I guess if I had to single out a theme for what I've been up to, I'd say it's some sort of journey to explore film's potential to be kinetic. This probably started unconsciously, but it's there in one way or another in all my movies. I'm always trying to squeeze the most energy out of the frame."

Yes, this is a directing duo each making their first ever film, but we both know that Kathryn Bigelow is the drawing presence when it comes to examining a director in the first stages of a dutiful career, particularly with the way that her career has moved in the past four decades. Before she became a filmmaker, the California native studied painting at the San Francisco Art Institute and film scholarship/criticism at Columbia University, and it was in the latter place that she met Monty Montgomery (incidentally, he would later co-produce Wild at Heart, which featured Dafoe). Bigelow's first film was a short called The Set-Up, which dealt with two men beating each other up while two professors deconstruct it. Through resources of the Museum of Modern Art's Film Study Center and a small town in Georgia, the movie was shot in 25 days. The original titles for the film were "U.S. 17" before "Breakdown" (as shown on the festival circuit in 1981), and then the final title (upon its premiere in New York in 1984). Probably the easiest comparison one could make is The Wild One (1953), since that film also features a small town that encounters a motorcycle gang with a charismatic lead, although you might see traces of an imitation of an American International Pictures film (like The Wild Angels). As such, the movie has arthouse sensibilities with touches that make it set around the late 1950s/1960. 

Well, there is a distinct outlier in the cast: This was the first starring role for Dafoe (a founder of the experimental theater group in The Wooster Group and someone briefly seen in Heaven's Gate the previous year). Gordon is actually more known for his neo-rockabilly singing, and he is responsible for the music in the film. Ferguson was a thirty-year actor with a handful of character roles while also being a NCAA Basketball Tournament referee for a number of years. This was the first of four Kanter roles, and L'Hotsky was a Downtown New York personality. It might not be a surprise that this film was not a particular success among the independent circuit (to the point where one can see three different release years for this film depending on the premiere from 1981 to 1984). It certainly won't be the ideal feature for everyone, because it is more of an art feature with brooding and quiet glances than anything, where action is only what you can speculate to be action, complete with select voiceovers for a film that has some presentation of "who are the real outlaws" or something. In short: the movie proves just fine, if only because its curiosity factor manages to override the decaying sense of patience one could have if they don't find the retro feel to their liking (besides, the attempt at retro hasn't exactly gone away, but Bigelow has clearly found her distinct edges in action). Dafoe is undoubtedly the highlight, if only because one can see the potential there with such a brooding actor that is distinct from the very second you see him in the opening, having a volatile presence that seeps into scenes in all the right senses that makes the movie better than it should be. Of course, the others aren't too far behind. Kanter has a vulnerable presence that invites curiosity within minimal choice words, one that lingers with Dafoe for the moments on screen together with apt patience. Gordon and the other members of the biker group aren't exactly packed with many words, but they fit the casual nature required from this pastiche requirement. Ferguson does just fine with slimy qualities that stoke a necessary chill that seems unstrapped by time. It can be a breezy or slow 85-minute stroll when it comes to this film, but I found it inviting enough in the small lunges one sees from a biker movie that has the promise of improvement for its director (not Montgomery, who shifted to producing). As such, it might not be the easiest recommendation, but if one wants to see an early showcase for both Bigelow and Dafoe with a quiet brooding experience of being on the road, you probably won't go wrong there.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years (1988).

The Life and Times of Rosie the Riveter.

Review #1819: The Life and Times of Rosie the Riveter.

Cast:

Featuring Wanita Allen, Gladys Belcher, Lyn Childs, Lola Weixel, and Margaret Wright. Produced and Directed by Connie Field.

Review: 

One of the main draws to doing a month dedicated to women directors is the idea of covering film from a variety of interesting perspectives that have not received attention in the past. In particular, the documentary is one area that always merits attention, and Connie Field is a filmmaker that has earned considerable curiosity in a filmmaking career that has spanned four decades (with an Academy Award nomination and Emmy Award win to her credit). She was born in Washington, D.C. to a Jewish family; she worked as an organizer for several movements, both feminist and anti-war during the 1960s. Her work for Newsreel (distribution for independent films) got her into filmmaking, and it was the discussion over a late 1970s reunion of "Rosie the Riveter" near her that interested her in making a documentary, one that would surely seem interesting involving the perspective of women from a time not too far removed from the current woman. This film was her directorial debut. Over the next couple of years, she would focus on a variety of subjects such as American veterans of the Spanish Civil War, the story of the 1961-64 Mississippi voter registration movement, and the struggle of anti-apartheid activists against South Africa's system (a series of seven films). The icon "Rosie the Riveter" involved work in the factory and shipyards that would produce munitions and war supplies, and the term was used for songs and film (nineteen years later, the Canadian perspective was covered in Rosies of the North). The movie proved quite suitable in both the festival circuit and on television, having first premiered at the New York Film Festival in 1980 alongside broadcasting on the PBS program American Experience in 1988. The runtime is 65 minutes (as edited by Lucy Massie Phenix and Connie Field).

As you might guess, one will be quite interested to hear the recollections of five women, ones based in Los Angeles (CA), Brooklyn (NY), San Francisco (CA), Richmond (CA), and Detroit (MI) that all worked during World War II (hundreds were interviewed, but only these five are shown). Well, actually it starts with a recollection of the late 1930s from the perspective of the five women, whether that involves molasses making or housework (with one account even stating how she got a job on the thought that she was a man, considering how "tough" the job was). There is plenty of old footage utilized to go along with the recollections, most notably with The March of Time newsreels, specifically footage imploring the importance of women to join the war effort (and stay in the effort). As one might see, it was an interesting time, one that wasn't always rosy (whether that involved welding or union), but it is the prospect of making something meaningful that attracts one more than anything. Of course, making more money than before helps too, but it is pride in riveting that drove one forward that is universally relevant, where the ordinary is extraordinary. The history that one hears from this film is quite fascinating, with one account even talking about putting a torch up to help defend against a Filipino worker being mistreated by an officer. Sure, the war propaganda made them to be heroes, but that didn't mean there wasn't discrimination and sexism to be found. Of course, the end of the war meant a push to "return to normalcy", which pushed away the people working during the war, where co-workers were now competitors for the jobs that were left over, as if going back to homemaking was just something one could snap right back to, even with a "baby boom" - the film shows footage of Marynia F. Farnham, M.D, who actually co-wrote a book about "psychologically disordered" contemporary women. Sure, one can go to working in kitchens, department stores and mimeographing, but it just isn't quite the same (interestingly enough, Wright actually ran for president as an independent, receiving over 49,000 votes in 1976). The last words in the film strike especially, with one of the women (Weixel) talking about how that particular time of war produced a smart looking group of ladies that loved one another in a feeling that one would wish for this country again, but not for war. Now more than ever, one can still see the importance of such a film in its perspective on history from the people who lived it that makes a suitable hour to spend that will make you look further.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Loveless.

Hester Street.

Review #1818: Hester Street.

Cast: 

Steven Keats (Jake), Carol Kane (Gitl), Mel Howard (Bernstein), Dorrie Kavanaugh (Mamie), Doris Roberts (Mrs. Kavarsky), and Lauren Friedman (Fanny) Written and Directed by Joan Micklin Silver.

Review: 

"I came of age for film, at a time when the sexism was pretty strong. And although I could get work as a Writer, I couldn’t get work as a Director at all. And I had the experience of watching young men who had made shorts as I had, prize winning shorts, as I had, moving on to directing films and I couldn’t do it. And, and my husband, Ray, was… became angry, and he said, “You know, maybe you can do it, maybe you can’t, but everybody should have a chance to try for the brass ring.”

Joan Micklin Silver was born in Omaha, Nebraska in in 1935 to a family of Russian Jewish immigrants. In that sense, it only seems fitting that her first film would be one like this. She had graduated from Sarah Lawrence College before moving to Cleveland with her husband to teach music and write for the next eleven years. She continued her writing when she moved to New York City in 1967, where she would write for The Village Voice. She soon wrote scripts for educational films and found her way into directing within that area, which resulted in three works, most notably with "The Immigrant Experience", a short about Polish immigrants. Silver would end up directing for until 2003 with a handful of theatrical features (seven) and television work, with this and Crossing Delancey (1988) being her highlights (with each touching upon Jewish identity). The movie is an adaptation of the 1896 novella Yekl: A Tale of the New York Ghetto by Abraham Cahan; he was born in Lithuania before immigrating to New York City at the age of 21 that was part of the exodus of Jewish peoples from Eastern and Southern Europe to the States (roughly 2.8 million), and he is mostly known for his work within Yiddish language newspapers. A 19th century tale about Jewish people trying to assimilate in a newly adopted country for the 20th century surely would attract studio attention...it did not. A first-time director, particularly a woman, was felt to be "another problem" that studios did not want to fund; making independent movies had changed from decade to decade, but that didn't mean things would be easy, especially with a film with a handful of dialogue communicated in Yiddish with substitute. The film was funded by Raphael Silver, a real estate developer who saw his wife's trouble with getting a studio to produce the film and decided to pull roughly over $300,000 together to do it, complete with filming in New York (Hester Street, while located in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, was not used for filming). Distribution struggles ended with a run on the festival circuit that turned into a fair audience hit. 

I'm sure you are familiar with films made as a passion project. Of course, certain movies made in the memory of others didn't have to deal with funding difficulties or being thought of as too "ethnic". For what Silver wanted to achieve in making a tale involving the clash of traditionalism versus assimilation, I would say that the movie is a fair success, one that doesn't serving as a judging ground for what kind of life seems best. With its black-and-white photography, one gets the feeling of watching an old photograph that seems aptly appropriate for the film, which utilizes limited settings to show the assimilation from each angle to useful effect, which naturally ends with one famed custom in the religion: A get (divorce), which is done tastefully. This would end up one of Kane's first shining roles, and it earned her an Academy Award nomination (losing to Louise Fletcher is not a shame). At any point, when she does finally arrive on screen, she makes the most of it with earthy patience. It doesn't require great monologues to see a performance built on observation and immense struggle for charm. Keats proves suitable as the other side of assimilation, in the classic hustling sense. There is a man in there, it just happens to have a bit of ooze for a few amusing moments when it comes to seeing just what one would do to be thought of as something else besides what they are, whether that involves cheating on women or trying to change a name. Howard patiently makes his mark in dutiful patience, while Kavanaugh pairs well with Keats. Roberts proves sound with careful charm that serves as a helping hand to Kane. The movie does fair in showing a way of life in its drama without hesitation or melodrama that makes a useful 90-minute curiosity. For the independent circuit, this is a movie that I would recommend for what Silver managed to do with a tale that will prove rewarding in interest for its audience without compromises.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Life and Times of Rosie the Riveter (1980).

The Other Side of the Underneath.

Review #1817: The Other Side of the Underneath.

Cast: 

Sheila Allen (Meg the Peg), Susanka Fraey, Liz Danciger, Ann Lynn, Penny Slinger, Jane Arden (Therapist), Sally Minford (Cellist), Jenny Moss, Liz Kustow, Rosie Marcham, Elaine Donovan, and Bill Deasey. Written and Directed by Jane Arden.

Review: 

You have to consider the following: this was the one and only British feature film in the 1970s to be solely directed by a woman. You also have to consider that for several years, one could not find these films on home video until the 20th century. Jane Arden was responsible for three projects as a director alongside a handful of writing credits to go with occasional features as an actress, having served as a student of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. She did a handful of writing for ITV and BBC Television for a number of years in the mid 1950s with playwrighting as well (such as The Party in 1958, which had Charles Laughton direct it). The mid-1960s saw her shift her interest to feminism and anti-psychiatry alongside work with Jack Bond, with Arden first working with him on the documentary film Dali in New York (1966) and as writer for Separation (1967); Vagina Rex and the Gas Oven (1969) and A New Communion for Freaks, Prophets and Witches (1971) reflect her work. Her directing credits are made of two features: this film and Anti-Clock (1979), all done with Bond (one 37-minute short was also done with Vibration (1974)). Arden suffered from depression for a number of years before taking her own life in 1982, dying at the age of 55. Bond was so stricken by her death that he didn't want to have the films screened for a number of years, and it was only in 2009 that one could actually see the movies on video.

In 1970, she formed a radical feminist theatre group that was named "Holocaust". As such, the group would star in this feature film before later disbanding. Rampant use of drugs and alcohol would occur during production (as evidenced by Allen and Morgan). The BFI restoration also presents four deleted sequences as a workprint version, which runs longer than the 107 minute run-time of the original cut (one can imagine watching 142 and 133 minutes if they are curious for chaos). So, here we are with a movie of chaos, complete with a bear that attacked six of the crew and a breakout from escaped mental patients (it was Arden's suggestion to use real inmates of an asylum for a party scene). It goes without saying that the movie is a strange and endearing adventure for every viewer, particularly ones not familiar with group therapy. Well, that and all of the imagery: nightgowns, shouting, stains on sheets, and a crucifixion (of course there's also sex, but who's counting?). Allen and the others undergo a primal therapy that is unnerving at times with plenty of curiosity that goes on its own way about expressing traumas and taboos without searching for outright answers. So yes, there is a look into the mind of people suffering from mental anguish in all of its layers, unseemly or not; in search of madness, one finds more than just that, because figuring out what is real or not is up to the viewer. It may be obtuse, but it is an angry obtuse and surreal movie that wanders across the psyche with varying levels of effectiveness in entertainment. Some will find it meandering, while others will find it curiously inventive, and to me it sits firmly in the middle as a curious achievement for Jane Arden that will likely reward a curious viewer looking for hearing neglected voices.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Half-past the month, half-past Women Directors Month - Hester Street is next.

Wanda.

Review #1816: Wanda (1970).

Cast: 

Barbara Loden (Wanda Goronski), Michael Higgins (Norman Dennis), Frank Jourdano (The soldier), Valerie Manches (The girl in the roadhouse), Dorothy Shupenes (Wanda's sister), Peter Shupenes (Wanda's brother-in-law), Jerome Thier (Wanda's husband), Marian Thier (Miss Godek), Anthony Rotell (Tony), and M. L. Kennedy (Judge) Written and Directed by Barbara Loden.

Review: 

"When I made Wanda, I didn't know anything about consciousness raising or women's liberation. That had just started when the film was finished. The picture was not about women's liberation. It was really about the oppression of women, of people... Being a woman is unexplored territory, and we're pioneers of a sort, discovering what it means to be a woman."

Being one of a kind is a curious thing, particularly when the one involves a solitary film made by a director. Barbara Loden was born in North Carolina with an isolated upbringing before moving to New York, where she started out as a model and chorus-line dancer when she moved to New York to escape her isolated upbringing. Loden became interested in acting through Paul Mann, who taught the Method form at the Actors Studio (after spending years without a nerve to act); she started with The Ernie Kovacs Show in 1955 and started a handful of appearances on the stage two years later. She did not appreciate acting in film, but she appeared in two of Elia Kazan's features with Wild River (1960) and Splendor in the Grass (1961). Of course, her most famous role might actually be her performance in the 1964 production of After the Fall, which won her a Tony Award that year. This would be her only theatrical effort, although she would direct two educational shorts for the Learning Corporation of America. Loden died in 1980 at the age of 48, having suffered from breast cancer.

Wanda has been compared to being more similar to John Cassavetes in tone as opposed to features that she considered "slick" when it comes to making a movie involving a woman joining up with a robber on the run. Rather than making a movie that was "too perfect to be believable" in slick technique. In fact, she later stated that it was the "anti-Bonnie and Clyde" (whether one actually believes that film to be unrealistic is debatable). Loden aimed for cinema vérité, complete with filming in 16mm. Of course, instead of filming in the South, she had to shoot closer and settled for the mining towns of Carbondale and Scranton in Pennsylvania. It was both inspired by a newspaper account of a female accomplice who thanked a judge when sent to jail for her crime and also semi-autobiographical. The movie was made by a crew of four people: Loden, Nicolas T. Proferes, and two crewmen as lighting/sound assistants. Proferes was the cinematographer and editor, and he helped Loden was framing and compositing a majority of the shots. Apparently, the wardrobe for Higgins was a collection of Elia Kazan's old clothes.

The only people to talk about in this movie is Loden and Higgins, since they are the only professionals present and as such are the ones engaging with a variety of improvised scenes together. There is a curious duet present with two characters who are essentially spiraling into nothingness in different ways, bereft of any expectations of chemistry with accompanying numbness. Loden moves through her scenes with the energy of a mannequin that is aptly appropriate for a film like this, while Higgins forms the other side of the coin of born losers, filled with stubborn pride that refuses to stay down. With 103 minutes, one might not find many surprises within narrative, but it does stay on level with its aim of aimlessness that means predictability for the right occasions - no real start, no real ending, no problem. Look, do you want a movie about an ordinary person with no intentional redeeming qualities? Do you want a film that is "one of a kind"? Well, at least one can get the chance, since it was recently restored by the efforts of the UCLA Film & Television Archive. The movie did receive a bit of attention upon release (it won the International Critics' Prize for Best Film at the 31st Venice International Film Festival), but it lapsed into obscurity for a number of years with varying discussions over its content, where one critic described the main character as a "sad, ignorant slut" (no, not written by a man, but there was one who said "nobody likes a victim", so...), but there were small arguments made for the film as a work of feminism. I myself can't exactly say the film is a masterpiece, because one knows there are more engaging films out there within the perspective of a woman, but it certainly strikes well as an achievement for all one-shot wonders out there who want to get their story out there. It is the film for folks who aren't looking for tension or "slickness", and the overall content would suggest that Loden did succeed. Saying it is "good enough" seems just about right for this film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Other Side of the Underneath.

Wings (1966).

Review #1815: Wings.

Cast: 

Maya Bulgakova (Nadezhda Petrukhina), Zhanna Bolotova (Tanya), Panteleimon Krymov (Pavel Gavrilovich), Leonid Dyachkov (Mitya Grachov), Vladimir Gorelov (Igor), Yury Medvedev (Boris Grigoryevich), Nikolay Grabbe (Kostya Shuvalov), Zhanna Aleksandrova (Zinka), Sergei Nikonenko (Sergei Bystryakov), and Rimma Markova (Shura) Directed by Larisa Shepitko.

Review: 

"My father fought all through the war. To me, the war was one of the most powerful early impressions. I remember the feeling of life upset, the family separated. I remember hunger and how our mother and us, the three children, were evacuated. The impression of a global calamity certainly left an indelible mark in my child's mind."

If you think about it, there has never been a more interesting time to consider branching out when looking into world cinema, no matter how long or short a film career ended up. Larisa Shepitko directed five films from 1963 to 1977, but she managed to cultivate a name for herself among Soviet filmmakers of her time. She was born in a town in Eastern Ukraine in 1938 to parents that soon divorced, leaving her to be raised by her schoolteacher mother; her childhood experiences would leave a key mark within her mind. After graduating high school, she attended the All-Union State Institute of Cinematography (now referred to as the Gerasimov Institute of Cinematography), where she was a student of Alexander Dovzhenko (also born in Ukraine, albeit in a region that was under the Russian Empire at the time), who was a famed Soviet director within social realism that inspired Shepitko; it was there where she met Elem Klimov, who also became a noted filmmaker (alongside her husband). Her first film project was her graduate film in Heat [Znoy] (1963), which she filmed in intense heat that had her direct from a stretcher at one point while depicting agriculture within locations in Kazakh. Wings was her first theatrical film, and it was written by Valentin Yezhov and Natalya Ryazantseva. Wings would not receive much attention upon release because of the censor standards of the government, which allowed only a limited screening, since it only seemed that films would have approval if it found the approval of the right government official (of course, there's a difference between Soviet films made before and after the death of Stalin, so there's that). Her segment "The Homeland of Electricity" for Beginning of an Unknown Era (1967) ended up being shelved years and the film You and Me (1971) did not fare better. It was only her last film in The Ascent [Voskhozhdenie] (1977) that proved fruitful, since it attracted attention in both Russia and abroad. Shepitko died in 1979 at the age of 41 in a car crash while doing location shooting for what was to be her next film - an adaptation of the novel Farewell to Matyora; Klimov would both direct a short film dedicated to his wife along with a film based on the novel in 1983 (known as Farewell).

I'm sure you are quite familiar with movies involving unfulfilled people, ones trapped between the memories of the past and the ordinary realities that come with being a middle-aged symbol of one's country. Well, maybe middle age isn't quite the right term, there is a considerable difference to being a principal after being a pilot (incidentally, there was a group of all-female aviators in the War, known as the 588th Night Bomber Regiment); it won't be a comfortable ride for all, particularly if one has to deal with loneliness or isolation. Self-sacrifice and duty may be valuable aspects to serving a state when it comes to "Great Patriotic Wars", but it can be a double-edged sword when one sees the result played against people with a different perspective on just what that all means; each generation will have at least one defining moment that will infringe on their memory that will make them seem both a part of something special and apart from others. It is the sense of longing, the sense of wanting to have wings of freedom fly in the air without being held back, where hearing the words "let someone else do it" seems very, vert wrong. In short, it is a film about one's struggle to deal with the crisis of middle age as opposed to a straight-line hero in ideology. Bulgakova had a fairly steady number of roles over her multi-decade career, but this film is likely the best one she is known for, since she is tasked to carry the film mostly by herself, and she makes the best of it, as she captures the silent despair that comes with essentially being trapped in the amber of memories and insecurity. I think one of the most interesting scenes comes when Bulgakova's character is visiting a war museum that has a display of war heroes for a group of schoolchildren to see on a trip. We see one boy make a bet that he can hide from others (but not our lead focus) but also a girl who asks if all the people in the photos are dead - which include a photo of Bulgakova. Of course, the scene where she is trying to understand just how her on-screen daughter is getting married is a close second, because it shows the plight that comes with seeing people being free to make their choices without their doting parent looking on their shoulder (essentially the kid must spread their wings from the nest). The other members of the cast work well within interactions spent looking upon where the culture of the time seems to be going (with or without people left behind). The movie ends on its own terms, moving from spending most of its time in cramped spaces to a moment of free flight to the unknown, and that makes the experience generally worth it. While Shepitko may not have received the attention that other Soviet filmmakers would get for their features, there is surely something to be said about the way she moves through 81 minutes with a movie about isolation that seems quite relevant now more than ever.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Wanda (1970).

The Batman.

Review #1814: The Batman.

Cast: 

Robert Pattinson (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Zoë Kravitz (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Paul Dano (Edward Nashton / Riddler), Jeffrey Wright (Lieutenant James Gordon), John Turturro (Carmine Falcone), Peter Sarsgaard (Gil Colson), Andy Serkis (Alfred Pennyworth), Colin Farrell (Oswald "Oz" Cobblepot / Penguin), Jayme Lawson (Bella Reál), Gil Perez-Abraham (Officer Martinez), Peter McDonald (Officer William Kenzie), Alex Ferns (Commissioner Pete Savage), Con O'Neill (Chief Mackenzie Bock), Rupert Penry-Jones (Mayor Don Mitchell Jr) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield)

Review: 

“I’ve always felt that the Batman story was a very special story. He’s not really a superhero. He’s someone who’s driven by the pain of his past. He’s trying to find some way to make sense of his life. It’s a very psychological story. This is the character I relate to most.”

I understand there were folks who doubted that Robert Pattinson could be the character of Batman because of some old movies from the mid 2000s or something. Well, one wonders just how ridiculous that sounds when compared to the minority of folks who decried at the casting of Michael Keaton for the title role in 1989 because of some old movies from the mid 1980s. But we have moved on from films that were influenced by comic books like The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns to films that are influenced by comic books such as Batman: Year One (1987), The Long Halloween (1996-97), and "Ego" (I read two of those stories quite a few years ago, incidentally). But you likely know of those comic books if you are interested in seeing another Batman film. After all, there have now been nine actors to have portrayed the character in film (live action and animated) since 1966. They all have had distinct perspectives when it comes to depicting the character often called the "Caped Crusader", and one can certainly find something to appreciate from each and every director that was behind it, whether that was Leslie H. Martinson, Tim Burton, or Christopher Nolan. You may remember that it has been a couple of years since the last Batman film in live-action - ten years, in fact. I'm sure you know that Ben Affleck appeared as the character in three films (one cameo), and he intended to direct and write a standalone film which apparently was described as "almost James Bond-ian" slate for filming in 2017. However, by that year, Affleck would step away from the director's chair and later would step away from starring in the film (of course, five years ago the DC Extended Universe was vastly different from now); incidentally, there are plans of a Batgirl film in 2022 that has its own cast in mind for the key roles. Reeves would be tapped to direct in 2017 with his own script, with an initial target for June of 2021 for release (we all know how that worked out). Reeves and Peter Craig received credit for the script, which had some un-credited work from Mattson Tomlin. Reeves is best known for directing both Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) and War for the Planet of the Apes (2017).

Honestly, comparing what is the best Batman is a curious thing, because I'm sure most folks haven't seen every Batman-related piece of media (comics, TV, film), but I will maintain that my favorite generally falls between either the Animated Series or the 1966 television series (the Nolan films with their grounded take narrowly edge out the gothic Burton films). Regardless of one's favorite, I'm sure you can find something to like here within the great myth of Batman. One can add Reeves to the list of capable directors behind a Batman movie. In fact, this film might actually rank in the top section of Batman films, one that creates plenty of atmosphere within its comic book trappings and noir ambitions that makes a distinct narrative that turns upon vengeance and hope to deliver a relatable piece of entertainment with bleak and ambitious aim that works quite well for the current age without becoming too absorbed. Pattinson does a splendid job as Batman, one still fairly green in terms of being the "World's Greatest Detective" that is basked in desperation. He makes a great imperfect interpretation of the role because of the fact that he just isn't who he thinks he is. Instead of a Batman movie with the usual trimmings and a considerably more memorable villain, it is more balanced this time around. In other words: he has the layers required to drive the film. Kravitz and her graceful charm work well when paired with Pattinson and their palpable chemistry that drive the film at times with great interest. Dano does just fine for a role that I wish I could agree with more, playful in terror. No, I don't mean I yearn for a villain that is agreeable. But it is a strange quality to wonder why one would think "Riddler" and "Zodiac Killer" in the same sentence, because the Riddler just seems more of a compulsive puzzler man rather than a serial killer (Reeves had the serial killer aspect early in the script). I just don't find the character to be anything other than just "fine" (him and his terrifying 500 followers, I kid, I kid), and it is probably not the easiest thing to say that the most memorable Riddler portrayed in film is still Frank Gorshin after half a century. At least one could be curious to see if Dano would ever appear in further features, but I just hope that any further films find something useful to cover within reflecting the title hero, such as maybe Mr. Freeze or the Mad Hatter (i.e. not just the Joker, because that character is overplayed). Wright and Serkis both prove well in their moments spent playing against Pattinson in the familiar roles that engage well without running into comparisons of the past. Farrell does quite fine with a role half-covered in the shadows that shows the seeds of ruthlessness that could be apparent in further times without becoming desperate. Turturro creeps through the film with the right touch of oozy decadence. The last thing I want to mention is the music by Michael Giacchino, who weaves a capable film score with a title theme that has managed to stick in my head a few days later (of course Reeves could also get credit for his use of "Something in the Way", because who doesn't want a fitting song from Nirvana in a Batman film?).

Honestly, I figured the run-time would not be too much of a problem. 176 minutes is just about right for the kind of sprawling curiosity that Reeves has for depicting the duality of seeking justice without becoming a bloated mess (besides, going "it could have been edited down" is not exactly a valid response). The film does have noir aspirations, but it also finds time for dazzling action sequences alongside tinges of horror that generally do well without becoming off-kilter. It manages to capture most of what has proved interesting to say about the character of Batman within a story of seeing both sides of the coin in exacting justice with certain force. It leaves one curious for what can occur further within this type of storytelling in film without begging deeply for it. It isn't perfect, but it doesn't need to be when it comes to the task of showing the character of Batman in a way that seems fresh and relevant, which it does quite well.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: As noted before, it is Wings (1966), the Soviet classic.

The Connection (1961).

Review #1813: The Connection.

Cast: 

Warren Finnerty (Leach), Jerome Raphael (Solly), Garry Goodrow (Ernie), Jim Anderson (Sam), Carl Lee (Cowboy), Barbara Winchester (Sister Salvation), Henry Proach (Harry), Roscoe Lee Browne (J. J. Burden), William Redfield (Jim Dunn), with Freddie Redd (Piano Player), Jackie McLean (Sax Player), Larry Richie (Drummer), and Michael Mattos (Bass Player) Directed and Edited by Shirley Clarke.

Review: 

"When I did The Connection, which was about junkies, I knew nothing about junk and cared less. It was a symbol--people who are on the outside. I always felt alone, and on the outside of the culture that I was in. I grew up in a time when women weren't running things. They still aren't."

You bet it was time to do something a bit more experimental when it comes to focusing on women directors. Shirley Clarke is surely deserving of curiosity, and she would cultivate a career of three decades in her own way. For one, she was actually interested in dance growing up as a child in New York City; she was the daughter of a office furniture manufacturer (and also a bully, as noted by her sister Elaine Dundy). She studied dance at Stephens College, Johns Hopkins University, Bennington College, and the University of North Carolina. Her first film would be in 1953 with Dance in the Sun; the short film was an adaptation of dance choreography. Her influences in becoming a director were films such as The Quiet One (1948, directed by Sidney Meyers), In the Street (1948, done by James Agee, Helen Levitt, and Janice Loeb), and Roberto Rossellini's Neorealist works (particularly Rome, Open City). She would gradually move into other subjects (with concurrent studying at the City College of New York in the mid 1950s), with Skyscraper (1959) being one notable work from that era; that film (in collaboration with Willard Van Dyke and Irving Jacoby) involved the construction of the 660 Fifth Avenue skyscraper. The Connection (1961) was Clarke's first feature-length film, and it was an adaptation of the 1959 play of the same name (originally produced by the Living Theater) by Jack Gelber, who would adapt the material for use in this film. Both play and movie would attract controversy; the plot focuses on the lives of heroin-addicted jazz musicians, and the film would attract further controversy because of its use of an obscene word (the word is "shit", used to describe heroin) that the state of New York banned for indecency; the lack of license did not stop attempts to screen the film anyway, but the police stepped in after it had screened twice, but the film was not favored by audiences (with reviews being more positive abroad than in New York). At any rate, Clarke would continue to make films involving characters perceived to live in the margins, such as with The Cool World (1963 and Portrait of Jason (1967) while later experimenting with video and lecturing until her death in 1997 at the age of 77, and she is surely deserving of attention with her place in cinema. Take it this way: when John Cassavetes directed his first film in Shadows (a key film within American independent cinema done in 1959), he did so with a 16mm camera that he borrowed from Clarke. 

Oh, the experimental part. Well, it is one of the earliest examples of a "found footage" film, predating the dozens of found footage films that are generally used for horror. This is stated in the opening title card, which states that it is the "result" of footage assembled by a cameraman working for a missing documentary filmmaker (the play in comparison was a "play within a play", albeit with a few more characters). Clarke co-produced and edited the film, which takes place primarily on one set (designed by Richard Silbert) with two cameras that feature most of the cast from the original play. The film is whatever you think it is, whether involving drug addiction, or what Clarke believed it to be about with alienation.  It is a wonderful achievement, one that is a representation of the avant-garde scene in all of its curious aspects without becoming engulfed in heavy-handed bloat. It is the logical extension of cinema verité within its frank depiction of American sensibilities in the era of the Beat Generation in the 1960s with a mood of "natural acting". With a mix of improvised acting, jump-cuts, and a simple plot, one will have quite a ball with a film that is basically like a jazz composition. It is everything and nothing you might expect, and the performers all do excellent jobs that draw you in from the jump without letting go. Finnerty was the one member of the cast recognized for his acting in the play (when it was on off-Broadway), and it shouldn't be surprising that he carries the film as one of the primary burning cinders that hold the film for such interest with his blazing sarcasm. Goodrow is also quite worthy in his sniveling human element, which Raphael and Anderson prove to be an interesting pair in varying moods when on/off their element (note the differences between being "on" and "off", after all). Lee displays casual charm when he arrives on screen that makes him quite captivating (incidentally, Winchester is paired with Lee for a time as an person of faith who doesn't see these folks for who they are, which is interesting). Browne (likely the most known of the actors in the film, since he had a career of over four decades) doesn't have much to say within time spent in either the background or within shots without Redfield. Of course, Redfield proves splendid within self-serving amusement too, while the quartet of jazz players accompany the film to great effect. No one ever becomes just a "character", since it has that touch of honesty with alienated people searching for the next certain experience. Really this could be about other addictions, but it also could be about any kind of fragmented people on the outside. I think in that regard the movie is a complete success when it comes to a movie that confronts you without any sort of qualms or compromises.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: We will take a momentary detour because of the obligation to detail thoughts on The Batman (2022), which happened to come out this month. As such, Women Directors Month will resume after that review with...

Wings (1966).

The Eternal Breasts.

Review #1812: The Eternal Breasts.

Cast: 

Yumeji Tsukioka (Fumiko Shimojō, née Nakajō), Ryōji Hayama (Akira Ōtsuki), Junkichi Orimoto (Shigeru Anzai), Hiroko Kawasaki (Tatsuko), Shirō Ōsaka (Yoshio), Ikuko Kimuro (Seiko), Masayuki Mori (Takashi Hori), Yōko Sugi (Kinuko, Hori's wife), Chōko Iida (Hide), Bokuzen Hidari (Hide's husband), and Tōru Abe (Yamagami) Directed by Kinuyo Tanaka.

Review: 

The story of female film directors also has a chapter dedicated to the first two women directors in the country of Japan. Tazuko Sakane was the first female director in the country, debuting in 1936 after having spent a couple of years as an assistant director and editor for Kenji Mizoguchi; the film was released as Hatsu Sugata [New Clothing]. However, it was the only feature film she would end up doing, because its failure precluded her from doing further features. Her only opportunity to direct came with the Manchukuo Film Association with educational nonfiction films that were aimed for Japanese immigrants. Of those films, only one survives (Sakane died in 1975 at the age of 70). Coincidentally, the second female film director in Japan would have an association with Mizoguchi. Kinuyo Tanaka had been an actress since she was fifteen years old (and graduated to lead roles in 1929), and she would be directed by various names in Japanese cinema such as Heinosuke Gosho, Yasujirō Ozu, and (eventually) Mizoguchi. After World War II ended, she took a different approach to acting, such as going on a cultural envoy to the United States (which attracted criticism of "Americanization", which perplexes me) and going for freelance work in acting. She even wanted to become a director, for which she aspired to join the Directors Guild of Japan, which had Mizoguchi as president. However, he strongly recommended against hiring her as a director because of his belief that she was not fit to direct (on that note, screw him); she was the only women in the Guild to her death. However, she would persist in her ambition, and she would get her chance with Love Letter [Koibumi] (1953). In time, Tanaka would direct five further films between 1953 and 1962, with The Eternal Breasts [Chibusa yo eien nare] being her most acknowledged work. As for her acting career, she would act in over a hundred films before her last in 1976, and she died in 1977 at the age of 67. 

The late 1950s were a Golden Age for Japanese cinema, and it shouldn't surprise you to see this as one of the interesting works within the era. Produced by Nikkatsu, the film was loosely based on the life Fumiko Nakajō, a poet who went through two mastectomies before her death of breast cancer in 1954 at the age of 31. The film was written by Sumie Tanaka. With a run-time of 110 minutes, it is pretty easy to recommend this film, one that shows plenty of efficiency within its storytelling and frank honesty in a bittersweet drama that shows just what can happen to a woman who finds a new streak of independence within tragedy. It is the story of a woman who goes through divorce (and the loss of a child to said divorced parent), the growing of a poetry career, and then breast cancer (which is the most-common invasive cancer in women for the world). It depicts the struggle of a newly divorced women with cancer by not turning it into something for exploitation or easy solutions (in that sense, it seems quite progressive even now). Tsukioka is the key to the proceedings, since this journey is one that requires an earthy sense of timing and capable charm. She does that in spades, never straining under the pressure on route to a tremendous performance that likely will stick with you for a time. Hayama plays the friendly second in a timely affair that happens around the climax, which results in a patiently assembled tender romance for worthy effect (on the other side is Mori, who Tsukioka has a carefully planned distance with). Likely the most arresting sequence is the one involving a long hallway with pushing from nurses...which goes behind an iron gate for the morgue. It is a bleak, honest movie that hits the mark in its filmmaking, one that I highly recommend watching as a film that shows plenty of expression without trouble. Death may be inevitable, but it does not mean the legacy of a director like Tanaka will be forgotten, particularly with a film as haunting and as effective as this movie proves to be.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Connection (1961).

Not Wanted.

Review #1811: Not Wanted.

Cast: 

Sally Forrest (Sally Kelton), Keefe Brasselle (Drew Baxter), Leo Penn (Steve Ryan), Dorothy Adams (Mrs. Aggie Kelton), Wheaton Chambers (Mr. Kelton), Rita Lupino (Joan), Audrey Farr (Nancy), Carole Donne (Jane), and Ruth Clifford (Mrs. Elizabeth Stone) Directed by Elmer Clifton and Ida Lupino (#799 - The Hitch-Hiker and #1651 - Never Fear)

Review: 

"I love being called Mother. I would never shout orders at anyone. I hate women who order men around, professionally or personally. I wouldn’t dare do that with my old man…and I don’t do it with guys on the set. I say, ‘Darlings, Mother has a problem. I’d love to do this. Can you do it? It sounds kooky but I want to do it.’ And they do it.”

If you remember correctly, Ida Lupino really wanted to a writer more than an actress. Of course, being a member of the Lupino family meant that there was some expectation placed on her to act. She did have a steady line of work within the industry, but she chafed at some of its trappings (most notably with Warner Bros, which she left in 1947), and she once described a Hollywood career as a perishable commodity. Not many folks can be referred to as the “English Jean Harlow" alongside her own nicknames for herself (once jokingly proposing that she went from being the "poor man's Bette Davis" to being the "poor man's Don Siegel"). She gained an interest in directing from seeing how it was done while on suspension from Warner Bros and felt it seemed more interesting than time spent on a set acting. In 1948, she would form "The Filmmakers Inc" alongside her husband producer/writer Collier Young and Malvin Wald. Hired to do the film for the year of 1949 was Elmer Clifton, who was known for his low-budget work within Westerns and exploitation films in a career that spanned both silent and sound. However, he suffered a heart attack on the third day of filming. Lupino would step in to direct the film, although she elected to not take directorial effort. She had also co-written the screenplay with Paul Jarrico (who in turn had co-written the story with Malvin Wald) and she also co-produced the film with Anson Bond, and one of the first credits on the film is "Ida Lupino presents" (as for Clifton, he died of a cerebral hemorrhage on October 15). At any rate, Lupino's film would do fine for itself enough to keep her on the forefront of making cheap productions under "The Filmmakers Inc.", which lasted until 1955. She would make just one further feature film as director after that while keeping busy as a television director alongside TV acting. She was credited by numerous colleagues for her patience and knowledge when it came to filmmaking and conferring with others on technique. This involved shooting on location or re-using sets or casting unknowns (such as her doctor in one film) or even product placement to help keep production afloat.

Apparently, there is also a version of the film that was done by exploitation filmmakers that liked to insert "educational" footage into films in order to slip by the Production Code (with one version called "The Wrong Rut"), and it is here where one would see inserted footage of an actual cesarian delivery. Of course, the real film doesn't even mention the word "pregnant", and its sequence in a hospital is particularly interesting for the way it depicts an operation through the eyes of our lead. You might recognize Forrest and Brasselle, since they would each star in Lupino's next film in Never Fear (1950), and Forrest also starred in Lupino's 1951 film Hard, Fast and Beautiful. I think that film is just a tad better than this film, likely because the framing device utilized here (i.e. telling most of the film as a flashback) works a bit better in other imitators of the pulpy noir. Of course, Lupino has her sights set on telling an interesting story involving the plight of a child born out of wedlock and the distinct differences seen when one is talking about it for the mother as opposed to the father. No matter how we view the personality of the flighty lead, one can still emphasize with the anguish felt on screen when it comes to facing a hard decision when it comes to a new child. The social consciousness that Lupino shows here is something that still relates well to our day and age because of the struggles that still come with double standards and human nature. Forrest handles this well through the tender direction by delivering a character with the right sense of passion that comes with someone thrusted into hard realities. Brasselle plays the tender side of life, someone who has been around the corner a couple of times and isn't weary about what they saw; this works fine for him, who is mostly played against Forrest for scenes like seeing model trains or a running climax. Penn plays the aloof part of the main triangle with the right sense of timing needed that comes and goes on his own terms (one has to admire the way the film depicts Forrest and Penn being swaying to each other with the simple act of throwing a cigarette away). Adams and Chambers show up for a time as the parental foils for a brief time. As a whole, the movie works fairly well in pressing a social issue without becoming just a sensationalist work or something that can be tied down to easy resolutions. As a debut feature, it is a worthy one to look into just where Lupino would go with filmmaking that dared to engage in social relevance with efficiency and durability that makes it one to recommend without question.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Eternal Breasts.

Working Girls.

Review #1810: Working Girls.

Cast: 

Judith Wood (June Thorpe), Dorothy Hall (Mae Thorpe), Charles "Buddy" Rogers (Boyd Wheeler), Paul Lukas (Dr. Joseph Von Schrader), Stuart Erwin (Pat Kelly), Frances Dee (Louise Adams), Mary Forbes (Mrs. Johnstone), Claire Dodd (Jane), Dorothy Stickney (Loretta), Alberta Vaughn (Violet), and Claude King (Mr. Adams) Directed by Dorothy Arzner (#1648 - Sarah and Son)

Review: 

Working Girls was the ninth feature effort from Dorothy Arzner (with two uncredited contributions), who as we all know deserved better when it comes to appraising one of the most prolific women directors of the first half of the 20th century, if not still one of the most prolific of the now. The film is adapted from the 1930 play Blind Mice, which had been written by Vera Caspary and Winifred Lenihan; Caspary was a novelist who is best known for her novel Laura (that was turned into a hit movie), while Lenihan was an actress mostly involved in the theater and her one defining role as the title role in the 1923-24 American production of Saint Joan. It was a re-working of Caspary's novel Music in the Street, which used undercover work at a rooming house by her. However, the play was actually not much of a success, since she was not experienced in writing plays (to the point where the producers did re-writes) that resulted in two weeks of life on the stage. Zoe Akins served as the screenwriter for the film, as she did for a number of Arzner's early films.

I'm sure you are familiar with the classic structure of two women trying to make it while working in the city. Well, don't forget about the joys of pre-marital relations and making light of marriage. Actually, Arzner described the film as one of her favorites, but Paramount Pictures gave it a limited release - keep in mind, this was the Pre-Code era too. A deal by Universal Pictures to acquire a number of films from Paramount's library from 1929-1948 would also bury the movie in obscurity for years without a home video release. Of course, prints do exist that were screened for occasions such as 2015 for UCLA or for bootlegs. Of course, one might not exactly be quite familiar with the stars besides Lukas (well, him and Erwin were both future Academy Award nominees, though). It was the last starring role for Hall, and Wood had her peak (in terms of roles) in this year, while Rogers had a few years of being known as "America's Boy Friend" who dabbled in music. The reason I am spending a bit of time with history window-dressing is to give a little credit to the actual result generated by Arzner when it comes to making a solid Pre-Code comedy that can be interpreted as a useful feminist work with its ruminations about marriage that make for a fairly interesting 77 minutes. Sure, there were a handful of films that aimed to capture the reality of folks trying to mingle the realities of city life with love life with regard to what expectations are held to them, but this time with a truly feminine perspective. While the structure of the film doesn't exactly yield to too many unpredictable closing marks, it does manage to have a charm and efficiency to make things seem worth it without being absorbed in audience-safe fears (with a little bit of editing charm to go alongside it). Wood and Hall pair fairly decently when it comes to showing the associations that comes with free-spirited young people that will either take advantage of situations presented to them or be swept away by it (or both), which results in a few laughs. Rogers proves adequate in flighty charisma, but Lukas is the more distinct presence in terms of measured interest while Erwin makes a casual foil to seal the puzzle of distinct personalities playing against the leads. While its ending nearly shakes with too much offbeat nature (i.e. a gun-induced marriage proposal), the movie is generally riveting enough with showing perspective in the right places that means it still shows relevance among its peers after nine decades, one that is cheery and earthy enough to recommend.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Not Wanted (1949).

A Chapter in Her Life.

Review #1809: A Chapter in Her Life.

Cast: 

Claude Gillingwater (Mr. Everingham), Jane Mercer (Jewel), Jacqueline Gadsden (Eloise Everingham), Frances Raymond (Madge Everingham), Robert Frazer (Dr. Ballard), Eva Thatcher (Mrs. Forbes), Ralph Yearsley (Zeke Forbes), Fred Thomson (Nat Bonnell), and Beth Rayon (Susan) Directed by Lois Weber (#644 - The Blot)

Review: 

"As I was convinced the theatrical profession needed a missionary, he suggested that the best way to reach them was to become one of them so I went on the stage filled with a great desire to convert my fellowman."

The story of the silent era has many names and many faces, but one that is not to be forgotten in the era when it comes to multi-faceted talent is Lois Weber. Actress, screenwriter, producer, and director, Weber cultivated an eventful career that lasted roughly two decades in motion pictures. Born in Allegheny City, Pennsylvania, she excelled in music, doing so in both piano and soprano singing to go with her evangelical interests (which she served on street corners alongside social activism). It was at the age of 25 (in 1904) that she decided to take up acting, convinced that the profession needed a missionary (in her words). She would work in the theater for a number of years before becoming involved with the film industry through the American Gaumont Chronophones; in 1911, she would become a director, serving as a co-director for several short films. In 1914, alongside her husband Phillips Smalley (a familiar pairing as they directed a handful of films together), she directed her first feature-length film in The Merchant of Venice (1914), although it is now lost. She would work for numerous studios such as the Rex Motion Picture Company and Universal before she would form her own studio in 1917, which had its own shooting stage while employing her husband as studio manager and her as the key brain behind filmmaking (although their relationship would soon deteriorate). Her most noted works generally touched social problems of the time (in the tradition that directors like D.W. Griffith had done), such as Where Are My Children? (1916), which touched on the subject of abortion alongside The Blot (1921), which touched on the issue of poverty. Of course, 1921 would end up being her peak. She would direct just five further works until 1934. This film was the third-to-last film that Weber would direct, in part because of the collapse of her film studio in 1921 but also because of the shift of audience curiosity with the advent of the Jazz Age (well, one could also cite a push within Hollywood to weed out certain folks, but whatever). 

By this point in her life, she returned to Universal to remake her previous effort in Jewel (1915), which like this film is an adaptation of the 1903 novel Jewel: A Chapter in Her Life, which had been written by Clara Louise Burnham. By the time the 1920s ended, she spent her time within house operations (such as her own Garden Village and ranch), before a mild comeback attempt in 1932-33 formally ended her career; Weber died in 1939 at the age of sixty, but her legacy has only now come into focus when discussing driven directors of the early age, complete with a recent biography (Lois Weber in Early Hollywood by Shelley Stamp). Weber adapted the book with Doris Schroeder (she would help write a handful of Westerns in the next few decades). Older moviegoers might find familiarity with works such as Pollyanna when it comes to main characters being idealistic children (after all, its lead actor in Gillingwater would appear in a handful of films opposite Shirley Temple from 1936 until his death in 1939). The movie is more of a vehicle for Weber to express her belief in the power of divine love through faith to help guide others back from their old ways (i.e. weird socialite people). So yes, the power of innocence overwhelming hypocrisy is exactly the kind of thing that springs just an hour for one's attention. In that sense, one will be just fine here, since this is a mild effort that works out in its attempts at good-hearted optimism without choking the viewer in too much sentimentality. Gillingwater was already forty years old when he entered the film industry, so he naturally makes a worthy foil for kind folks to play off (or play historical characters); this was the debut star role for Mercer, who was featured in a handful of roles before falling out the industry. Her wide-eyed expressions do okay for what is needed in terms of passing the time between trying to not just say "swell". The others fit the formula required in doing expressions that don't turn into vacant stares (for a film that utilizes little sets, anyway). The film maneuvers towards the inevitable with few surprises, but at least it does not ooze in tedium or with an overbearing sense of importance (take one or two steps and it might fit within the religious film craze, really). While this isn't exactly one of Weber's best films, it is a mild curiosity that could still fill an hour for any curious cinema enjoyer, and I suppose that will be more than enough when it comes to exploring women directors of the early 20th century.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Welcome to Women's History Month for March once again. We will feature films from numerous decades while featuring familiar and new feminine faces. Next Time is Working Girls (1931).